U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Westat as the national evaluator, and a

technical assistance team including individuals from the National Civic League

and the Institute for Educational Leadership—supported the initiative.3 The technical assistance team was added in the

second year to promote a stronger focus

on systems reform and to help sites

access a wider range of technical assistance, which included onsite assistance

and subsidies for training or consultation

provided by other sources. DOJ also convened meetings twice a year for national

team members and the sites to create a

shared vision for SK/SS and to introduce

best practices from other jurisdictions. 

Safe Kids/Safe

Streets Program

The goals of SK/SS were ambitious. The

program was designed to help communities make significant changes in the

policies, procedures, and practices of

agencies that deal with children who are

experiencing—or are at risk of experiencing—abuse and neglect and their families. DOJ expected communities to

become more comprehensive and proactive in their efforts to combat child abuse

and neglect, improve coordination and

collaboration across agencies, and deploy

resources more effectively. To engage

the community, sites were expected to

Lessons Learned From 

Safe Kids/Safe Streets

Roberta Cronin, Frances Gragg, Dana Schultz, and Karla Eisen

Child abuse and neglect can harm young

people in ways beyond the immediate

pain and suffering inflicted. Many studies

point to long-term consequences, finding

that victims of child abuse and neglect are

at greater risk of delinquency, substance

abuse, adult criminality, and other problems than individuals who have not been

victimized (Ireland and Widom, 1995;

Kelley, Thornberry, and Smith, 1997;

Lemmon, 1999; Weeks and Widom, 1998;

Widom, 1995, 1996; Wiebush, Freitag,

and Baird, 2001).

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

developed the Safe Kids/Safe Streets

(SK/SS) program to help communities

reduce child abuse and neglect and their

aftereffects through collaborative, communitywide efforts.1 Three DOJ offices—the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP), the Executive Office

for Weed and Seed (EOWS), and the Office

on Violence Against Women (OVW)—

agreed to fund and monitor these communities, with OJJDP providing overall coordination.2 In 1997, DOJ selected five

localities to implement SK/SS. Three

grantees were in mid-size cities

(Huntsville, AL; Kansas City, MO; and Toledo, OH), one in a rural area (Burlington,

VT), and one in a tribal area (Sault Ste.

Marie, MI). 

A national core team—consisting of program managers from the three DOJ offices,

J. Robert Flores, Administrator November 2006

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

Office of Justice Programs • Partnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov

A Message From OJJDP

Child abuse and neglect may place

youth at risk for delinquency, criminality, and other problem behaviors. The

Department of Justice developed the

Safe Kids/Safe Streets program to

break this cycle of early victimization

and subsequent behavioral problems

and to reduce child abuse and neglect.

The program’s goals were ambitious,

requiring communities to change their

practices in dealing with abused and

neglected children. The program provided fiscal and technical support to

five sites to strengthen and improve

information sharing among their juvenile justice, criminal justice, and child

welfare systems. Although sites were

allowed considerable flexibility in program design, they had to include four

key components: systems reform and

accountability, an enhanced continuum of services, improved data collection and evaluation, and prevention

education.

Safe Kids/Safe Streets represents a

comprehensive application of collaborative approaches in the child maltreatment field. The experiences of

participating sites included in this 

Bulletin offer considerable insights into

collaboration building, systems reform,

service options, and other strategies.

As a partnering agency, OJJDP

believes that these experiences will

help other jurisdictions develop, 

sustain, and enhance collaborative

efforts that will reduce child abuse and

neglect and their aftereffects.
Source for This Bulletin 

The information in this Bulletin is adapted from the four-volume evaluation report 

National Evaluation of the Safe Kids/Safe Streets Program: Final Report (Gragg et 

al., 2004), available at www.ncjrs.gov. The report describes the results of Westat’s 

national evaluation of the program’s planning and implementation from 1997, when 

sites were first funded, through June 2003. Findings are based on multiple sources 

of information, including semiannual site visits, review of project documentation, 

three stakeholder surveys, a survey of agency personnel, and two structured 

surveys of key informants (e.g., individuals who played key roles in the child abuse 

and neglect system or who routinely observed the system’s operations). The report 

also includes a logic model and a detailed case study of the SK/SS experience for 

each site. 

develop broad-based local collaboratives, 

building on relationships and collaborations already in place. The SK/SS collaboratives were to include justice, child welfare, family service, education, health, and 

mental health agencies and also nontraditional partners such as faith-based organizations, community groups, the media, 

and victims and their families. 

Each site also had to develop and implement plans covering four components 

(Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996): 

❒ Systems reform and accountability— 

reforming agency policies, practices, 

and procedures and improving crossagency training and communication. 

❒ An enhanced continuum of services, 

from prevention to treatment— 

improving existing services, filling gaps, 

and using current resources more effectively, including those of public, private, and informal support systems. 

❒ Data collection and evaluation— 

improving local data collection and 

information sharing across systems 

and agencies to support decisionmaking in individual cases and to help the 

community evaluate progress toward 

its objectives. 

❒ Prevention education—educating the 

community about child abuse and neglect and how to report it, community 

services, good parenting practices, and 

the Safe Kids effort. 

DOJ allowed sites considerable flexibility 

in program design but intervened if a site 

appeared to deviate significantly from the 

federal vision. Federal staff provided input 

on planning and, over time, clarified their 

expectations with support from the technical assistance team. This clarification 

emphasized the overarching importance of 

systems reform and the ways that the other 

program components could support it. 

During the implementation phase, each 

site carried out a unique mix of activities. 

Some commonalities, however, were evident. For example, all sites worked to 

make more effective use of multidisciplinary teams in cases of child abuse and 

neglect. All invested in children’s advocacy centers (CACs), which provide multidisciplinary handling of child abuse cases 

in a child-friendly setting. The five communities also worked to improve training 

for mandated reporters (personnel in 

various agencies such as education and 

health who are required by state law to 

report suspected child abuse and neglect). New services were implemented 

in each site, often through subgrants from 

the lead agency. 

By mid-2003, when most data collection 

for the national evaluation ended, federal 

support was winding down in three 

sites—Burlington, Huntsville, and Toledo. 

However, they were expecting a final 

award to support the transition from federal to non-federal funding. Because their 

rate of spending was slower, Kansas City 

and Sault Ste. Marie still had a year or 

more of federal funding left.4 Four of the 

five SK/SS collaboratives were hoping to 

survive beyond the term of federal funding. Kansas City was the exception; its 

collaborative planned to transfer its functions to another multiagency committee 

with ongoing responsibility for child protective services. 

The SK/SS communities made impressive 

progress both in establishing effective 

collaboratives and in implementing plans 

to improve local systems and services. 

Several sites showed promising signs 

that they would continue new services 

designed to fill gaps in the continuum of 

services (e.g., home visitation, therapy 

for child victims and witnesses of violence, joint programs involving both 

domestic violence advocates and police, 

neighborhood-based programs). 

In addition to improving services, all sites 

made significant organizational changes, 

improving multidisciplinary teaming 

through CACs; setting up specialized law 

enforcement, prosecution, or court units; 

and adopting new protocols and procedures. Many local stakeholders reported 

improvements in the following areas: 

❒ Providing multiagency responses to 

child victims affected by domestic violence (67 percent). 

❒ Educating the community about child 

abuse and neglect (61 percent). 

❒ Improving services for children and 

families at risk of falling through the 

cracks (56 percent). 

❒ Decreasing community tolerance for 

child maltreatment (54 percent). 

❒ Leveraging resources across public 

and private agencies to support children and families (50 percent). 

Evaluators did not expect to find significant reductions in child maltreatment 

during the evaluation period (1997–2003). 

In fact, it seemed likely that SK/SS would 

actually spur an increase in reported cases 

of child abuse and neglect—particularly 

if the projects raised awareness of child 

abuse, educated people about how to report it, and increased confidence in child 

protective service agencies. Such increases 

in reporting could easily mask any reductions in abuse brought about by other 

project efforts. Indeed, an examination of 

trends in child abuse reports, substantiations, and placements at these sites from 

1997 to 2002 did not reveal clear, consistent patterns that could be attributed to 

SK/SS. 

A supplemental study conducted in three 

of the five SK/SS sites (Burlington, Huntsville, and Kansas City) closely examined 

a sample of child maltreatment cases 

approximately 5 years after SK/SS started. 

Researchers compared these data with 

findings from studies of earlier or baseline 

cases conducted by local SK/SS evaluators.5 It was difficult to draw conclusions 

from the Huntsville and Kansas City data 

because of variations in methodology 

between the baseline and later studies. 

In Burlington, however, results were noteworthy. Far fewer children were removed 

from their homes and many more of the 

2 
families who needed home visiting services 

or substance abuse assessments received 

them. There were also indications that families were getting services earlier in the 

court process and reaching permanency 

more rapidly. In all three sites, the majority 

of children had achieved permanency— 

either at home with their parents or in 

another placement—2 years after the target report or petition (Gragg, Cronin, and 

Schultz, 2005). 

Lessons From the 

SK/SS Experience 

The SK/SS experience offers a wealth of 

insights about collaboration building, systems reform, service options, and other 

strategies for jurisdictions contemplating 

similar initiatives and for organizations 

that might fund them. The broad lessons 

learned about community coordination of 

services through SK/SS helped to inform 

how other OJJDP programs operate. For 

example, findings from SK/SS informed the 

Green Book technical assistance project 

and the Safe Start Program. The findings 

continue to help OJJDP foster community 

coordination in other arenas more efficiently, with higher level decisionmaker 

involvement and more sustainable 

collaboration. 

Community Context 

The SK/SS approach can succeed in a 

wide range of communities. The SK/SS 

sites ranged from rural and tribal areas to 

mid-size cities. The SK/SS approach was 

easily adapted to environments with differing demographics and resource levels 

and was implemented by a wide array of 

agencies. The lead agencies in Huntsville, 

Kansas City, and Sault Ste. Marie had multimillion dollar budgets prior to SK/SS, 

compared with budgets of just $29,000 in 

Burlington and $700,000 in Toledo. An 

agency of a tribal government led the 

Sault Ste. Marie project; the other four 

grantees were nonprofit organizations. 

Two grantees—in Burlington and Kansas 

City—had been convening stakeholders 

with an interest in the child abuse and 

neglect system for years but were not 

direct service providers. In contrast, the 

other lead agencies had pivotal direct 

service roles in their formal child protection systems. Sault Ste. Marie targeted 

tribal members in a multicounty area. The 

other projects all targeted a single county, 

although Kansas City focused direct services on three high-need ZIP Code areas. 

Annual federal funding levels ranged from 

$125,000 (Toledo) to $800,000 (Huntsville). 

(See table, page 4, for further details.) 

Some community conditions are more 

favorable than others. In selecting sites, 

DOJ favored communities with existing 

capacity and infrastructure, supportive 

legislation and policies, and a readiness 

to undertake systems reform. The SK/SS 

experience suggests that it is important to 

have a lead agency with leadership experience, content expertise, and local credibility. Ideally, the community should see the 

agency as a neutral party and have an 

existing collaborative on which to build. If 

those two elements are absent, the community can expect to spend more time 

building collaboration and setting its 

agenda. Sault Ste. Marie, for example, suffered on both counts; it had no standing 

collaborative and its lead agency investigated and intervened in child abuse and 

neglect. Huntsville’s lead agency had a 

collaborative in place, but as a major service provider and one of the largest agencies in the community, it was not regarded 

as neutral. 

Program Design 

Flexible program design and oversight 

help programs overcome barriers and 

adapt to new challenges and opportunities. DOJ established a broad vision and 

held to some key principles, but it allowed 

sites considerable latitude in finding the 

right mix of activities for their own communities. This approach helped accommodate 

a wide range of community circumstances 

and stakeholder priorities. Initial plans did 

not always work out, despite good faith 

efforts. For example, Huntsville tried several approaches for bringing services to 

neighborhoods before settling on a fullservice school model. Kansas City’s initial 

multidisciplinary team was abandoned 

and replaced by a different model, linked 

to the existing CAC. Burlington temporarily halted its CAC services to revamp its 

targeting criteria. 

Sites need the freedom to explore opportunities. Many communities have multiple 

collaboratives, with new ones emerging. 

The SK/SS sites profited from aligning 

themselves with other collaboratives, 

even though the payoff was uncertain at 

the start. For example, Toledo’s involvement with the OJJDP-funded Comprehensive Strategy program brought stronger 

alliances between child welfare, law 

enforcement, and the court. In Burlington, 

the relationship between SK/SS and the 

Family Court Permanency Planning Project resulted in service enhancements and 

joint data collection efforts. 

Planning and carrying out a systems 

reform effort takes a long time, even 

if the community has the infrastructure. 

All the SK/SS sites were intensively involved in planning for at least 18 months, 

although partial implementation began 

within a year. DOJ extended the planning 

phase beyond 6 months and the overall 

initiative beyond the 51/

2 years originally 

envisioned. DOJ also released implementation funds incrementally during planning to address pressing community concerns and to ease the lengthy planning 

process. Following are planning 

recommendations based on the SK/SS 

experience: 

❒ Assume that it will take 9 to 12 

months for project planning and initial collaboration building. Collaborative initiatives should begin with realistic expectations about how long it will 

take to plan and organize, so that 

stakeholders do not become unduly 

discouraged or impatient. 

❒ Develop detailed timelines for accomplishing key activities and achieving 

specified outcomes. Stakeholders 

should reach a consensus about the 

timeline, which should include recognizable milestones. Rather than being 

a straitjacket that prevents the program from responding to unexpected 

opportunities, the timeline should help 

the community make realistic plans, 

assess progress, and make necessary 

adjustments. 

❒ Assume that the overall initiative will 

take 8 to 10 years. Communities and 

funders (both internal and external to 

the community) should be prepared 

for the long term. It may make sense to 

develop staged objectives: short, intermediate, and long term. The pace of 

progress will vary depending on a number of local factors—readiness to take 

on systems reform, the initial status of 

collaboration, the strategies selected, 

barriers encountered, and the targeted 

outcomes. Funders, if involved, might 

emulate DOJ’s decision to provide 

stepped-down transitional funding 

toward the end of the initiative. 

Collaborative Efforts 

Each SK/SS site developed a governing 

council, supplemented by committees and 

workgroups, that played an important role 

in designing and carrying out the SK/SS 

3 
Site Characteristics 

Burlington, VT Huntsville, AL Kansas City, MO Sault Ste. Marie, MI Toledo, OH 

Project Name KidSafe One by One KIDSAFE Building Strong Native Safe Kids/Safe 

American Families Streets Program 

Lead Agency Community Network National Children’s Heart of America Anishnabek Family and Child 

for Children, Youth Advocacy Center United Way Community and Abuse Prevention 

& Families1 Family Services Center 

Type of Agency Private, nonprofit Private, nonprofit Nonprofit agency Tribal government Nonprofit, 

organization that is organization that serving six counties agency that provides community-based 

a partnership of coordinates agency in the bistate social, mental health, education, public 

agencies, com- responses to child Kansas City metro and substance abuse awareness, and 

munity groups, abuse and neglect area that adminis- services to the Sault direct services 

and individuals to reduce trauma ters funds for Ste. Marie Tribe of agency 

working to improve to victims and nonprofit health Chippewa Indians 

the community’s improve results and human service 

response to child for prosecution agencies 

abuse and neglect 

Agency Budget $29,120 $2,426,225 $3,580,370 $3,860,695 $397,216 (6 months) 

(Year Before 

SK/SS) 

Initial Award2 $424,494 $800,000 $923,645 $425,000 $125,000 

Total Awards $2,250,000 $4,125,000 $3,472,290 $2,250,000 $750,000 

Primary Chittenden County Madison County Jackson County, Mackinac and Lucas County 

Target Area with special focus Chippewa Counties 

on three ZIP Codes 

Population in 146,571 276,700 654,880 50,486 455,054 

Target Area, (8,243)4 

20003 

Agencies and 26 30 33 18 29 

Groups on the 

Governing 

Council, 

2002–03 

1 In 2003, the Community Network began doing business as KidSafe Collaborative of Chittenden County. 

2 DOJ expected funding for the first grant period to cover 18 months. Subsequent awards were for 1 year, but DOJ allowed projects to carry over


unexpended funds.


3 U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, 2000 Census of Population and Housing.


4 The figure in parentheses represents the Sault Ste. Marie tribal population.


agenda. Most of the sites also held communitywide meetings to publicize project 

activities and encourage input. The collaboratives engaged a broad spectrum of 

stakeholders, exceeding DOJ’s core membership requirements. Further, the members shared responsibility, accountability, 

and, to a lesser extent, resources. 

The 2003 stakeholder survey (n=277)6 

provides a glimpse of who these collaborators were toward the end of the project, 

the extent of their participation, and their 

level of commitment. This survey targeted 

participants in governing councils, task 

forces, committees, and subgrants. 

Figure 1 (page 5) shows stakeholder affiliation by category: the formal child protection system (including child protective 

services, law enforcement, prosecution, 

and dependency court), other public 

agencies, private agencies (mainly service 

providers), and private “nontraditional” 

groups (e.g., community or neighborhood 

4 
organizations; professional, civic, or religious organizations; parents; youth; businesses). Overall, 57 percent of responding 

stakeholders represented the formal 

child protection system and other public 

agencies—25 percent from formal child 

protection agencies and 32 percent from 

other public agencies. However, the variation in affiliations across sites is marked. 

Public agency representation ranges from 

a low of 40 percent in Burlington to a high 

of 96 percent in Sault Ste. Marie. Toledo is 

the only place where respondents from 

the formal child protection system made 

up the majority (55 percent). Huntsville 

and Kansas City had the largest concentrations of nontraditional stakeholders, 

accounting for about 30 percent of all 

respondents at those sites. 

The stakeholders reported significant 

commitments to SK/SS. The typical 

respondent reported spending about 2 

hours per month on the program and 

attending five meetings per year.7 However, each site had a core of much more 

active stakeholders. Overall, about one 

in five respondents spent 6 or more 

hours per month on SK/SS, and one in 

four attended at least one meeting per 

month. Other indications of stakeholder 

commitment include the following: 

❒ In the past year, more than half the 

respondents (52 percent) reported 

attending community meetings convened by the project, and approximately one-third helped implement 

project-funded activities. 

❒ Smaller proportions of respondents 

helped train (17 percent), write project plans or other documents (13 

percent), and decide which groups 

should receive funding (7 percent). 

Toledo respondents were about three 

times as likely as other respondents to 

have been involved in writing plans or 

other documents. 

❒ Although a modest correlation existed 

between receiving SK/SS funding and 

levels of participation in the collaborative, many of the respondents whose 

organizations had never received SK/SS 

funding were involved several hours 

per month, and 38 percent reported 

that their organizations had contributed staff to SK/SS efforts. 

The responses to the stakeholder survey 

also suggest that many stakeholders felt 

a sense of responsibility to participate. 

When asked whether they personally had 

contributed sufficient time to SK/SS in the 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stakeholder Percentages

Burlington

Private 

Nontraditional

Private 

Agency

Other Public 

Agency

Formal Child 

Protection

Huntsville Kansas City Sault Ste. 

Marie Toledo Overall

Figure 1. 2003 Stakeholders, by Agency Type 

past year, 34 percent reported that they 

had not and 20 percent said that their 

organization had not. Only 9 percent of 

stakeholders said that they had contributed more than enough time. 

Many strategies that have been effective for other collaborative efforts also 

worked for SK/SS. Observers of other 

collaboratives have identified many strategies that help build and maintain effective 

collaborations (CSR, Incorporated, 1996; 

Farrow, 1997; Melaville and Blank, 1991; 

Mizrahi, 1999; Mizrahi and Rosenthal, 

2001). Many of these same approaches, 

highlighted below, were applied successfully at the SK/SS sites: 

❒ Involve key players early in the 

process. 

❒ Establish a shared vision. 

❒ Set readily attainable objectives. 

❒ Devise creative and realistic strategies. 

❒ Emphasize what partners agree on and 

respect differences. 

❒ Avoid “red herrings” that might derail 

the initiative. 

❒ Publicize success and acknowledge 

contributions from partners. 

SK/SS demonstrates the value of additional strategies and tactics. Besides 

confirming previous insights, the SK/SS 

experience suggests several other lessons 

for communities trying to build lasting 

collaborations. 

❒ Be prepared to fine-tune the governance structure. Every collaborative 

will need to adjust its committee structure from time to time and recruit new 

members to governance roles. Major 

restructuring may even become desirable. Huntsville and Sault Ste. Marie 

both wound up replacing their original 

governing body in an effort to bring in 

additional partners, accommodate new 

political realities, broaden the mission, 

and use resources most effectively. 

❒ Use community meetings to encourage 

participation and recruit people. Community meetings can be an effective 

way to encourage and expand participation, to set the collaborative’s agenda, and to recruit people into more 

active roles. Workgroups and committees can play a similar role, ensuring 

that a broad spectrum of stakeholders 

have a hand in the work and share the 

credit for accomplishments. 

5 
❒ Redistribute some program funds 

through grants. Funding local initiatives can bring key stakeholders to 

the table and enhance the program’s 

legitimacy, especially if the stakeholders decide how to allocate the funds. 

Added benefits may come from a competitive funding process that heavily 

involves stakeholders in reviewing proposals. Burlington and Kansas City 

found that this helped stakeholders 

to write their own proposals and to 

think critically about how specific projects can contribute to systems reform. 

Kansas City’s grant program, specifically targeted to nontraditional and grassroots organizations, also brought new 

stakeholders to the collaborative. 

❒ Do not be overly concerned about 

turf conflict derailing the initiative. 

Given a broad agenda, the initiative can 

still progress in some areas while stakeholders who are at odds on other areas 

take time to find common ground. Also, 

some turf issues can be tackled directly 

and moderated through team-building 

training. The CACs in several SK/SS 

sites, for example, used team building 

to help staff from agencies with different missions and priorities develop 

common understandings of individual 

roles and responsibilities and establish 

protocols. 

❒ Start with a few activities that have 

strong stakeholder consensus. Rather 

than rush the initial planning, begin 

with a few activities that have stakeholder consensus while planning is 

still underway. In every SK/SS site, 

this helped ease frustration and sustain stakeholder commitment. Even 

small efforts—such as the Family Fun 

Nights in Sault Ste. Marie—built support for planning and brought visibility 

to the project. Funders can help alleviate the urge to rush the planning 

process by releasing limited amounts 

of implementation funds to begin activities about which there is consensus. 

❒ Operate as a learning community. A 

good collaborative should function as 

a learning community, valuing clear 

and open communication and revisiting initial plans and resource allocations with a critical eye. Early plans 

can flounder, community circumstances can change, and new information about best practices can emerge. 

A return to strategic planning elicits 

new ideas and initiatives that reenergize stakeholders. Burlington’s 

development of statewide training for 

mandatory reporters was one such 

idea. Toledo’s decision to shift funding 

for Building Healthy Families, a home 

visitation program, from direct services 

to training and coordination was another. 

Including nontraditional partners in a 

collaborative is a particular challenge, 

especially if the partners’ ethnicity, culture, and experience differ from agency 

professionals. Although the SK/SS collaboratives sought a broad range of participants, they fell short of fully integrating 

nontraditional partners, especially residents and clients. Although most sites 

appeared to desire more nontraditional 

participation, none invested heavily in 

recruiting efforts. Some sites had trouble 

retaining the nontraditional participants 

they had recruited. Suggestions for involving nontraditional partners follow: 

❒ Identify nontraditional partners during the early planning stages and 

develop strategies for securing their 

involvement. Identify obstacles and 

how they might be overcome. For 

example, the collaborative may need 

to convince parents and other nontraditional partners that it is in their 

interest to participate and that it will 

support them (e.g., through training, 

financial assistance, and accessible 

meeting times and places). Traditional 

partners may need convincing, too, 

not only about the benefits of having 

nontraditional partners, but about the 

need to invest to bring them to the 

table and to develop effective working 

relationships. 

❒ Budget for the costs of involving nontraditional groups. Support involving 

nontraditional groups with funds for 

identification and recruitment, initial 

and ongoing orientation and training, 

transportation, and babysitting. 

Sponsors can help by providing technical 

assistance, requiring sites to use it early 

in the planning process, and, if necessary, 

setting budget guidelines for investments 

in nontraditional involvement. 

Systems Reform 

The SK/SS sites affected the child protection system in numerous ways. According 

to stakeholders, SK/SS provided them 

with new contacts, training, and an 

improved ability to do their jobs. Most 

stakeholders also credited SK/SS with 

improving interagency and community 

communication and the quality of information available to use in making decisions. 

Several approaches can be particularly 

effective in increasing the personal and 

professional capacities of stakeholders 

and improving interagency cooperation. 

For example, closer collaboration between 

the domestic violence and child protection communities was a particularly noteworthy result of project efforts in several 

sites. Two-thirds of all stakeholders stated 

that SK/SS had improved multiagency 

responses to children affected by domestic violence. Effective approaches for 

increasing capacity and improving interagency cooperation include the following 

collaboration: 

❒ A tiered approach to collaboration. 

Sites used committees, teams, and 

workgroups to encourage both input 

and participation. These formats 

proved a training ground for later 

participation in governing councils. 

In addition, community meetings allowed 

less active participants to expand 

contacts and provide program input. 

❒ Service initiatives that promote 

stronger relationships among agencies. Sometimes, SK/SS helped place 

agency personnel in new locations. For 

example, Huntsville’s human services 

agency based a community liaison in a 

neighborhood; the liaison also made 

monthly trips on the bus route to the 

agency so she could talk informally 

with clients. Other service initiatives 

strengthened referral relationships or 

created new ones. In Sault Ste. Marie, 

the Family Service Team/Wraparound 

Program expanded referrals, particularly in the underserved rural western 

service area. Burlington and Kansas 

City held regular meetings for their 

grantees to promote working relationships. To better coordinate activities 

across multiple home visitation programs, Toledo established a committee 

of contract providers from all sponsoring agencies that conduct home 

visitations. 

❒ Cross-agency training. Cross-agency 

training helps keep information consistent throughout the community’s child 

protection system and, regardless of 

its content, helps people from different 

agencies get better acquainted. Some 

training, however, can be explicitly 

designed to promote closer working 

relationships. For example, Burlington 

started Building Bridges Workshops, 

which a different agency hosted each 

month. Kansas City, recognizing that 

domestic violence providers did not 

6 
typically work with child protective 

services staff and law enforcement, 

brought them all together for crossdisciplinary training. It inspired a 

broader initiative to create a coordinated and consistent response to cooccurring child abuse and domestic 

violence, modeled on the cross-agency 

Green Book Initiative coordinated by 

the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Cross-agency training can be sustained 

by creating concrete products such 

as training curriculums, toolkits, and 

videos and embedding training requirements in local systems. The SK/SS 

sites demonstrated some success with 

these approaches. For example, Sault 

Ste. Marie turned its training for mandated reporters into a self-administered 

tutorial and required all new tribal 

employees to take it. Kansas City’s 

training curriculum on Medical Aspects 

of Child Abuse and Neglect was mandated for child protective services 

workers and conducted by the local 

children’s hospital. Huntsville’s 

Resources 101, a monthly orientation 

on community resources, was required 

for new child protection staff at the 

Department of Human Resources and 

staff at Healthy Families. 

Other types of training and support can 

further a system reform agenda. The 

SK/SS sites sponsored some training for 

community members at large, often in 

partnership with collaborating agencies. 

The Community Healing Process in Sault 

Ste. Marie was especially ambitious, consisting of multiyear training open to the 

entire tribe that was designed to infuse 

cultural values and practices throughout 

tribal programs. Admittedly, the environment was distinctive, involving a small, 

well-defined community of tribal members, and the content was tailored to a 

tribal audience. However, this experience 

suggests that other small communities 

(or perhaps a limited target area within a 

larger city) could attempt a broad-based 

public training. 

The Community Healing Process in Sault 

Ste. Marie was the most comprehensive 

of the efforts to promote cultural competence. However, other sites used tactics 

that could be adapted to a wide variety 

of communities. 

❒ Huntsville inaugurated Diversity 

Schoolhouse—a popular brown bag 

luncheon series on different cultures, 

ethnicities, and religions—for practitioners and others. Four other communities have already emulated this 

program. 

❒ Burlington required prospective grantees to demonstrate how they were 

addressing cultural competence issues 

in their grant applications. 

❒ Kansas City made small capacitybuilding and prevention grants, designed 

in part to engage more diverse service 

providers, such as neighborhoodbased and grassroots organizations, 

in prevention programming. 

Changes in agency structures and policies can be sustained. Perhaps the most 

impressive systems reform efforts at the 

SK/SS sites involved creating new agency 

structures for case handling, improving 

existing structures, and changing policies 

and procedures to improve case processing and outcomes. Most of these changes 

do not depend on SK/SS funds for their 

continuation. Other sites might look to 

them for inspiration. 

❒ Two sites (Burlington and Huntsville) 

implemented new prosecution units. 

❒ Four sites started drug courts 

(Huntsville, Kansas City, Sault Ste. 

Marie, and Toledo). 

❒ Three sites (Huntsville, Kansas City, 

and Toledo) started or expanded law 

enforcement units to handle child 

maltreatment and domestic violence. 

❒ The two sites that lacked CACs at the 

outset (Burlington and Sault Ste. Marie) 

started them with help from SK/SS. 

❒ The other three sites made a variety 

of improvements in the training, procedures, and multidisciplinary team 

arrangements for their existing CACs. 

❒ Burlington upgraded and expanded 

multidisciplinary teams for at-risk families. It also improved resources and 

facilities for forensic examinations of 

sexual assault victims. 

❒ Kansas City and Toledo were especially 

active in developing new protocols, 

procedures, and guidelines. For example, Kansas City established protocols 

for filing court cases on drug-exposed 

infants and adopted new structured 

decisionmaking tools for child protective services. Toledo developed permanency planning protocols for juvenile 

court and new pediatric sexual assault 

guidelines. 

Of these efforts, only the new CACs in 

Burlington and Sault Ste. Marie expected 

to be heavily dependent on further fundraising for their continuation. 

Collaboration can become the normal 

way of doing business. By 2002, evaluators routinely heard from key informants, 

stakeholders, and agency frontline staff 

that collaboration had become the expected way of operating in the community. This expectation cut across a wide 

range of activities, from working on individual cases to delivering training to 

developing new grants. Many respondents 

pointed out that it would be hard to 

reverse the process. 

Enhancing the Continuum 

of Services 

Most SK/SS sites successfully filled service 

gaps and made services more accessible, 

at least during the term of federal funding. Except in Kansas City (where systems 

reform was the primary emphasis from 

the beginning), services were their highest priority during the early phases of 

implementation. The services funded 

ran the gamut from prevention to treatment. In the service area, several sites 

expanded or improved home visitation, 

neighborhood- or community-based services, and parent education. Initiatives to 

help children affected by domestic violence were also common. Some sites 

emphasized coordinated and wraparound 

services. At times, however, service initiatives threatened to overwhelm the rest of 

the agenda, and DOJ had to be vigilant in 

emphasizing systems reform. Other comprehensive initiatives have experienced a 

similar tug of war for resources between 

systems reform and direct services (Annie 

E. Casey Foundation, 1999). 

One measure of DOJ’s success in reinforcing the primacy of systems reform can 

be seen in the allocation of funds and the 

shift in site priorities over time—reflecting 

local judgments about need as well as input 

from DOJ and the technical assistance 

team. Figure 2 (page 8) compares how each 

site allocated its SK/SS budget for two grant 

periods, grant 2 (early implementation) and 

grant 5 (late implementation).8 

Expenditures were distributed across 

several categories, three of which will be 

discussed here: core staff and administration, systems reform, and continuum of 

services.9 The staffing category included 

the project director, other staff or consultants who primarily engaged in manage7 
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Allocation Percentages

Staf and

Administration

Systems Reform

Services

Staf and

Administration

Systems Reform

Services

Staf and

Administration

Systems Reform

Services

Staf and

Administration

Systems Reform

Services

Staf and

Administration

Systems Reform

Services

Grant 2 Grant 5

B rlington Huntsville Kansas City Sault Ste. Marie Toledo

Figure 2. Grant Allocation, by Category 

Note: Investments in the data collection and prevention education components remained small, representing 6 percent or less of the 

budget in both grant periods. Those investments are excluded from this analysis, consequently percentages may not add to 100. 

ment or administrative support, and items 

such as rent, staff development, office 

expenses, and subgrants. 

Several patterns of expenditures are noteworthy. Most sites budgeted from one-fifth 

to one-third of their SK/SS awards for core 

staff and administration during grant 2, 

and all were doing so by grant 5. During 

grant 2, Kansas City was the only site to 

allocate the largest share of its budget 

(33 percent) to systems reform. In contrast, Toledo’s service budget far outstripped allocations for systems reform 

(68 percent versus 13 percent); Burlington 

and Sault Ste. Marie similarly had much 

larger service budgets (49 percent versus 

14 percent in Burlington and 26 percent 

versus 9 percent in Sault Ste. Marie). The 

difference in Huntsville (35 percent versus 

24 percent) was not as great. By grant 5, 

this picture changed substantially. All 

sites devoted larger shares of their funding to systems reform activities than they 

had before, although the change in Sault 

Ste. Marie was small (from 9 to 13 percent). 

Both Huntsville and Toledo had joined 

Kansas City in making systems reform their 

number one category of investment. The 

turnaround in Toledo was truly dramatic, 

with services dropping from 68 to 27 percent of the budget and systems reform rising from 13 to 47 percent. 

To achieve an appropriate balance 

between investments in direct services 

and systems reform, communities should 

develop an explicit rationale for service 

initiatives, indicating how they will contribute to the systems reform agenda. 

The rationale should answer the following 

questions: 

❒ How will each service investment help 

improve community or systemic policies and practices? 

❒ What will it take to sustain this service 

when grant funds are no longer 

available? 

❒ If a particular service initiative is unlikely to have systemic impact, what 

other objectives will it serve? 

❒ How can direct service initiatives help 

promote best practices, such as cultural competence, family-centered 

practices, and service coordination 

and integration? 

Sponsors can assist by providing guidelines for balancing expenditures for systems reform activities and expenditures 

for new or expanded services, initially and 

over time. Applicants should be required 

to document and justify departures from 

guidelines. 

Sustaining services is a continuing challenge. Most SK/SS participants concede 

that they should have started working 

on sustainability sooner. They also were 

unprepared for changes in economic conditions that reduced public and private 

sources of support. Overall, however, the 

prospects for sustaining SK/SS-supported 

services look promising. Several programs 

have already transitioned to other sources 

of funding—among them, most of the 

service programs in Burlington, Toledo’s 

home visitation program, and Huntsville’s 

8 
First Responders and Parents as Teachers 

programs. To build the capacity of service 

providers to continue valued services, 

several sites sponsored training in 

sustainability planning and resource 

development. 

Data Collection and 

Evaluation 

With limited local capacity and interest, 

most sites made data collection and local 

evaluation a low priority. Significant barriers to improving electronic case tracking 

and information sharing across agencies 

also were present—in the form of technology, cost, organizational structure, and 

confidentiality concerns. Nonetheless, 

local capacity to collect and use data did 

increase, and there was greater recognition of the need for data to inform decisions and track progress. In part, this was 

a response to the challenge of sustainability, as sites became more aware that they 

would need to document their achievements and challenges for new sponsors. 

Although no site implemented a comprehensive interagency management information system (MIS), Toledo was in the early 

stages of two such efforts—one to track 

victims seen in the emergency room and 

the other for home visitation clients—and 

Kansas City and Huntsville were taking a 

second look at the possibilities. All sites 

did make more modest changes. For 

example, Kansas City and Huntsville 

improved the technology for interagency 

e-mail and cross-agency access to data. 

Burlington backed a new database for 

serious sexual and physical abuse cases 

at the CAC location, accessible to law 

enforcement, investigators with child protective services, and prosecutors. Sault 

Ste. Marie was working on an interagency 

plan to share information about substance 

abuse clients. 

To fully integrate data collection and 

evaluation into systems reform efforts, 

jurisdictions should seek expert advice 

and onsite technical assistance early. In 

particular, communities should— 

❒ Bring local evaluators on board to 

assist in planning. Trained evaluators 

may be scarce in small and relatively 

rural communities, so the search 

should start early. If such assistance is 

not available locally, sponsors may be 

able to help sites find appropriate help 

elsewhere or fund a national evaluator 

to fill in. 

❒ Connect local evaluators with collaboration members, ideally through 

committees. SK/SS sites that formed 

committees to help develop their 

evaluations or other research efforts 

built demand for data and increased 

the capacity for understanding and 

using it in decisionmaking. 

❒ Focus on building capacity for 

“results-based accountability.” Training, technical assistance, and evaluation support can move communities 

toward data-driven decisionmaking by 

helping stakeholders identify clear, 

measurable outcomes. Grappling with 

how to measure outcomes may also 

expose the limitations of local data 

systems and ultimately stimulate some 

improvements. 

❒ Obtain technical assistance related to 

integrating data systems. Technical 

assistance can help jurisdictions understand the full range of cross-agency 

MIS options, from low-tech to cuttingedge improvements. It can also suggest 

a range of approaches for addressing 

confidentiality issues. 

SK/SS sites received technical assistance 

in the latter areas, initially too early to be 

effective and later too late to affect their 

agendas significantly. Timely assistance is 

essential to helping a jurisdiction do a better job of planning its agenda and allocating sufficient resources to data collection 

and integration efforts. 

Prevention Education 

At most SK/SS sites, modest prevention 

education efforts matured into more comprehensive strategies as the programs 

developed, though funding allocations 

typically remained small. The overarching 

lesson is to link prevention education 

efforts to the overall objectives of the 

initiative. 

❒ All sites developed a wide array of 

resource materials, from sophisticated 

online information systems in Sault Ste. 

Marie and Huntsville to service directories, brochures, newsletters, community calendars, and other printed materials at all sites. 

❒ All of the sites participated in neighborhood and community events. 

❒ All of the sites produced or supported 

multimedia campaigns about child 

abuse and family violence, with the 

Sault Ste. Marie campaign earning 

national recognition. 

❒ Kansas City provided grants to 

community-based organizations to 

build grassroots capacity and develop 

targeted awareness efforts. 

Resources 

The SK/SS communities were fortunate 

to receive substantial federal resources 

to carry out their efforts. Over the course 

of the initiative, sites received anywhere 

from $750,000 (Toledo) to approximately 

$4 million (Huntsville). However, evaluators noted significant accomplishments 

in all of the sites, regardless of funding 

level and wide variations in staffing. 

Although some resources are needed 

to convene and manage a collaborative 

effort, communities should not be 

discouraged if they lack comparable 

levels of funding. Many SK/SS efforts 

relied on donated staff time and, sometimes, on sponsors other than DOJ. 

In addition, many changes—particularly 

in the systems reform area—were institutionalized and require relatively little 

ongoing support. 

Funders who contemplate support for 

similar efforts should be encouraged by 

the accomplishments of the SK/SS sites. 

Investments in collaboration can stimulate 

impressive changes in a community. 

Besides funding project activities directly, 

sponsors can also play an important role 

in providing training and technical assistance and helping communities adhere to 

a vision of systems reform. 

Summary 

While collaborative approaches have been 

used successfully in other arenas, the 

SK/SS initiative represents the most comprehensive application in the child maltreatment field. It succeeded in building 

broad-based collaboratives focusing on 

child abuse and neglect issues in five very 

different communities. The five collaboratives enabled their communities to forge 

stronger interagency relationships and to 

focus on systems reform issues. They also 

engaged a broad range of stakeholders in 

developing and implementing a complex 

and ambitious agenda and made collaboration a normal way of doing business. 

Other communities can learn many valuable lessons from the experiences of these 

sites. 

9 
Endnotes 

1. The development of SK/SS was based 

on a yearlong effort involving input from 

researchers, practitioners, funders, survivors, and policymakers obtained 

through focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, and consultation. It was 

designed to identify those areas and 

strategies prime for federal support. 

2. For most of the SK/SS program’s history, these three offices were part of DOJ’s 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP). In 2004, 

OVW became an independent office under 

DOJ, though it continues to work closely 

with OJP. Also in 2004, EOWS was 

renamed the Community Capacity Development Office, which remains part of OJP. 

Three other OJP agencies—Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and Office for Victims of Crime— 

provided funding to support technical 

assistance for the sites. In the program’s 

early years, staff from these offices also 

participated in the OJP project management team. This interagency governance 

structure was designed to mirror the 

communities’ experiences and situations. 

3. During the first grant period and again 

in later grants, Patricia Donahue and Associates were involved as part of the technical assistance team. 

4. All sites were eligible for five full 

awards, the first to cover an 18-month 

planning period and the others to cover 

implementation in 1-year increments. OJP 

recognized the need for a flexible timetable, however, and sites expended their 

awards at different rates. In 2003, OJP 

decided to augment the original funding 

by covering a year of transition to nonfederal funding for all sites. 

5. OJP required all sites to have a local 

evaluator who worked on projects and 

tasks determined by local stakeholders 

and staff. 

6. Of all survey recipients, 71 percent 

(n=343) returned surveys. However, 66 

respondents returned blank surveys, 

complying with the evaluators’ request 

to return a blank survey if the respondent 

had not been an active stakeholder in the 

past 2 years. The analysis was based on 

the remaining 277 surveys. 

7. The figures reported are medians, 

rather than the means, which were 5.1 

hours and 8.5 meetings, respectively. The 

median is the midpoint of all responses, 

when they are put in order from lowest 

to highest. It more accurately reflects the 

typical or average response in situations 

where the mean (the arithmetical average) 

is skewed by a few respondents who 

report very low or very high numbers. 

8. For Kansas City and Sault Ste. Marie, 

the grant 5 budgets represent projections 

for the grant period that was about to 

start. 

9. With a couple of exceptions, investments in the other program elements 

(data collection/evaluation and prevention 

education/public information) remained 

small, representing 6 percent or less of 

the SK/SS budget in both grant periods 

(although in some cases the sites leveraged other support for these efforts). 

Those investments are excluded from this 

analysis, consequently percentages may 

not add to 100. 

References 

Annie E. Casey Foundation. 1999. The Path 

of Most Resistance: Reflections on Lessons 

Learned From New Futures, 1995. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

CSR, Incorporated. 1996. Lessons Learned: 

The Experience of Nine Child Abuse and 

Neglect Prevention Programs. Washington, 

DC: CSR, Incorporated. 

Farrow, F. 1997. Building community partnerships for child protection. Paper prepared for the Executive Session on Child 

Protection, Malcolm Wiener Center for 

Social Policy, John F. Kennedy School of 

Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University. 

Gragg, F., Cronin, R., and Schultz, D. 2005. 

National Evaluation of the Safe Kids/Safe 

Streets Program: Processing and Outcomes 

of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases in Three 

Sites. Rockville, MD: Westat. 

Gragg, F., Cronin, R., Schultz, D., and Eisen, 

K. 2004. National Evaluation of the Safe 

Kids/Safe Streets Program: Final Report, 

Volumes I–IV. Rockville, MD: Westat. Volumes include Volume I: Cross-Site Findings, 

Volume II: Case Studies of the Safe Kids/ 

Safe Streets Demonstration Sites, Volume III: 

Findings from the 2003 Stakeholder Survey, 

and Volume IV: Survey of Agency Personnel. 

Ireland, T., and Widom, C.S. 1995. Childhood Victimization and Risk for Alcohol 

and Drug Arrests. Research Preview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Kelley, B.T., Thornberry, T.P., and Smith, 

C.A. 1997. In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Lemmon, J.H. 1999. How child maltreatment affects dimensions of juvenile delinquency in a cohort of low-income urban 

youths. Justice Quarterly 16(2)9:357–76. 

Melaville, A.I., and Blank, M.J. 1991. What 

It Takes: Structuring Interagency Partnerships to Connect Children and Families 

with Comprehensive Services. Washington, 

DC: Education and Human Services 

Consortium. 

Mizrahi, T. 1999. Strategies for effective 

collaboration in human services. Social 

Policy 29(4):5–20. 

Mizrahi, T., and Rosenthal, B.B. 2001. Complexities of coalition building: Leaders, 

successes, strategies, and solutions. Social 

Work 46(1):63–78. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 1996. Safe Kids/Safe Streets— 

Community Approaches to Reducing Abuse 

and Neglect and Preventing Delinquency. 

FY 1996 Discretionary Competitive Program Announcements and Application 

Kit. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Weeks, R., and Widom, C.S. 1998. Early 

Childhood Victimization Among Incarcerated Adult Male Felons. Research Preview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice. 

Widom, C.S. 1995. Victims of Childhood 

Sexual Abuse—Later Criminal Consequences. Research in Brief. Washington, 

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

Justice Programs, National Institute of 

Justice. 

Widom, C.S. 1996. The Cycle of Violence 

Revisited. Research Preview. Washington, 

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

Justice Programs, National Institute of 

Justice. 

Wiebush, R., Freitag, R., and Baird, C. 

2001. Preventing Delinquency Through 

Improved Child Protection Services. 

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

Institute of Justice. 

10 
For Further Information 

National Evaluation 

Frances Gragg, Project Director 

Westat 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

301–738–3610 

301–315–5934 (fax) 

francesgragg@westat.com 

Site Activities 

Burlington 

Sally Borden, Director 

KidSafe Collaborative of 

Chittenden County 

308 Pine Street 

Burlington, VT 05401 

802–863–9626 

802–865–4857 (fax) 

kidsafe@kidsafevt.org 

Huntsville 

Jo Ann Plucker 

National Children’s Advocacy Center 

210 Pratt Avenue 

Huntsville, AL 35801 

256–533–0531 

256–533–6883 (fax) 

jplucker@nationalcac.org 

or 

Kevin Brown 

kbrown@nationalcac.org 

Kansas City 

Alinda Dennis, KIDSAFE 

Project Manager 

Heart of America United Way 

1080 Washington Street 

Kansas City, MO 64105 

816–559–4677 

816–472–5818 or 816–474–4382 (fax) 

alindadennis@hauw.org 

or 

Donna Bushur, KIDSAFE Project 

Director 

816–559–4679 

donnasnead@hauw.org 

Sault Ste. Marie 

Christine McPherson, Director 

Anishnabek Community and 

Family Services 

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians 

2864 Ashmun Street 

Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 

906–632–5250 

906–632–5266 (fax) 

cmcpherson@saulttribe.net 

Toledo 

Cindy Pisano, SK/SS Project Director 

Family and Child Abuse Prevention 

Center 

One Stranahan Square, Suite 532 

Toledo, OH 43604 

419–244–3053 

419–244–1100 (fax) 

cpisano@fcapc.org 

Acknowledgments 

Roberta Cronin is a Project Consultant, Frances Gragg is a Project 

Director, and Karla Eisen is a Project 

Analyst at Westat, Rockville, MD. 

Dana Schultz, who was a Project 

Analyst at Westat, is currently with 

RAND. 

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 

97–MU–MU–0005 from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this 

document are those of the authors and do 

not necessarily represent the official position 

or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

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. 

Share With Your Colleagues 

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We 

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and 

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP 

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as 

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP 

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and 

questions to: 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse 

Publication Reprint/Feedback 

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420 

301–519–5600 (fax) 

Web: www.ncjrs.gov/app/Feedback.aspx 

11 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of J ice of Juvenile J uvenile Justice and Delinquency Pr ustice and Delinquency Prevention vention *NCJ~213682*

Washington, ashington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD


POSTAGE & FEES PAID


DOJ/OJJDP
 OJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO.G–91


Bulletin NCJ 213682