U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

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

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

J. Robert Flores

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Justice Programs

Partnerships for Safer Communities

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

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.
OJJDP Annual Report 2002

J. Robert Flores, Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

July 2004

NCJ 202038

This Report covers activities undertaken by the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention during 

fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002).

FY 2002 iii

Annual Report

A Message From 

Attorney General John Ashcroft

The U.S. Department of Justice is committed to serving our nation’s children proactively as

well as reactively. Our mission is not simply to hold juveniles accountable when they commit

crimes, but, even more, to prevent those crimes from occurring. This requires that we intervene in the lives of children to prevent them from becoming delinquents in the first place. As

our awareness of the challenges our children face has sharpened, we have grown even more

determined in our efforts to protect their lives and to help them find a positive path in life. 

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

of Justice Programs, plays an important role in the Department’s efforts to defend and protect our children. As evidenced by its participation in President Bush’s White House Conference on Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children and its many programmatic efforts on

behalf of children, OJJDP is providing leadership on a wide range of juvenile justice issues. 

We are also committed to protecting children from victimization. To give just one example,

we are pursuing aggressive and innovative strategies to defend our children in a growing

arena for predators—the Internet. As technology has evolved, so have the means of exploiting our children. OJJDP’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program helps

state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the nation to develop effective responses

to cyber-enticement and child pornography cases.

This and the other programs highlighted in this Report document the Justice Department’s

dedication to ensuring that all America’s children have the opportunity to grow up safe,

strong, and free.

FY 2002 v

Annual Report

A Message From 

Assistant Attorney General 

Deborah J. Daniels

Within the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention has the primary responsibility for addressing issues related to children. The challenges that confront children are of great concern to us at OJP and are something we address

on a daily basis. OJJDP funds a number of programs that promote child safety and help

delinquent youth to turn their lives around.

OJJDP works to meet the needs of missing, exploited, and runaway children and their families through direct services, research and demonstration programs, and training and technical

assistance provided to a variety of community members. As national coordinator for AMBER

Alert, I have been working with many partners to help states improve their ability to respond

rapidly to recover abducted children. OJJDP, in conjunction with the National Center for

Missing and Exploited Children, has played a pivotal role in the campaign to promote

national implementation of AMBER Alert. 

OJJDP also coordinates the juvenile component of OJP’s Serious and Violent Offender

Reentry Initiative. A collaborative effort involving a number of federal agencies, the Reentry

Initiative is working to ensure that serious, violent offenders who have been released from

correctional facilities can successfully reenter their communities and become productive, 

law-abiding citizens.

Children are the future of our nation. Protecting them from harm and providing them with

the opportunity to lead successful lives are essential if that future is to be realized.

FY 2002 vii

Annual Report

Foreword

Since its establishment in 1974, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP), a component of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

has provided national leadership, coordination, and resources to assist states and communities in combating juvenile delinquency and child victimization. The nature and extent of

the problems confronting youth, and our knowledge of these problems, are constantly

changing, and the urgent demands of other pressing national issues present special challenges. Accordingly, OJJDP takes these evolving circumstances into account in setting

its priorities each year. 

The activities highlighted in this Report reflect OJJDP’s priorities for fiscal year 2002.

A major focus was to ensure that serious and violent juvenile offenders have the opportunity to reenter their communities successfully on release from correctional facilities.

Other priorities included streamlining the dissemination of information and reaching out 

to faith-based organizations. OJJDP also worked extensively on child victimization issues,

youth gang initiatives, and tribal youth programs. 

These and other activities described in OJJDP Annual Report 2002 illustrate the Office’s

continuing commitment to preventing and reducing delinquency, strengthening the

juvenile justice system, and protecting children against abuse and exploitation. Together

with its federal, state, and local partners, OJJDP is working for the day when every

American child will have the opportunity to live and learn in a safe and nurturing

environment.

J. Robert Flores

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Table of Contents

A Message From Attorney General John Ashcroft ......................................................................................iii

A Message From Assistant Attorney General Deborah Daniels ....................................................................v

Foreword ..........................................................................................................................................................vii

How To Access Information From OJJDP ................................................................................................viii

An Introduction to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ........................................1

Chapter 1: Highlighting Major Accomplishments ..........................................................................................3

New Administrator............................................................................................................................................3

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative ............................................................................................4

New Approach to Sharing Information ..........................................................................................................4

Program Solicitations and Peer Reviews ........................................................................................................4

Outreach to Faith-Based Groups ....................................................................................................................4

Major Conferences ............................................................................................................................................5

Youth Court Achievements ..............................................................................................................................6

Chapter 2: Responding to Child Victimization ................................................................................................7

AMBER Alert Activities ..................................................................................................................................8

Association of Missing and Exploited Children’s Organizations....................................................................9

Children’s Advocacy Centers ............................................................................................................................9

Court Appointed Special Advocate Program ..................................................................................................9

Crimes Against Children Conference ............................................................................................................10

Internet Crimes Against Children ..................................................................................................................10

Model Courts Initiative ..................................................................................................................................11

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ..................................................................................11

National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children ......................12

National Missing Children’s Day ..................................................................................................................13

Safe Start Initiative..........................................................................................................................................13

White House Conference on Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children ................................................14

New Publications ............................................................................................................................................15

On the Horizon................................................................................................................................................16

Chapter 3: Preventing and Intervening in Delinquency ..............................................................................17

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ..................................................17

Drug-Free Communities Support Program ..................................................................................................18

Juvenile Mentoring Program ........................................................................................................................19

Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative ......................................................................................................20

Title V Community Prevention Grants Program ..........................................................................................21

Truancy Reduction Activities..........................................................................................................................23

Youth Court Activities ....................................................................................................................................25

On the Horizon................................................................................................................................................26 

FY 2002 ix

Annual Report
Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 4: Enhancing Public Safety and Law Enforcement ........................................................................27

Comprehensive School Safety Leadership Initiative ....................................................................................27

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program........................................................................................28

Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program ..................................................................30

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative ..........................................................................................30

New Publications ............................................................................................................................................31

Chapter 5: Addressing Youth Gangs ..............................................................................................................33

Boys & Girls Clubs of America: Targeted Outreach Programs....................................................................33

Gang-Free Schools and Communities Initiative............................................................................................34

National Youth Gang Center ..........................................................................................................................34

National Youth Gang Symposium..................................................................................................................36

New Publications ............................................................................................................................................36

Chapter 6: Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System ................................................................................39

Addressing Disproportionate Minority Confinement ..................................................................................39

Formula Grants Program................................................................................................................................41

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program ..........................................................................47

National Training and Technical Assistance Center......................................................................................48

State Challenge Activities................................................................................................................................48

Targeted Community Action Planning ..........................................................................................................51

Chapter 7: Implementing Tribal Youth Initiatives ........................................................................................53

Tribal Youth Program......................................................................................................................................54

TYP Mental Health Initiative ........................................................................................................................54

Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement Project ....................................56

Training and Technical Assistance..................................................................................................................57

Research and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................57

Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country....................................................................................................58

New Publication ..............................................................................................................................................58

Chapter 8: Collecting Information on Juveniles in Custody ........................................................................59

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement ..............................................................................................59

Juvenile Residential Facility Census..............................................................................................................59

Deaths in Custody ..........................................................................................................................................60

Survey of Youth in Residential Placement ....................................................................................................61

Census and Survey of Juvenile Probation ....................................................................................................61

x FY 2002

Annual Report
Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 9: Getting the Word Out ..................................................................................................................63

New Approach to Information Dissemination ..............................................................................................63

Bimonthly Newsletter......................................................................................................................................63

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse......................................................................................................................64

Web Site ..........................................................................................................................................................64

New Publications ............................................................................................................................................65

Satellite Videoconferencing ............................................................................................................................66

On the Horizon................................................................................................................................................67

Chapter 10: Looking Ahead ............................................................................................................................69

OJJDP Priorities for FY 2003 ......................................................................................................................69

FY 2003 Funding for OJJDP Programs ......................................................................................................69

OJJDP Program Restructuring ....................................................................................................................70

Appendix: OJJDP Publications Produced in FY 2002 ................................................................................71

FY 2002 xi

Annual Report
xii FY 2002

Annual Report

How To Access Information 

From OJJDP

All OJJDP publications mentioned in this Report—and many more—are

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC) via the Internet,

telephone, and fax. 

Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp (to view or download materials)

www.puborder.ncjrs.org (to order publications online)

To ask questions, visit askjj.ncjrs.org.

Telephone: 800–851–3420

Fax: 410–792–4358 (to order publications)

To stay informed about the latest OJJDP publications and activities,

subscribe to the JUVJUST electronic mailing list and OJJDP News @ a Glance,

the Office’s bimonthly newsletter. For information on how to subscribe, visit

OJJDP’s Web site at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp.
An Introduction to the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention

FY 2002 1

Annual Report

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) was created by Congress in

1974 to help states and communities prevent and

control delinquency and improve their juvenile

justice systems.1 A component of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs

(OJP), OJJDP is the primary federal agency

responsible for addressing juvenile crime and delinquency and the problems of abused, neglected,

missing, and exploited children and for coordinating federal efforts in these areas.

Although the nature and extent of delinquency

and abuse continually change, the Office remains

committed to providing national leadership and

supporting a broad array of activities to help states,

local communities, and tribal jurisdictions meet the

many juvenile justice challenges facing them. These

challenges include preparing juvenile offenders to

return to their communities following release from

secure correctional facilities; dealing with the small

percentage of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

offenders; holding offenders appropriately accountable for their unlawful actions; combating alcohol

and drug abuse; helping states address the disproportionate confinement of minority youth; and

helping children who have been victimized by

crime and child abuse.

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

respond to juvenile offending and child victimization. OJJDP accomplishes this mission by helping

states, local communities, and tribal jurisdictions

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.

OJJDP sponsors a wide range of research and

evaluation efforts, statistical studies, and demonstration programs; provides technical assistance

and training; produces and distributes online and

printed documents and other products containing

reliable and relevant information about juvenile

justice topics; manages programs that address situations involving missing and exploited children; and

administers formula, block, and discretionary grant

programs. Together, these activities form a continuum of programs necessary to respond effectively

to juvenile delinquency, crime, and victimization.

This Report highlights OJJDP’s major activities

and accomplishments during fiscal year (FY) 2002. 

These highlights reflect the Office’s continuing 

commitment to programs that have the greatest

potential for reducing juvenile delinquency and the

victimization of children and for improving the

juvenile justice system.

1

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq. (JJDP Act),

established OJJDP.

For Further Information

More information about OJJDP is available on

the Office’s Web site at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

and from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (see

information on page xii).

FY 2002 3

Annual Report

FY 2002 brought challenges, accomplishments,

and new directions at OJJDP. Accomplishments

included improving dissemination efforts, reaching

out to the faith-based community, and sponsoring

several major conferences. In addition, a new

Administrator was named to head OJJDP.

During this time, the Office also continued to focus

its efforts on programs that help prevent, intervene

in, and treat delinquent behavior by funding activities that provide youth with skills and values that

will enable them to achieve their potential. The

Office also worked extensively on child victimization issues, public safety and law enforcement,

youth gang initiatives, and tribal youth programs.

OJJDP continued to provide critical statistical

information to the field during FY 2002, including

data about juvenile crime rates. The Office is especially pleased that the steady decline in juvenile

crime arrests is continuing, according to data reported annually by local law enforcement agencies

nationwide to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

(FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The

most recent data show that the juvenile arrest rate

for violent crime in 2001 was 44 percent below its

peak in 1994, reaching its lowest level since 1983,

while the rate for murder dropped 70 percent from

its peak in 1993. In 2001, law enforcement agencies

in the United States made an estimated 2.3 million

arrests of persons under age 18, down 4 percent

from 2000.

This chapter highlights OJJDP’s major accomplishments in FY 2002. These accomplishments, together

with the other activities discussed elsewhere in this

Report, illustrate OJJDP’s ongoing commitment to

helping the nation address its many juvenile justice

issues. 

New Administrator

J. Robert Flores was sworn in as Administrator

of OJJDP on April 17, 2002. Mr. Flores, who has

experience in both the public and private sectors,

served in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity

Section of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1989 to 1997. Before joining DOJ, he was an Assistant District Attorney in

Manhattan. More recently, Mr. Flores was Vice

President and Senior Counsel for the National Law

Center for Children and Families. Mr. Flores also

was a congressional appointee to the Commission

on Online Child Protection.

During his tenure as Administrator, Mr. Flores

hopes to expand the role of faith-based organizations

and community groups in delinquency prevention

efforts; increase OJJDP’s collaboration with other

agencies; continue to address the disproportionate

representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system; and look for innovative ways to assist

American Indian and Alaska Native communities in

their efforts to address juvenile justice issues and

reduce delinquency.

An OJJDP satellite videoconference on December 6, 2002, featured a discussion with Mr. Flores.

Topics included OJJDP research findings and

initiatives; program priorities, including child

prostitution, disproportionate minority confinement, tribal youth programs, and truancy; and

resources available through OJJDP. Information about the videoconference is available on

OJJDP’s Web site. 

Chapter 1

Highlighting Major Accomplishments
4 FY 2002

Annual Report

Serious and Violent Offender

Reentry Initiative

Helping ensure that serious and violent juvenile offenders safely and successfully return to their communities after leaving correctional institutions was

a major focus of OJP and OJJDP in FY 2002.

The Office was one of many federal partners participating in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, an innovative program that awarded

more than $100 million in funding to 68 programs

that target serious, high-risk juvenile and adult

offenders returning from commitment in a state

training school, a juvenile or adult correctional facility, or, where necessary, a residential treatment 

facility. The goals of the initiative, discussed on pages

30–31, are to reduce recidivism; enhance public

safety; equip returning offenders with the ability to

become productive, law-abiding citizens; and leverage existing community resources by fostering linkages and accessing currently provided services.

New Approach to Sharing

Information

Although sharing pertinent information with juvenile justice practitioners, policymakers, and the

public remains a priority at OJJDP, the Office

began updating and streamlining its dissemination

efforts in FY 2002. Changes include targeting mailings of publications and program solicitations to

more specifically defined audiences and encouraging readers to download documents from the

Office’s Web site rather than ordering paper copies.

This new approach to information dissemination,

which has helped reduce paper clutter for OJJDP’s

constituents and has brought considerable savings

in postage and print costs to taxpayers, is discussed

in greater detail in Chapter 9.

A major new dissemination activity in FY 2002 was

the introduction of OJJDP News @ a Glance. This

popular bimonthly newsletter provides up-to-date

notices of agency activities, recent publications,

funding opportunities, and upcoming events. 

Program Solicitations and 

Peer Reviews

As part of OJJDP’s efforts to streamline its 

publications process, the Office instituted a new

approach to promoting the program solicitations

that announce availability of funding opportunities.

Rather than printing bulk copies of the solicitations,

OJJDP used online contacts, such as listservs and

Webmasters, to promote the availability of program

announcements. One result was lower print and

mail costs, as most organizations downloaded the

solicitations from the OJJDP Web site. In addition,

because of increased exposure through online promotion, the number of applicants rose.

During FY 2002, OJJDP issued 8 program solicitations and received more than 1,400 applications in

response. To ensure that only programs of the highest quality are funded, OJJDP conducts an intense

peer review of all eligible applications for competitive discretionary funding. Peer reviewers include

practitioners, researchers, and academicians from

the public and private sectors. OJJDP convened

80 peer review panels to evaluate applications for

the 8 programs competitively funded. 

Outreach to Faith-Based

Groups

OJJDP made a concerted effort in FY 2002 to

reach out to faith-based groups, which historically

have not been a part of its activities. The Office

expanded its electronic and print mail lists to include more faith-based organizations, thus making

these organizations more aware of opportunities

for funding. In November 2001, OJJDP published

a Fact Sheet about faith-based programs. Public/

Private Ventures’ Evaluation of Faith-Based Programs

describes a research and demonstration effort to

involve faith-based institutions as the anchoring

organizations within local partnerships designed

to address the developmental needs of high-risk

juveniles. 
FY 2002 5

Annual Report

OJJDP also encouraged existing grantees to recognize the role that faith-based organizations can play

in community prevention efforts. The National

Youth Gang Symposium featured a workshop on

faith-based approaches to gangs. The National

Mentoring Center sponsored a workshop to show

mentoring programs how they might collaborate

with faith-based organizations. Faith- and community-based initiatives were also the topic of a meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Several faith-based organizations also were selected

to participate in OJJDP grant programs. For example, 12 percent of OJJDP’s Juvenile Mentoring

Program grants were awarded to faith-based organizations. Faith-based groups also participate in several of the community coalitions funded through the

Drug-Free Communities Support Program and the

Title V Community Prevention Grants Program.

All of the above programs are discussed later in this

Report. 

Major Conferences

OJJDP also sponsored and participated in several

major conferences during FY 2002: 

✦ The third National Youth Gang Symposium,

held in June 2002 in Orlando, FL, drew 1,200

participants. The event offered an array of activities and information focusing on innovative and

viable gang-related programs and strategies.

The conference and other OJJDP gang initiatives are described in Chapter 5.

✦ OJJDP also participated in the first National

Youth Summit held in June 2002 in Washington,

DC. The summit, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in collaboration with several other federal agencies, brought

together a diverse group of young people and

adults to promote positive youth development.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft addressed

the summit. 

✦ In August 2002, more than 2,000 professionals

involved in preventing, investigating, and 

Involving Faith-Based Organizations in

Community Delinquency Prevention

OJJDP’s Title V Community Prevention Grants Program (described on pages 21–23) helps communities develop and implement community-based

delinquency prevention plans. Communities

receiving Title V grants are required to appoint a

prevention policy board (PPB) made up of local

representatives from various community agencies.

Recognizing the contribution that faith-based

organizations can make to a local community,

the Fremont County (CO) PPB includes two

ministerial representatives who provide a link

between the community and its ministerial

alliance. Numerous opportunities for collaboration have come about through this relationship.

For example, when one of the Title V-sponsored

mentoring programs was experiencing difficulty

recruiting male mentors, the PPB ministerial representatives asked local ministers for assistance.

The local ministers, in turn, told PPB members

about numerous church-sponsored men’s groups

active in the community and helped the PPB

members gain access to these groups for recruitment. Through their contacts with local churches,

ministers also have been helpful in promoting

Title V programs to the community; for example,

they have posted notices for new programs in

church newsletters and on bulletin boards. These

efforts have expanded the number of youth and

families with access to program resources and

have helped the PPB meet the service goals of its

3-year delinquency prevention plan. 

prosecuting crimes against children gathered in

Dallas, TX, for the 14th Annual Crimes Against

Children Conference, sponsored by OJJDP

and presented by the Dallas Children’s Advocacy

Center and the Dallas Police Department. Attendees included law enforcement and child protective services workers, attorneys, child advocates,
6 FY 2002

Annual Report

and others who work directly with cases involving crimes against children. For more information

about the conference, see page 10. 

✦ The first White House Conference on Missing,

Exploited, and Runaway Children was held

October 2, 2002, in Washington, DC. OJJDP

and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children joined the White House in

sponsoring the conference. President Bush

presented the keynote address, and OJJDP

released a major new series of Bulletins summarizing findings from the Second National

Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2).

The conference and NISMART findings are

discussed in Chapter 2. 

Youth Court Achievements

OJJDP had several major accomplishments involving youth courts during FY 2002. OJJDP and the

National Youth Court Center (NYCC), which the

Office funds, designated September as the first

National Youth Court Month. As part of the observance, NYCC disseminated an online action kit to

help communities promote youth courts. Earlier in

the year, OJJDP’s youth court program was recognized at the United Nations’ Special Session on

Children. An OJJDP-funded youth court training

package received a prestigious national award from

the Association of Educational Publishers. Finally,

the NYCC Web site received the 2002 “CivicMind”

award. OJJDP’s youth court activities are discussed

on pages 25–26. 
FY 2002 7

Annual Report

Many of the nation’s children face a tough time

growing up. They are preyed upon by other children and sometimes by adults, including family

members and acquaintances. These children are

often subjected to physical, mental, and sexual

abuse. Even children who are not victims of such

abuse often witness violence in their neighborhoods

and homes and in the media. In addition, ready

access to the Internet has left parents and child

protection and law enforcement agencies struggling

to protect children from online victimization, including pornography and child prostitution.

Protecting children from abuse and other crimes

has long been a priority at OJJDP, and as the

types of abuse have changed over the years, so have

OJJDP’s responses. The Office supported a broad

array of programs during FY 2002, all designed to

help families and communities respond to child victimization. The programs run the gamut from providing reliable statistics about missing and exploited

children to demonstrating constructive interventions

for children exposed to violence to confronting cyber

crimes of online sexual exploitation.

Many of OJJDP’s FY 2002 achievements focused

on the issue of missing children. For example, the

Office released new findings from a series of research studies, called public attention to the issue

of missing and exploited children through a White

House conference, sponsored a ceremony to mark

the 20th anniversary of the Missing Children’s Act,

and collaborated with state and local entities to

adopt AMBER Alert plans, which notify the public

immediately when a child is reported missing.

Although OJJDP’s primary goal is to prevent child

victimization, addressing intervention and treatment

issues is equally important. Research has found that

individuals who experience maltreatment during

childhood are significantly more likely to display

a variety of problems during adolescence, including

serious and violent delinquency, teen pregnancy,

drug use, low academic achievement, and mental

health problems. Research also shows that children

who witness domestic violence experience higher

levels of childhood behavioral, social, and emotional

problems than children who have not witnessed

such violence. Thus, intervention and treatment are

of paramount importance. 

OJJDP addressed these issues through a variety

of activities. One program, Children’s Advocacy

Centers, helps all components of the system—law

enforcement, child protection workers, medical

and mental health professionals, and prosecutors—

work together on child abuse and neglect cases.

Because courts play a pivotal role in child abuse

cases, OJJDP supports several programs in this

area. One initiative provides advocates to make sure

that the judicial system serves the best interests of

abused and neglected children, and another helps

communities replicate model court programs. 

Reliable information and training are also important tools in combating child victimization, and

OJJDP continued to provide both to practitioners,

researchers, and the public during FY 2002. A

national conference, for example, offered practical

information about successful intervention strategies

for addressing crimes against children. The OJJDPfunded National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children (NCMEC) continued to play a pivotal role

in working with parents, law enforcement, and the

public on issues related to missing and exploited children. In addition, OJJDP published several new

documents about child victimization—some directed

to parents, others to law enforcement.

The programs discussed in this chapter represent

OJJDP’s commitment to helping communities and

the juvenile justice system respond more effectively

Chapter 2

Responding to Child Victimization
8 FY 2002

Annual Report

to child victimization. Diverse in design and implementation, all of these programs offer information

and strategies to help America’s children grow up

safely.

AMBER Alert Activities

Statistics indicate that kidnapped children are at

greatest risk of harm in the first hours after an

abduction; of those children who are killed by their

abductor, 74 percent are killed within 3 hours, and

99 percent within 24 hours. That is why it is so

important to get information about missing children

out to the public as soon as possible. One way to

do this is through AMBER Alert plans. 

The first AMBER plan was introduced in Texas in

1996 in memory of Amber Hagerman, a young girl

from the Dallas area who was kidnapped and murdered. Shocked and outraged by Amber’s death,

citizens contacted radio stations in the Dallas area

and suggested that they broadcast special alerts

to help prevent such tragedies in the future. In response, the Dallas/Fort Worth Association of Radio

Managers teamed with local law enforcement agencies in northern Texas to develop an early warning

system that could help find abducted children. 

Other communities across the nation also began

to implement AMBER plans. As of March 2003,

49 local and regional plans and 38 statewide plans

had been established, and AMBER plans had been

credited with the recovery of 47 children.

The plans use the same Emergency Alert System

(EAS) that is deployed in severe weather emergencies. When a law enforcement agency confirms that

a child has been abducted, it notifies a designated

primary EAS radio station, which relays the information to all area radio and TV stations and cable

systems. Radio stations then interrupt their programming with the alert, and TV stations and cable

systems run a “crawl” message on the screen (often

with a photo of the child). 

During FY 2002, NCMEC (see page 11) spearheaded a campaign to promote national implementation of AMBER Alerts. The alerts were in the

national spotlight as Congress began working on

legislation to pass a national AMBER Alert Act2

and when President Bush directed the Attorney

General to name an AMBER Alert National Coordinator, Deborah J. Daniels, Assistant Attorney

General for OJP, was designated as National

Coordinator and is helping to develop, enhance,

and coordinate AMBER plans nationwide. Ms.

Daniels serves as a central point of contact and

works with states and local communities to increase the number of AMBER plans and to ensure

that these plans work together to create a national

network.

Complete details about AMBER Alert are available

on the NCMEC Web site (www.missingkids.com).

The site includes guidelines for establishing a local

AMBER Alert plan, an “AMBER Alert Kit” for law

enforcement agencies and broadcasters, and information on AMBER Alert plan locations. Detailed information about national coordination of AMBER Alert

activity is available on OJP’s AMBER Web site

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/amberalert). 

2

President Bush signed the AMBER Alert Act into law on

April 30, 2003.

Our intent is not to make AMBER a federal program. Rather, we want to help communities,

states, and regions to develop effective AMBER

Alert plans and collaborations among themselves.

Deborah J. Daniels,

Assistant Attorney General for OJP and 

AMBER Alert National Coordinator
FY 2002 9

Annual Report

Association of Missing and

Exploited Children’s

Organizations

To help improve the quality, availability, and coordination of services provided to missing and exploited

children and their families, OJJDP awarded a

grant to the Association of Missing and Exploited

Children’s Organizations (AMECO) of Bronxville,

NY, in FY 2002. The organization works to ensure

the effective management and coordination of public and private sector assistance to missing and

exploited children and their families. AMECO

services include parent-to-parent mentoring for

families who have a child missing (Team H.O.P.E.).

Further information about AMECO is available

from its Web site (www.amecoinc.org).

Children’s Advocacy Centers

A Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) is a comprehensive, child-focused program, located in a

child-friendly setting, that brings together law

enforcement, child protection professionals, prosecutors, and mental health and medical staff to handle

child abuse and neglect cases. Because CACs are

designed by communities to meet their particular

needs, there are many types. The mission of all

CACs, however, is to ensure that children are not

further victimized by the systems designed for their

protection and to provide consistent, compassionate

support for child victims and their families.

Since FY 1993, OJJDP has provided funds to the

National Children’s Alliance (NCA, formerly the

National Network of Children’s Advocacy Centers),

of Washington, DC, to help communities develop

CACs and multidisciplinary teams. As authorized

by the Victims of Child Abuse Act, OJJDP established four Regional Children’s Advocacy Centers

(RCACs) in 1994 to further assist in the development of CACs. These centers are the Midwest

RCAC in St. Paul, MN; the Northeast RCAC in

Philadelphia, PA; the Southern RCAC in Huntsville, AL; and the Western RCAC in Colorado

Springs, CO. Information on states served by each

RCAC is available from NCA (call 800–239–9950

or visit www.nca-online.org).

During FY 2002, NCA provided 414 subgrants to

help communities develop and support CACs. The

RCACs and NCA also provided 179 training events.

Through funding from OJP’s Office for Victims of

Crime in FY 2002, OJJDP provided $200,000 to

NCA for tribal demonstration grants. NCA has

awarded grants to three American Indian communities to help them develop fully operational CACs.

This tribal initiative will continue through FY 2004,

and each site will receive $110,000 each year. 

During FY 2002, the RCACs and NCA also continued to expand the NCAnet program, which links

communities through teleconferencing. Eighteen

sites participated in teleconferencing and received

training and technical assistance in areas such as

peer review of medical findings and forensic interviews, multidisciplinary case review/consultations,

and current issues in assessing child abuse.

Court Appointed Special

Advocate Program

Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs help ensure that abused and neglected children who are living in foster care (or are at risk of

being placed in foster care by a judicial system)

receive timely, sensitive, and effective representation

in dependency hearings. CASA volunteers are appointed by judges to advocate in court for the best

interests of abused or neglected children. The program started as a pilot program in Seattle, WA,

in January 1977, with 110 trained volunteers.

Today, there are more than 58,000 CASA volunteers nationwide.

The National Court Appointed Special Advocate

Association (NCASAA) of Seattle, WA, which

was founded in 1982 to help replicate and support

CASA programs across the nation, has been

supported by OJJDP since 1984. Today, NCASAA

represents more than 950 programs, which are
10 FY 2002

Annual Report

located in every state and in Washington, DC, and

the U.S. Virgin Islands. NCASAA encourages the

development of new CASA programs and strengthens existing programs by providing training and

technical assistance, information, and resources to

all components of the juvenile justice system. The

association is focusing on communities where representation rates are low, the numbers of abused and

neglected children are high, and service systems are

not meeting the needs of families and children.

NCASAA is also helping to develop state CASA

organizations, which will help provide services to

local programs. 

NCASAA offers seminars, conferences, electronic

online services, a resource library, information

materials, publications, and consultation services.

NCASAA also sponsors an annual national training

conference for CASA program staff and volunteers,

social workers, judges, and attorneys. The 2002 conference, “Changing a Million Lives—One Life at a

Time,” was held April 27–30, 2002, in San Diego,

CA. Antwone Fisher, who wrote a best-selling book

and a movie script about his experiences as a foster

child, was a featured speaker, and 1,394 individuals

attended the conference. 

During FY 2002, NCASAA released its national

training curriculum, which is the basis of volunteer

training in most CASA programs, and provided

local and regional training sessions on the manual.

NCASAA also piloted a self-assessment tool developed as part of its Quality Assurance initiative,

which includes the NCASAA Standards for CASA

Programs. The self-assessment will be mandatory

for all programs in 2003. In addition, NCASAA

provided 80 grants to CASA programs and chapters

during FY 2002. More information about NCASAA

is available at its Web site (www.nationalcasa.org).

Crimes Against Children

Conference

OJJDP sponsored the 14th Annual Crimes Against

Children Conference on August 5–8, 2002, in Dallas,

TX. The conference provided practical instruction—

based on the latest information and ideas and the

most successful intervention strategies—for professionals involved in preventing, investigating, and

prosecuting crimes against children. Presented by the

Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center and the Dallas

Police Department, the conference brought together

nearly 2,000 law enforcement and child protective

services workers, attorneys, child advocates, and

others who work directly with cases involving crimes

against children. 

Speakers included U.S. Senator Kay Bailey

Hutchinson (R–TX) and Donna Norris, mother

of Amber Hagerman, a young Dallas girl who was

kidnapped and murdered. (The first AMBER Alert

was introduced in Texas in 1996 in memory of

Amber; see page 8). In addition, Patricia Bradbury,

whose daughter was kidnapped but returned safely

because of AMBER Alert, spoke at a press conference held in connection with the conference.

Conference workshops gave participants the opportunity to hear veteran detectives describe investigative techniques for cases involving child victims and

to learn about evidence collection techniques from

special agents of the FBI. Prosecutors demonstrated

questioning techniques and offered case development guidelines. Workshops were also taught by

experts in child protective services. 

Internet Crimes 

Against Children

OJJDP awarded a total of $1.8 million in FY 2002

funding to six law enforcement agencies to create

Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task

Force programs in their communities. The following

additional agencies were awarded grants as part

of OJJDP’s efforts to expand the ICAC program

to areas that do not currently have a regional task

force presence: the City of San Jose, CA; Georgia

Bureau of Investigation; Indiana State Police; Kentucky State Police; Louisiana Attorney General’s

Office; and St. Louis, MO, Police Department.
FY 2002 11

Annual Report

OJJDP created the ICAC Task Force Program in

1998 to help state and local law enforcement agencies prevent and respond to online crimes against

children. ICAC funding helps these agencies

develop regional, multijurisdictional, and multiagency task forces to prevent, interdict, and investigate ICAC offenses. ICAC regional task forces

conduct investigations and prosecute criminals who

sexually exploit children. These task forces conduct

computer forensic examinations and provide other

law enforcement agencies with technical assistance

necessary to investigate these crimes. The task

forces also provide prevention education—through

publications, presentations, and public service

announcements—to parents, children and teenagers,

educators, prosecutors, law enforcement, and professionals working on child victimization issues.

Currently, 36 regional task forces coordinate the

activities of more than 160 law enforcement agencies in 46 states. As of September 2002, ICAC task

forces had participated in more than 3,500 investigations and assisted in more than 2,500 computer

forensic examinations. 

In FY 2002, OJJDP published Protecting Children

in Cyberspace: The ICAC Task Force Program. This

Bulletin provides an overview of the ICAC

program.

Model Courts Initiative

Studies indicate that children who are abused

and neglected are at significantly higher risk for

academic failure, chronic delinquency, adult criminal behavior, antisocial personality disorder, and

violent crime. Studies have also shown that the

longer a child remains in out-of-home care, the

greater the probability of negative outcomes. Preliminary research suggests that more efficient and

effective dependency courts can reduce the length

of time children spend in the system. Through the

Model Courts initiative, the National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ)

of Reno, NV, provides intensive training and technical assistance to improve the courts’ handling of

child abuse and neglect cases and ensure more

timely decisionmaking in permanency planning. 

With OJJDP funding support, NCJFCJ assisted

24 Model Court programs across the nation during

FY 2002. Model Court sites tailor and implement the

promising practices outlined in Resource Guidelines:

Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases,

a nationally recognized handbook developed by

NCJFCJ for use by dependency courts and the

child welfare community with which they collaborate. NCJFCJ also incorporates lessons gleaned from

reforms in Model Court sites into publications and

other forms of technical assistance for dependency

courts nationwide. More information about the

Model Courts initiative and the achievements of individual courts is available on NCJFCJ’s Web site

(www.pppncjfcj.org/html/model_courts.html).

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

Since 1984, NCMEC, located in Alexandria, VA,

has spearheaded a national effort to prevent child

abduction and exploitation and to return missing

children to their families. The center operates a 

24-hour toll-free hotline (800–843–5678), which

has received more than 1.7 million calls from

around the world. The hotline staff can handle

phone calls in more than 140 languages. 

NCMEC maintains a Web site (www.missingkids.

com), which includes publications and information

about protecting children. The center also manages

the CyberTipline (www.cybertipline.com), where

citizens can report suspicious online activity involving sexual exploitation of children.

During FY 2002, NCMEC took the lead in a

national campaign to implement AMBER Alerts

(see page 8). The center also assisted OJJDP

in sponsoring National Missing Children’s Day

(see page 13) and the White House Conference

on Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children

(see page 14). 

NCMEC, in partnership with Toys “R” Us, launched

the National Photo ID Program. Introduced in all

Toys “R” Us stores, the program provides parents

with an up-to-date photo of their child. The photo is
12 FY 2002

Annual Report

taken with a digital camera and logged onto a floppy

disk, which contains other pertinent information that

can be used if the child becomes missing. 

In addition, NCMEC’s International Division updated its Web site with a new section, “Resources

for Attorneys Handling International Child Abduction Cases.” The new section provides information

to support attorneys working on cases involving the

Hague Convention, a treaty designed to deter international child abduction. 

National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway,

and Thrownaway Children

The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and

frightening kidnappings reported in the national

news. But a child can be missing for many reasons,

and the problem of missing children is far more

complex than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear

picture of how many children become missing—

and why—is an important step in addressing the

problem. OJJDP released important new findings

from a major research study about this issue at the

White House Conference on Missing, Exploited,

and Runaway Children in October 2002 (see page

14). The findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway,

and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2) provide national estimates of missing children based

on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies. The study

also presents statistical profiles of these children,

including their demographic characteristics and

the circumstances of their disappearances. The

first NISMART study was conducted in 1988;

NISMART–2 spanned the years 1997 to 1999. 

To help disseminate findings from the surveys,

OJJDP designed and released a special series of

NISMART–2 publications. To date, two online Fact

Sheets and four Bulletins have been released. The

online Fact Sheets are Highlights From the NISMART

Bulletins and NISMART Questions and Answers. The

four Bulletins present selected survey findings, 

analyze the findings, and discuss their policy implications. Key findings from the Bulletins are highlighted below.

✦ National Estimates of Missing Children: An

Overview. The total number of children who

were missing from their caretakers in 1999

(i.e., their caretakers did not know their whereabouts and were alarmed for at least an hour

while trying to locate them) is estimated to

be 1,315,600. Nearly all of these children

(1,312,800 or 99.8 percent) had returned

home or had been located by the time the

study data were collected.

✦ Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics. During the study

year, there were an estimated 115 stereotypical

kidnappings, defined as abductions perpetrated

by a stranger or slight acquaintance and involving a child who was transported 50 or more

miles, detained overnight, held for ransom or

with intent to keep the child permanently, or

killed. In 40 percent of stereotypical kidnappings, the child was killed.

✦ Children Abducted by Family Members: National

Estimates and Characteristics. An estimated

203,900 children were victims of a family abduction in 1999. Among these, 117,200 were missing

from their caretakers, and of these, an estimated

56,500 were reported to authorities for assistance

in locating the children. 

✦ Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics. In 1999, an estimated

1,682,900 youth had a runaway/thrownaway

episode (i.e., either ran away from home or were

thrown out by their caregivers). Of these youth,

37 percent were missing from their caretakers

and 21 percent were reported to authorities for

purposes of locating the youth. 
FY 2002 13

Annual Report

National Missing

Children’s Day

On May 23, 2002,

OJJDP and NCMEC

marked the 20th anniversary of the Missing

Children’s Act at the

annual National Missing Children’s Day

ceremony, held at the

DOJ Great Hall of

Justice in Washington,

DC. The theme was

“20 Years of Searching

To Bring Our Missing

Children Home.”

Guests included children who had been missing but

were found and reunited with their families, parents

of children who were still missing, law enforcement

officers who investigate these cases, child advocates,

and individuals and corporate sponsors dedicated to

reuniting families. During the ceremony, former U.S.

Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida, one of the leading

proponents of the Missing Children’s Act, recalled

the challenges encountered in passing the Act.

The prestigious Law Enforcement Officers of the

Year Award was shared by four officers, who were

recognized for their combined, multijurisdictional

efforts to find a 17-year-old girl who was abducted

from a shopping mall parking lot in Kearney, NE.

The girl was recovered 7 days later in Montana and

reunited with her family. Honorees were Undersheriff Michael Sargeant and Sheriff William Barron from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office in

Polson, MT; Special Agent Douglas Schreurs from

the FBI Field Office in Grand Island, NE; and

Investigator Tony Cordova from the Kearney Police

Department. Eight other law enforcement officers

and two organizations were also honored for their

efforts on behalf of abducted and abused children.

The Volunteer Award for 2002 went to Steven

Cullen, Esq., of the Miles & Stockbridge law firm

in Baltimore, MD, in recognition of the thousands

of hours of services he has donated to parents

whose children have been abducted to other countries. ChoicePoint, Inc., of Alpharetta, GA, received

the 2002 Corporate Leadership Award. 

Several youth were also recognized at the ceremony, illustrating that children play a crucial role

in the safety and recovery of other youth. Keisha

Reigert of Cape Girardeau, MO, and Lorelie Trujillo of Irving, TX, received 2002 Courage Awards

for helping to bring missing children home to their

families. Kelsey Sauerer, a middle school student

from Sartell, MN, received a certificate for creating

the winning poster in the 2002 Missing Children’s

Day Art Contest.

Safe Start Initiative

OJJDP began the Safe Start Initiative in FY 1999

to help communities prevent and reduce the impact

of family and community violence on young children. The program is based in part on the Child

Development-Community Policing (CD–CP) pilot

program developed by Yale University and the New

Haven (CT) Police Department with OJJDP support. The CD–CP program brings together police

officers and mental health professionals to provide

constructive intervention for children who have

witnessed or been victims of violent crime.

OJJDP awarded more than $6 million in grants

in FY 2001 to nine sites to develop comprehensive

programs to help children exposed to violence. The

sites are Baltimore, MD; Bridgeport, CT; Chatham

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

Rochester, NY; San Francisco, CA; Spokane, WA;

and Washington County, ME. In FY 2002, OJJDP

added two tribal sites to the initiative: Pueblo of

Zuni, NM; and Sitka Tribe, AK. 

The grantees used their first-year funding to review existing community services and identify gaps.

Based on these reviews, each site has developed and

is now implementing a 6-year comprehensive plan

that emphasizes coordination among law enforcement, mental health and medical professionals, and

child protective services providers. These plans
14 FY 2002

Annual Report

include efforts such as child advocacy centers, home

visitation programs, and domestic violence services

for battered mothers whose children are at high risk

of exposure to violence. 

In addition to funding these 11 Safe Start sites,

OJJDP continued support for 18 more months to

two sites—Miami, FL, and Newark, NJ—that are

focusing on specific improvements to services for

children exposed to violence. The National Civic

League of Denver, CO, through its office in Washington, DC, is working with OJJDP to coordinate

and provide broad-based training and technical support to the Safe Start sites. In addition, a national

team led by Caliber Associates of Fairfax, VA, is

collaborating with the National Center for Children

Exposed to Violence, located in New Haven, CT, to

provide training and technical support to help sites

develop partnerships between police and mental

health professionals. 

White House Conference on

Missing, Exploited, and

Runaway Children

A major achievement for OJJDP in 2002 was its

participation in the first White House Conference

on Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children,

which was held October 2, 2002, in Washington,

DC. President Bush presented keynote remarks at

the conference, and several top-ranking federal

officials—Attorney General John Ashcroft, Health

and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson,

Education Secretary Rod Paige, FBI Director

Robert Mueller, and Secretary of State Colin 

Powell—took part in the conference. OJJDP and

NCMEC joined the White House in sponsoring the

event. The all-day conference drew more than 600

attendees, including officials from all levels of government, law enforcement personnel, families of

child victims, researchers, and corporate leaders.

The President told participants: 

[This conference] is the beginning of a refocused

effort at the federal level to help save people’s

lives. . . . This is the beginning of a successful

strategy implemented at all levels of government

and all parts of our society to recognize a real

threat and to deal with it; to recognize there are

some so evil in our society that they’re willing

to harm our most precious and most vulnerable

citizens; to be prepared to respond quickly when

that happens; to help people prevent it from happening in the first place; and to make it clear, if

you do it and we catch you, there’s going to be

serious consequences for you. 

Both the Attorney General and the FBI Director

stressed that efforts to address the problem of missing and exploited children remain a DOJ priority,

even as the Department focuses on homeland security issues. 

The conference included seven panel sessions, which

centered on recent research findings, prevention of

child victimization, and effective law enforcement

policies for handling crimes against children. One

session addressed concerns, prompted by a number

of nationally publicized abductions during the summer of 2002, that law enforcement cannot always

prevent abductions or return children unharmed

to their families. OJJDP Administrator J. Robert

Flores moderated this panel session on “What

Works,” which highlighted technologies, law enforcement efforts, and community responses that

demonstrate how much progress has been made in

developing tools to help keep children safe from

abduction and exploitation. Other topics discussed

in the panel sessions included child abduction,

domestic and international parental kidnapping, sex

trafficking of children, child pornography, runaway

and homeless youth, Internet safety, and corporate

and community involvement.

In connection with the conference, the White House

announced the release of a new guidebook, Personal

Safety for Children: A Guide for Parents, available in

English and Spanish at the NCMEC Web site.

OJJDP also announced the release of an updated

edition of its guidebook for families of missing children, When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide, and the recent publication of A Law Enforcement Guide on International Parental Kidnapping.
FY 2002 15

Annual Report

OJJDP also released a new series of publications

based on the Second National Incidence Studies of

Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway

Children (NISMART–2) (see page 12).

Additional information about the conference,

including remarks by the President and other 

high-ranking federal officials, is available at

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/white_house_conf.

New Publications

OJJDP published several documents in FY 2002

to help researchers, law enforcement, parents,

and the public respond to child victimization.

These included the NISMART–2 publications

described on page 12 and the publications described below.

The Criminal Justice System’s Response to Parental

Abduction. OJJDP funded a study to determine

whether and how the criminal justice system intervenes when parents abduct their children. The

study reviewed all stages of the criminal justice

system’s response to parental abduction, including

the reporting of the abduction, investigation of

the case, finding and recovery of the child, and

criminal prosecution of the perpetrator or perpetrators. This 16-page Bulletin summarizes findings

from the study, which was conducted for OJJDP

by the American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law, located in Washington, DC,

and Westat, located in Rockville, MD. 

A Family Resource Guide on International Parental

Kidnapping. Every year, hundreds of children in the

United States are victims of international parental

kidnapping, defined as an abduction to a foreign

country by a noncustodial parent. This 148-page

publication provides detailed and practical advice

about preventing international kidnapping and

increasing the chance that children who are kidnapped or wrongfully retained will be returned. The

guide discusses what can be done to prevent an

international parental kidnapping, stop a kidnapping in progress, locate a kidnapped or wrongfully

retained child in another country, bring an abductor

to justice, recover a kidnapped or wrongfully retained child from another country, and reestablish

access to a child in another country. The guide also

presents descriptions and realistic assessments of

the civil and criminal remedies available in international parental kidnapping cases. It explains applicable laws, offers practical advice on overcoming

frequently encountered obstacles, and prepares parents for the legal and emotional difficulties they may

experience. 

Issues in Resolving Cases of International Child

Abduction by Parents. This 20-page Bulletin

describes key findings from a study funded by

OJJDP to identify barriers encountered by those

seeking to resolve cases of international child

abduction by parents. The Bulletin features highlights from the study, including survey results, best

practices, and recommendations. The study is one

of the first attempts to develop extensive research

findings about the experiences of left-behind parents, practices of the Hague Convention Central

Authorities, and strategies that can be used by

attorneys, judges, law enforcement personnel, and

other professionals in recovering abducted children

quickly and safely. The study was conducted for

OJJDP by the American Bar Association’s Center

on Children and the Law.

A Law Enforcement Guide on International Parental

Kidnapping. A companion publication to A Family

Resource Guide on International Parental Kidnapping,

described above, this 116-page guide is designed for

local, state, and federal law enforcement officers

When a child’s liberty and innocence are taken,

it is a terrible, terrible loss. And those responsible

have committed a terrible crime. Our society has

a solemn duty to shield children from exploitation

and danger.

President George W. Bush, 

October 2, 2002
16 FY 2002

Annual Report

called upon to respond to cases of international

parental kidnapping. Although these cases present

formidable challenges, the challenges can be overcome when law enforcement actions are timely and

informed. This guide presents information that officers need to work effectively with custodial parents

to locate and reclaim their children. The guide suggests ways to prevent international abductions; discusses applicable laws, legal remedies, and potential

liabilities; describes the role of law enforcement as

the initial responder and investigator; and offers

strategies for extradition, reunification, and recovery. (Note that this publication is not available

online.)

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and

Enforcement Act. This 16-page Bulletin describes

the most recent in a series of laws designed to deter

interstate parental kidnapping and promote uniform

jurisdiction and enforcement provisions in interstate

child-custody and visitation cases. The law was

approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1997.

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. OJJDP released a second edition of this

popular 94-page guide in October 2002. Written

in 1998 by parents for parents, the guide provides

firsthand insights into what families can expect and

should do when their children are missing. The updated guide includes new contact information and

Web sites. The guide is divided into seven chapters,

each structured to help parents find information

quickly and easily. The chapters explain both shortand long-term issues and provide checklists and

chapter summaries for later reference. A Spanish

translation—Cuando su Niño Desaparece: Una Guía

para la Supervivencia de la Familia—is also available.

On the Horizon

Responding to Prostitution of Children

Recognizing that exploitation through prostitution

and pornography is an extremely damaging form

of child victimization, OJJDP began laying the

groundwork in FY 2002 to make this critical issue

a priority in FY 2003. As an important first step,

the agency held a summit to address the problem

of commercial sexual exploitation of children and

youth. More than 130 individuals from across the

nation attended the 2-day event. The theme was

“Protecting Our Children: Working Together To

End Child Prostitution.” Participants developed recommendations for policy considerations and action

steps at the federal, state, and local levels and identified a number of needs. Larry D. Thompson, Deputy

Attorney General, and Deborah J. Daniels, Assistant

Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs,

addressed summit participants. Participants also

heard from individuals who had experienced sexual

exploitation as children. Next steps for OJJDP

include implementing its initiative to address commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth

and holding a satellite teleconference on the issue.

Strengthening Abuse and Neglect

Courts in America

During FY 2002, OJJDP developed a new project to help courts that handle child abuse and

neglect cases manage and track data. A competitive solicitation for the Strengthening Abuse and

Neglect Courts in America: Management Information Systems Project (SANCA MIS) was released

in March 2003. This project will help abuse and

neglect courts develop, implement, and maintain

automated information systems, which will enhance

court compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 by automating national functional

data standards and tracking national performance

measures. The solicitation is based on the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act (Public Law

106–314, authorized in October 2000).
FY 2002 17

Annual Report

OJJDP recognizes the importance of taking

aggressive steps to stop delinquency before it happens and of intervening swiftly and appropriately

when it does. During FY 2002, the Office continued to support a variety of activities that help communities and states develop and implement effective

prevention and intervention programs. 

Many of these programs stress the importance of

coordinating community and agency services and

resources. Coordination not only helps eliminate

duplication of efforts, it also helps governments

and organizations stretch their dollars as budgets

shrink. The federal government has its own tool

to help coordinate federal delinquency prevention

programs—the Coordinating Council on Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. During FY

2002, OJJDP took steps to ensure that the federal

agencies that make up the Council work in tandem

on programs to more efficiently help the nation’s

children. 

Several of the Office’s prevention programs also

involve community support. Examples include the

Drug-Free Communities Support Program, the

Juvenile Mentoring Program, and the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program. Each draws

heavily on community involvement and strives to

implement programs that help keep young people

out of the juvenile justice system. Another initiative, Safe Schools/Healthy Students, helps school

districts link prevention activities with communitybased services.

Young people themselves can play an important role

in intervention activities. OJJDP’s youth court

program, in which nonviolent offenders are judged

by their peers, is one example of youth involvement.

The youth court program had many accomplishments in FY 2002, including international recognition at the United Nations’ Special Session on

Children.

Although it is important to help communities implement prevention and intervention strategies, it is

just as important to make sure that these strategies

work. That is why OJJDP continued to fund

national evaluations of several of the programs

highlighted here. 

The research, demonstration, and training and

technical assistance activities described in this

chapter reflect OJJDP’s commitment to helping

communities intervene early and effectively in children’s lives, before delinquency becomes a pattern

of behavior that leads to involvement in the juvenile

justice system.

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Numerous federal agencies have programs and

policies in place to serve the nation’s youth. Who

keeps track of all these programs and policies?

Who ensures that they are responsive to the nation’s

needs? Given the number of agencies, activities,

and individuals involved, a mechanism is needed to

monitor the scope and policy implications of these

efforts. The Coordinating Council on Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (the Council)

is that mechanism.

Established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as

amended, the Council is an independent body

within the executive branch of the federal government. The Council comprises ex officio members

from nine federal agencies and nine practitioner

members appointed by the President, the President

of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House. The

Attorney General serves as chairperson of the

Chapter 3

Preventing and Intervening in Delinquency
18 FY 2002

Annual Report

Council, and the Administrator of OJJDP serves

as vice chairperson.

The Council meets regularly to exchange information, ideas, and research findings. The meetings,

which are open to the public, are announced in

the Federal Register and on OJJDP’s Web site. An

agenda and a meeting summary are posted on the

Web site following each meeting. 

Developing faith- and community-based initiatives was the topic of the Council meeting held

on November 30, 2001. Speakers included James

Davids, Deputy Director of DOJ’s Faith-Based

Task Force, and Stanley Carlson-Thies, Associate

Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and

Community Initiatives.

Topics of the Council meeting held on May 17,

2002, were OJP’s Serious and Violent Offender

Reentry Initiative (see page 30) and the Weed

and Seed program. Weed and Seed is a communitybased grant program that encourages local and state

governments, citizens, and nonprofit agencies to

work with law enforcement to “weed” neighborhoods of criminals and “seed” these communities

with human services programs.

A Council meeting held on November 8, 2002,

spotlighted an antidrug initiative and also reviewed

research findings from an OJJDP study of child

delinquency. The Marijuana Initiative: Call to

Action, developed by the Office of National Drug

Control Policy’s Demand Reduction Office, educates the public about the negative consequences

of marijuana use. OJJDP’s Study Group on Very

Young Offenders investigated child delinquency, in

particular the development, intervention, and service needs of very young offenders.

To enhance the Council’s ability to investigate youth

issues and make recommendations about youth to

the President and Congress, the OJJDP Administrator has created subcommittees that will provide

opportunities for progress between the Council’s

quarterly meetings. These subcommittees will help

the Council assess member agencies’ existing

programs and expand the use of technology (such

as mapping tools) to identify service gaps and target

limited resources where they are needed most.

The first subcommittees will focus on five areas:

drugs/alcohol, education, family health, technology

and research, and tribal youth.

Drug-Free Communities

Support Program 

The Drug-Free Communities Support Program

(DFCSP) helps local community coalitions develop

and implement programs to prevent and reduce the

illegal use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco by youth.

During FY 2002, OJJDP awarded 70 new DFCSP

grants totaling $6,809,909. In addition, 462 programs received continuation grants totaling nearly

$38.5 million. Now in its fifth year of funding, this

program is supporting 532 community coalitions

in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. OJJDP administers DFCSP through an interagency agreement

with the White House Office of National Drug

Control Policy.

The 70 new DFCSP sites were selected through

a competitive review process from a pool of 448

applicants. Award amounts range from $61,989 to

$100,000. Participating coalitions are made up of

youth and parents; business and media representatives; school and law enforcement officials; youth

services, religious, and civic or volunteer organizations; health professionals and government agencies

with expertise in the field of substance abuse; and

others involved in reducing substance abuse. Award

amounts, contact information, and individual project summaries are available on the DFCSP section

of OJJDP’s Web site.

OJJDP also is funding a national evaluation of

DFCSP. The longitudinal study is assessing the

coalitions’ efforts to improve prevention infrastructure and community conditions and to address

youth risk and resiliency factors and substance

abuse patterns. A total of 214 grantees make up

the national evaluation sample; 21 of these sites
FY 2002 19

Annual Report

serve as intensive study sites. Now in its fifth year,

the evaluation is being conducted by Caliber Associates of Fairfax, VA.

During FY 2002, researchers analyzed grantees’

progress reports, data obtained during site visits

with the 21 intensive study grantees, and other

information—such as school-based survey data and

public access databases—provided by individual

grantees. Findings indicate that successful coalition

development often includes the involvement of

major community sectors in prevention efforts, a

strategy that promotes both commitment and the

efficient use of available resources. Researchers also

found that DFCSP grantees have been highly successful in involving multiple community sectors.

Nearly all (99 percent) of the grantees partner with

schools, and most (94 percent) collaborate with

more than 12 community partners. Government

agencies participate in 92 percent of the coalitions.

More than half (56 percent) of grantees reported

an increase in the number of active individuals

involved in their coalition between 2000 and 2002.

Many (60 percent) of the intensive study sites

reported that collaboration reduced duplication of

effort. However, only 20 percent reported avoiding

duplication of existing services.

Juvenile Mentoring Program 

Juvenile mentoring programs provide adult support

and positive role models to help at-risk youth overcome the challenges they face. During FY 2002,

OJJDP’s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP)

awarded more than $14 million in grants to juvenile

mentoring programs across the nation. These grants

are helping more than 5,000 at-risk youth in 38

states and the District of Columbia receive one-toone mentoring aimed at keeping them in school

and away from drugs and crime. The 3-year grants

range from $156,000 to $220,000. OJJDP has

been awarding JUMP grants since 1995.3 The

new awards in FY 2002 bring the total number

of JUMP-funded sites to 269 in 48 states and 

2 territories.

OJJDP selected the new sites through a competitive review process from a pool of 863 applicants.4

The selected mentoring sites are focusing on three

In Memory of Lauren Ziegler

OJJDP staff members were saddened by the

sudden death of Lauren S. Ziegler, 34, from a

pulmonary embolism on November 7, 2002.

Ms. Ziegler managed the Drug-Free Communities

Support Program for more than 4 years.

Ms. Ziegler, whose career was committed to

helping others, was a devoted community volunteer, donating much of her free time as a grief/

bereavement aide for Hospice Care of DC. She

received numerous awards, including recognition

from OJJDP for exemplary leadership and from

the Hospices of the National Capital Region for

her outstanding dedication.

J. Robert Flores, Administrator of OJJDP, Greg

Dixon, Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program, Office of National Drug

Control Policy, and Deborah J. Daniels, Assistant

Attorney General, OJP, spoke at a memorial service held at OJP. During the service, Cynthia

Ziegler of Chatham, NJ, accepted posthumous

recognitions of her daughter’s professional

accomplishments, including an award from the

White House Advisory Commission on Drug-Free

Communities acknowledging Lauren’s efforts to

prevent drug abuse among youth.

3

Under the 2002 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act, mentoring and several other

programs soon will be consolidated into a single Juvenile

Delinquency Prevention Block Grant Program.

4

The pool of applicants for FY 2002 was the largest in the history of JUMP. In FY 2003, rather than issuing a new solicitation, OJJDP is selecting grantees from unfunded, highly rated

applications received in FY 2002. The Office anticipates making 30 additional JUMP grant awards in FY 2003.
20 FY 2002

Annual Report

goals: improving academic performance, reducing

school dropout rates, and preventing delinquent

behavior. All sites are required to coordinate their

activities with local education agencies. The new

mentoring projects are working with children who

have an incarcerated parent, minority youth, American Indians, children in foster care, youth in special

education, and homeless youth. The projects have

recruited a wide range of mentors, including military personnel, college students, representatives of

faith-based organizations, business professionals,

tribal leaders, and law enforcement personnel. 

The grantees are equally distributed throughout

the nation, with about a quarter of the FY 2002

grants going to each of the four geographical

regions. More than 54 percent of the sites are in

urban areas, almost 38 percent are in rural areas,

and close to 8 percent are in suburban areas.

Twelve percent of the grants were awarded to 

faith-based organizations. 

To help strengthen the quality of JUMP, OJJDP

created and supports the National Mentoring Center at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory in Portland, OR. The center provides training

and technical assistance to JUMP grantees and

other mentoring programs, produces publications

and newsletters, and offers an online lending library

of mentoring resources. The center’s FY 2002 activities included a workshop on how to collaborate

with faith-based organizations in developing mentoring programs. Information from the workshop

will be used to develop materials on managing

mentoring programs in faith-based settings. 

The center also conducted an orientation meeting

for and needs assessment of new JUMP grantees,

published and distributed more than 5,000 copies

of two technical assistance packets, and produced

three newsletters. The newsletters focused on the

use of technology, diversity in mentoring, and

capacity strengthening. The center maintains a Web

site (www.nwrel.org/mentoring), which received

approximately 120,000 visits during FY 2002.

In addition, the center responded to more than

500 requests for technical assistance.

Since 1997, OJJDP has funded an evaluation of

JUMP. The evaluation, which is being conducted

by Information Technology International (ITI) of

Potomac, MD, is scheduled to run through 2003.

During FY 2002, researchers reviewed the approved evaluation design and used this review to

develop and expand evaluation activities. One

continuing activity, development of a publication

to help local projects conduct their own evaluations,

has as its goals improving the sustainability of the

projects and generating additional lessons learned.

ITI also expanded a special study of local education

agencies and their role in JUMP projects. In addition, researchers continued to implement a study

of the impact of mentoring on youth. This study,

which is gathering post-mentoring assessment data

on selected youth for 12-month periods, is designed

to measure the effectiveness of mentoring programs

in preventing delinquency, gang involvement, and

school-related problems (academic failure and

dropping out). Final findings are expected to be

released in 2005.

Safe Schools/Healthy 

Students Initiative 

OJJDP, in collaboration with several other federal

agencies, continues to support the Safe Schools/

Healthy Students (SS/HS) initiative, which helps

urban, rural, suburban, and tribal school districts

link prevention activities with community-based

services. The SS/HS initiative is an unprecedented

collaborative effort of the U.S. Departments of

Education (ED), Justice (DOJ), and Health and

Human Services (HHS). During FY 2002, these

agencies awarded grants totaling more than 

$80 million to 46 communities, bringing to 97

the number of SS/HS projects funded over the

past 3 years. A list of grantees is available from

the U.S. Department of Education Web site

(www.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/sshsdg.html). 

The SS/HS initiative encourages school districts

to develop comprehensive plans to prevent violence

and encourage positive child development. To

receive funding, the districts are required to work
FY 2002 21

Annual Report

with law enforcement officials, local mental health

authorities, juvenile justice officials, and communitybased organizations in developing the plans.

To support SS/HS projects, ED, OJJDP, and HHS

awarded a cooperative agreement in 1999 to the

National Mental Health Association of Alexandria,

VA, to establish the Safe Schools/Healthy Students

Action Center (www.sshsac.org). The center provides training and technical assistance to SS/HS

grantees and is managed by the Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS.

To help determine the effectiveness of the SS/HS

initiative, OJJDP, in collaboration with ED and

HHS, awarded a cooperative agreement in 1999

for a national evaluation to be conducted by Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle, NC,

and RMC Research Corporation of Portland, OR.

The evaluation is designed to provide information

on how coalitions and collaborations at the community level developed strategies to address the six

required elements of the SS/HS initiative. Specifically, the evaluation is examining two overarching

questions:

✦ How, and at what costs, did the SS/HS initiative

affect the local planning and implementation of

comprehensive, integrated strategies to provide

for healthy child and adolescent development and

a safe school environment?

✦ What is the impact of the SS/HS initiative on

healthy child and adolescent development and

a safe school environment?

Researchers are conducting a national cross-site

evaluation, which will demonstrate how community

collaborative efforts develop, function, and facilitate

change within community institutions and within

individuals. The evaluation has two components:

process and outcome. The process evaluation will

provide information on how the initiative was

implemented in the participating states. Findings

will generate insights about site attributes and

procedures that can enhance or impede successful

implementation. The outcome evaluation will investigate the impact of the initiative on issues such as

alcohol and substance use, violence, and “school climate.” Integrating findings from the two evaluation

components will result in a fuller understanding

of the impact of the initiative. Evaluation data

are being gathered in four waves, during spring

2001–2004. An interim report is expected in 2003,

a final report in 2005. 

Title V Community Prevention

Grants Program 

The Title V Community Prevention Grants Program,

established by the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of

1974, helps communities develop and implement

collaborative, community-based delinquency

prevention plans. The plans focus on risk and protective factors related to aspects of children’s lives

that research has shown are critical to the onset of

delinquent behavior. OJJDP awards Title V grants

to states based on the relative size of their populations subject to original juvenile court jurisdiction.

The states, in turn, award the funds to communities

to implement delinquency prevention plans that

meet their local needs. OJJDP also provides training and technical assistance to grantees and is funding a national evaluation of the program. 

From 1994 through 2002, approximately 1,400

communities in 49 states, the District of Columbia,

and 5 territories (referred to collectively herein as

“states”) have received Title V funding. In FY 2002,

OJJDP awarded more than $26.7 million under

the program, with allocations ranging from a minimum of $100,000 to a maximum of $3,403,000.

(Four of the five territories were eligible to receive

$33,000; Puerto Rico received $402,000, based on

the size of its juvenile population.)

As part of the Title V Program, OJJDP provides

training and technical assistance to help states and

communities build their capacity to plan and implement effective research-based prevention strategies.

Development Services Group, Inc. (DSG), of

Bethesda, MD, has provided this support to Title V

grantees since April 2000. During 2002, DSG
22 FY 2002

Annual Report

instructed more than 200 communities in a training

curriculum that emphasizes theory and evidencebased planning. The curriculum includes three

training sessions: Community Team Orientation,

Community Data Collection and Analysis, and

Community Plan and Program Development.

DSG also maintains a Title V listserv and produces

a Title V newsletter, Community Prevention: Title V

Update, for states and local subgrantees. Other

OJJDP-sponsored training activities in 2002 were

designed to increase the capacity of states in three

areas: understanding Title V requirements and

evaluating Title V applications, developing training

curriculums to help local prevention policy boards

evaluate and monitor subgrantees’ activities, and

developing scripts for training videos. Technical

assistance activities focused on increasing delivery

of assistance by telephone and on helping states

review applications and strengthen requests for

proposals.

During FY 2002, OJJDP continued to support

communities in their efforts to identify promising

and effective prevention programs. The Promising

and Effective Programs (PEP) Guide was developed in

2001 to help communities select research-based prevention programs. In 2002, OJJDP began expanding the guide with new program categories and also

began developing a searchable database of model

programs. The updated guide and the database are

expected to be available in 2003.

To help improve the Title V Program model and

encourage its implementation in more communities,

OJJDP has been evaluating the program’s effectiveness since 1998. The national evaluation is

being conducted by Caliber Associates of Fairfax,

VA. Researchers are examining the viability and

effectiveness of comprehensive, locally developed

prevention programs, based on risk and protective

factors, in 12 communities in 6 states (2 in each

state): Hawaii, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania,

Vermont, and Virginia. Evaluators are examining

two broad research questions:

✦ What is the impact of the Title V Program

on risk and protective factors and on juvenile

problem behaviors?

✦ What factors and activities lead to effective

implementation of the Title V Program model

and to positive outcomes?

Preliminary findings suggest that certain factors

seem to make a difference in the effectiveness of

risk-focused delinquency prevention programs.

The findings also suggest that states and communities with access to certain resources and support

systems may better understand the Title V model

and, therefore, implement it with greater success.

These findings are outlined in an OJJDP Fact

Sheet, National Evaluation of the Title V Community

Prevention Grants Program. 

Researchers have made a special effort to balance

evaluation activities between collecting data (including onsite interviews and observations) and providing evaluation training and technical assistance.

Because of their frequency and intensity, training

and technical assistance activities have played an

integral role in building both the evaluation capacity

of local communities and positive and lasting relationships between community members and the

national evaluation team. As community members

became more fully engaged in data collection

efforts, they also began to identify areas in which

they needed evaluation support and training. As a

result, technical assistance and training activities

have evolved throughout the evaluation effort from

basic workshops on the Title V Community SelfEvaluation Workbook, to local evaluation planning,

to training on topics such as developing local logic

models and data collection methods, plans, and

instruments. These activities have allowed the communities to participate fully in national evaluation

data collection activities. 

During FY 2002, the final year of the national

evaluation, researchers visited three national evaluation sites, implemented a data analysis plan, and

developed a publications plan for disseminating

evaluation findings in 2002 and 2003. Findings are
FY 2002 23

Annual Report

being disseminated through published articles,

conference presentations, and a final evaluation

report. 

In 2003, Caliber will submit its final evaluation

report to OJJDP. The report will highlight case

study and cross-site findings from the national evaluation and both program- and evaluation-related

“lessons learned.”

As an additional component of the Title V national

evaluation in each year since 1994, the Caliber team

has prepared OJJDP’s annual Title V Community

Prevention Grants Program Report to Congress. The

report describes the activities and accomplishments

of Title V grantees nationwide and has been particularly useful in identifying successful approaches

and making recommendations for future activities

under the program. The 2001 Report to Congress was

released in spring 2003.

Truancy Reduction Activities 

In 1998, OJJDP, DOJ’s Executive Office for Weed

and Seed, and the U.S. Department of Education’s

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Office initiated the Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program (TRDP).

The goal of the program is to encourage communities

to develop comprehensive approaches to identifying

and tracking truant youth and reducing truancy. Collaboration among community members is important

in addressing truancy problems because it produces

a shared vision, maximizes existing resources, and

results in a blend of services that can address a

variety of issues related to truancy. In TRDP,

programs are overseen at the community level by

a multiagency collaborative group that includes representatives from schools, social services agencies,

health organizations, law enforcement, courts, probation, businesses, and faith-based organizations.

TRDP includes seven sites in six states: California

(Department of Employment and Human Services,

Contra Costa County); Florida (State Attorney’s

Office, Jacksonville); Hawaii (University of Hawaii,

Honolulu); New York (Suffolk County Probation

Department, Yaphank); Texas (Mayor’s Anti-Gang

Office, Houston); and Washington (King County

Superior Court, Seattle, and Safe Streets Campaign,

Tacoma). The sites vary in size—serving anywhere

from 30 to 1,500 youth—and are diverse in geographic location, ethnic and sociodemographic

makeup, and community-based leadership. TRDP

has served more than 2,000 youth and more than

1,100 families. 

Communities in the TRDP sites are implementing

programs that link truant youth with communitybased services and programs. Services vary among

projects and include court diversions such as community truancy boards, truancy workshops, community

awareness campaigns, and collaboration among community agencies. Truancy case managers usually

work directly with youth and families, making home

visits, monitoring school attendance, providing tutoring, and referring youth and families to community

agencies as needed. All of the programs have strong

family collaboration as a component.

Hallmarks of Successful Title V Efforts

As noted in Title V 2001 Report to Congress,

three factors have emerged as hallmarks of

successful Title V efforts:

✦ Building broad-based community representation. Communities reap many benefits when

prevention planning involves not only a comprehensive array of youth-serving agencies and

organizations but also parents, youth, and

faith-based organizations.

✦ Integrating local prevention efforts. Communities that successfully integrate existing prevention efforts—regardless of the funding

source—into a single, comprehensive system

can maximize their resources, target multiple

problem areas, and enhance service delivery.

✦ Leveraging resources. The ability to identify

and cultivate sources of funding that will

sustain prevention strategies and program

activities is critical to long-term success. 
24 FY 2002

Annual Report

OJJDP also is funding an evaluation of TRDP,

conducted by the Colorado Foundation for Families

and Children of Denver, CO, in collaboration with

the demonstration sites. In FY 2002, all sites

showed an improvement in the context, structure,

and accomplishments of the community collaborative. The evaluation has found that maintaining the

stability of the collaborative is critical to the success

of truancy reduction efforts.

OJJDP has learned that a continuum of services

(incentives, prevention, early intervention, intensive

intervention, and “deep-end” consequences or sanctions) is important for successful program implementation and for program effectiveness. Early evidence

suggests that programs offering a full continuum of

services for children and their parents (in particular,

the consequences component) are most effective. 

The evaluation has identified the following key

components for truancy reduction programs:

✦ Consistent policy and practice.

✦ Meaningful parental involvement.

✦ Public awareness.

✦ Continuum of supports, services, incentives,

and consequences.

✦ Collaboration across the community.

✦ Programs to address related health issues.

✦ Effective and ongoing evaluation.

The data collected by the sites and the evaluator

are also helping to describe the population of truant

youth (and their families) targeted by the demonstration programs. Thousands of youth have had

contact with these programs. Some received minimal

intervention (such as education about attendance

laws), some received tickets and attended truancy

hearings, and some received home visits or attended

workshops. Others were tracked and monitored with

more intensive case management. The most common

needs identified by the sites had to do with academic,

mental health, and family problems.

During FY 2002, researchers reported early findings from the outcome component of the evaluation,

Promising Results From Truancy Reduction Demonstration Programs

Researchers have been tracking students in King County, WA, at 6-month intervals for up to 2 years. At 6

months, more than 50 percent of the students had shown some improvement or significant improvement in

all areas evaluated (academic performance, attendance, school discipline, and juvenile justice system involvement). By the 18th month, nearly all of the students had shown improvement (and the initial 50 percent had

shown further improvement).

Truancy reduction programs may not have an immediate impact, but a long-term commitment to working with

students who have attendance problems has shown promise. At 6 months, the Suffolk County, NY, TRDP site

saw little change in most (80–90 percent) of the students: they had neither worsened nor improved in key

areas. At 1 year, improvements began to show (35 percent had improved in academic performance, 25

percent in attendance). By 18 months, 40 percent had improved in academic performance, more than 50

percent in attendance, and nearly 40 percent in school discipline.

In Jacksonville, FL, TRDP appears to have substantially increased attendance for students in elementary and

middle schools. Between the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 school years, the percentage of students missing more

than 21 days of school dropped from 19.4 percent to 8.9 percent for elementary schools and from 14.7 percent to 7.8 percent for middle schools.
FY 2002 25

Annual Report

in which students at TRDP sites are being tracked

every 3 months for school attendance and academic

performance. These findings indicate that after just

3 months of participation in programs, 60 percent

of the students had fewer unexcused absences from

school, about one-third had fewer excused absences,

and about half improved their academic performance. (Findings for selected sites are highlighted

in “Promising Results From Truancy Reduction

Demonstration Programs,” page 24.)

In FY 2002, the ongoing demonstration program and

evaluation produced a number of useful tools and

resources for agencies and schools interested in confronting truancy in their own communities. Many

of these tools and resources are available on the

truancy Web site, “Promoting Truancy Prevention

and School Success” (www.truancyprevention.org).

OJJDP plans to expand its truancy efforts in

FY 2003 by strengthening the evaluation design

(to collect more outcome data) and developing

more tools and resources for communities planning

to target truancy. 

Youth Court Activities 

Youth courts are one of the fastest growing crime

intervention programs in the nation. In 1994, the

United States had 78 youth courts. Today, more

than 950 youth courts operate in 47 states and the

District of Columbia. These courts, also known as

teen courts and peer courts, offer an adjudicatory

venue in which nonviolent juvenile offenders are

sentenced by their peers. By involving the community and family members of offenders and victims,

youth courts influence the lives of juveniles in a

unique and positive way. 

OJJDP established the National Youth Court Center (NYCC) in 1999. The center is managed by the

American Probation and Parole Association of Lexington, KY, and is funded through OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program

(see page 47) in collaboration with the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NYCC

serves as an information clearinghouse, provides

training and technical assistance, develops resource

materials on how to establish and enhance youth

court programs, and maintains a Web site

(www.youthcourt.net). 

The year 2002 was a banner year for OJJDP’s

youth court project as the program received international recognition from the United Nations and

NYCC sponsored several major activities. In May

2002, youth courts were recognized at the United

Nations’ Special Session on Children. Every 10

years, UN member countries meet to establish a

global blueprint for the next decade. During the

special session, which was modeled as a youth court

hearing, OJJDP’s Administrator and two young

youth court volunteers—Robyn Gausman-Barnett

(Montgomery County, MD, Teen Court) and Bryan

Selchick (Colonie Youth Court, NY)—shared the

positive effects that youth court activities are having

on juveniles in the United States. A transcript of the

Administrator’s remarks is available on OJJDP’s

Web site.

To help promote youth courts and their achievements, activities, and volunteers, OJJDP and

NYCC designated September 2002 as the first

National Youth Court Month. The theme, “Positive

Peer Pressure, Teens Helping Teens,” was developed

by Toby Steinmetz, a youth member of the Pottstown

Area Teen Court in Stowe, PA. As part of the promotion, NYCC developed an action kit to help youth

court programs publicize local community projects

and activities through public education and community outreach. 
26 FY 2002

Annual Report

Earlier in the year, more than 1,000 individuals,

almost half of them youth, attended the National

Youth Court Conference held April 14–16, 2002, in

Arlington, VA. The conference included more than

63 workshops, which covered topics such as finding

and retaining volunteers, involving victims in the

youth court process, and incorporating restorative

justice principles in youth court programs. 

NYCC also developed several new resources, including the Youth Court Training Package, which

received the Distinguished Achievement Award

for Multimedia Instructional Materials, Young

Adult Category, from the Association of Educational Publishers. The training package contains

student training manuals for the different youth

court models, an instructor’s guide, a promotional

video, and a CD–ROM.

NYCC also developed a new Web site (www.

ycyouth.net) designed exclusively for youth court

youth volunteers. The site includes online training

on jury deliberation and case preparation, a youth

volunteer newsletter, information on starting a

youth court, answers to frequently asked questions

about youth courts, and other resources. 

On the Horizon 

During FY 2002, OJJDP solicited competitive applications for a program to test the effectiveness of

two school-based substance abuse programs: Project

ALERT and Project SUCCESS. Through the

Promising Programs for Substance Abuse Prevention: Replication and Evaluation Initiative, OJJDP

hopes to determine whether the positive outcomes

found in earlier evaluations of these programs can be

replicated in other sites. OJJDP plans to fund the

replication evaluation for 5 years. 
FY 2002 27

Annual Report

Just as it is important for communities to strive to

prevent and intervene in juvenile delinquency, it is

equally important for the juvenile justice system to

protect the public and hold offenders accountable.

Juvenile arrests for violent crime increased through

the mid-1980s and early 1990s, peaked in 1994,

and then maintained a steady decline through 2001

(the latest year for which arrest data are available).

Although encouraged by recent trends, OJJDP

remained committed during FY 2002 to helping law

enforcement enhance its response to juvenile crime.

At the core of this commitment are several training

and technical assistance initiatives. One of these

initiatives helps schools, law enforcement, communities, and juvenile justice agencies implement

School Resource Officer programs, which enhance

school safety. Another helps state, local, and tribal

law enforcement professionals address juvenile victimization, delinquency, and crime from a holistic

perspective.

Combating underage drinking also continued to

be an OJJDP priority. The Office’s multipronged

approach to this serious issue included block and

discretionary grants, training and technical assistance, and a national evaluation. Together, these

activities are helping communities increase law

enforcement responsiveness to the illegal sale of

alcohol to minors and educate adults and youth

about the consequences of underage drinking.

Serious, violent juvenile offenders remain a concern

to the nation and OJJDP. Recognizing the importance of reducing recidivism among these offenders,

OJJDP is participating in a major OJP reentry

initiative. Through this program, OJJDP is working to ensure that serious, violent juvenile offenders

who have been released from correctional facilities

can successfully reenter their communities and

become productive, law-abiding citizens.

The programs described in this chapter represent

the types of activities OJJDP believes have the

greatest potential for enhancing public safety and

strengthening law enforcement. OJJDP hopes that

these and similar programs can help ensure that the

juvenile justice system, while welcoming the continuing decline in juvenile crime, remains vigilant in

sustaining the progress that has been made.

Comprehensive School Safety Leadership Initiative 

OJJDP developed the Comprehensive School

Safety Leadership Initiative in FY 2000 to help

communities focus leadership and resources on

issues related to creating and maintaining safe

school environments. The initiative, which was

developed in collaboration with OJJDP grantees

Fox Valley Technical College of Appleton, WI, and

the National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children, is supported by funds transferred from

OJP’s Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services. 

The Comprehensive School Safety Leadership Initiative provides training and technical assistance to

help schools, law enforcement personnel, communities, and juvenile justice agencies take a leadership

role in implementing and sustaining effective School

Resource Officer (SRO) programs. The activities

are designed to build organizational capacity and

competency at all levels, from the individual SRO

through the chief executive, and to help create

sound policy and procedures. The program consists

of the following main education components:

✦ The Chief Executive Officer Safe School Forum,

designed for superintendents, police chiefs, probation officers, social services administrators,

and chief prosecutors, discusses critical roles and

Chapter 4

Enhancing Public Safety and Law Enforcement
28 FY 2002

Annual Report

responsibilities, information sharing, and policy

issues related to school safety and juvenile justice.

✦ The School Resource Officer Leadership Program

focuses on standards of excellence and best practices and is designed for police officers designated

as SROs, their supervisors, school district and

university police officers, and other school staff.

✦ The Safe Schools Interagency Team Planning

Program brings together chief executives of

schools and community, social services, and juvenile justice organizations to discuss information

sharing, cooperation, and coordination efforts.

The initiative includes a series of supplementary

training activities designed to ensure that SROs

have the skills they need to protect children and

address school crime, victimization, and safety

issues. The initiative also offers technical assistance

to help teams and participants who have completed

the above training sustain and support the programs

they have developed. 

The Comprehensive School Safety Leadership

Initiative has provided training and technical assistance to thousands of SROs and law enforcement,

school, and juvenile justice professionals in all 50

states. The initiative is having an impact. For example, many school districts and communities have

developed new programs and policies following the

Safe Schools Interagency Team Planning Program

seminars. Galveston, TX, hosted a truancy summit

to focus greater attention on the problem of chronic

truancy. As a result, the school board, law enforcement, and various community agencies signed a

memorandum of understanding to implement a comprehensive communitywide truancy reduction plan.

A school district in South Carolina revised its school

safety and crisis plans, developed an emergency

response CD–ROM, and prepared a districtwide

emergency management guide available in print and

on CD–ROM.

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program 

Congress has appropriated $25 million each year

since 1998 to support the Enforcing the Underage

Drinking Laws (EUDL) Program. The objectives

of the program are to establish statewide task forces

of state and local law enforcement and prosecutorial

agencies, develop public advertising campaigns, and

support innovative programs aimed at reducing

underage drinking. Administered by OJJDP, the

program awards block and discretionary grants to

states and provides training and technical assistance. In addition, OJJDP is funding a national

evaluation of the program. 

The accomplishments of the EUDL Program have

exceeded expectations. With the help of the funding

and leadership provided by OJJDP, states have

made measurable progress in reducing both the

availability of alcoholic beverages to minors and the

consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors. 

During FY 2002, OJJDP awarded block grants

of $360,000 to every state and the District of

Columbia. The funds are administered by a lead

state agency—in most cases a criminal justice/law

enforcement agency. Although EUDL funding supports a wide range of activities, most states focus on

enforcement activities. These states report a strong

emphasis on compliance checks of retail alcohol outlets to reduce sales to minors. Other enforcement

activities include crackdowns on false identification,

programs to reduce the provision of alcohol to

minors by older youth or by adults, “party patrols”

to prevent access to alcohol at large youth gatherings, “cops in shops” programs to deter attempts

by minors to purchase alcohol, and youth-focused

campaigns to enforce impaired driving laws. Many

states also report implementing or strengthening

laws and policies that can reduce underage drinking, such as establishing keg registration ordinances

to deter the purchase of beer kegs for underage use.
FY 2002 29

Annual Report

EUDL funding also has helped states promote community awareness of underage drinking, encourage

changes in norms regarding underage drinking, and

develop organizational structures and relationships

to support coordinated efforts. 

Whereas EUDL block grants are intended to

enhance state-level responses to underage drinking,

EUDL discretionary grants are designed to address

the problem through state-local partnerships. Since

1998, OJJDP has competitively awarded discretionary grants to a total of 26 states to implement

the EUDL Program at the local level. These states,

in turn, have provided subgrants to more than

200 local communities to implement a variety of

programs in concert with state agencies. In FY 2002,

OJJDP selected five states—Maine, Nebraska,

Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington—to

receive discretionary EUDL grants, which ranged

from $366,246 to $400,000. 

In general, local EUDL programs are making

progress in several areas: increasing law enforcement capacity to enforce underage drinking laws,

engaging and training youth to be leaders in combating underage drinking, increasing prevention

and public awareness efforts, and tackling the challenging issues of alcohol consumption on college

campuses.

Since 1998, OJJDP has supported intensive training

and technical assistance services provided through

the Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center (UDETC), which is managed by the Pacific

Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) of

Calverton, MD. Selection of topics and activities for

training and technical assistance has been guided

by UDETC’s needs assessments and by findings

from the national evaluation of the EUDL Program

(discussed on page 30). 

UDETC had a number of accomplishments during

FY 2002. The center’s third Annual Leadership Conference, held September 19–22, 2002, in Dallas, TX,

drew almost 900 participants, considerably more

than the attendance (249) at the first conference in

1999.5 The 2002 conference included a series of

workshops that focused on Indian country issues. 

The center distributed nearly 95,000 documents,

including the revised Drinking in America: Myths,

Realities, and Prevention Policy, which was updated to

reflect newly available data from the 1999 National

Household Survey on Drug Use. The center also

began work on a new publication, Indian Country

Law Enforcement and the Challenges of Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws. This document will be available

in 2003.

UDETC trained more than 7,500 individuals

through 122 training events held in 34 states and

territories. In addition, the training curriculum

was expanded to include youth, media advocacy,

advanced law enforcement and policy trainings,

and specialized training for American Indians.

The center coordinates a series of OJJDP audio

teleconferences about underage drinking. During

FY 2002, the series attracted 3,430 connections,

many of which had more than one person listening.

In addition to the regular audio teleconferences, the

center offered four calls that specifically addressed

issues confronting tribal communities. These calls

attracted more than 200 connections. A similar

series is being offered in 2003.

UDETC maintains a Web site (www.udetc.org),

which recorded 638,065 visits during 2002—more

than twice the number received in 2001. The Web

site includes a section titled “Success Stories,” which

highlights examples of state activities. During FY

2002, the center developed 15 new success stories

and added them to the site.

To help bring diverse perspectives and expertise to

training and technical assistance activities, PIRE

and OJJDP have enlisted a number of organizations as partners in UDETC. Major partners

include American Indian Development Associates

of Albuquerque, NM; Mothers Against Drunk

5

The 2001 conference was cancelled because of the events of

September 11.
30 FY 2002

Annual Report

Driving (MADD) of Dallas, TX; the National

Crime Prevention Council of Washington, DC;

the National Judicial College of Reno, NV; the

National Liquor Law Enforcement Association of

Raleigh, NC; and the Police Executive Research

Forum of Washington, DC.

OJJDP is funding a national evaluation of the

EUDL Program, conducted by researchers at

Wake Forest University School of Medicine in

Winston-Salem, NC. The study has two major

goals: to determine how states and communities

are using EUDL Program funds and to evaluate

the impact of the program in a sample of communities. Preliminary findings from the evaluation are

discussed in OJJDP Annual Report 2001. OJJDP

expects final findings in 2005.

Law Enforcement Training

and Technical Assistance

Program 

OJJDP’s Law Enforcement Training and Technical

Assistance Program offers training and specialized

assistance to state, local, and tribal law enforcement professionals. The training is provided by the

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

of Alexandria, VA. This program addresses juvenile

victimization, delinquency, and crime from a holistic

perspective. Curriculum development, training

implementation, and technical assistance activities

have been designed to strengthen existing multiagency teams and facilitate the creation of new

partnerships.

Using methods that are consistent with effective

police practices, the program addresses core issues

related to youth violence. It gives leaders throughout the juvenile justice system—including law

enforcement, prosecution, the courts, corrections,

and probation—strategic information, materials,

and training and technical assistance intended to

solve managerial problems that hinder implementation of effective strategies for preventing youth

crime. Issues addressed include school violence and

safety; youth-oriented community policing; gang

and drug involvement; serious, violent, and habitual

juvenile offenders; multidisciplinary youth violence

strategies; police management of youthful offenders;

and juvenile justice partnerships with tribal law

enforcement agencies.

During FY 2002, nearly 1,400 individuals attended

21 workshops conducted by IACP on 5 topics:

Building Juvenile Justice Partnerships With Tribal

Law Enforcement Agencies, Managing Juvenile

Operations, Partnerships for Safe Schools, Serious

Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program,

and Youth Gangs. IACP revises training designs

on the basis of feedback from law enforcement

advisory groups and workshop participants.

Serious and Violent Offender

Reentry Initiative 

The return of serious, high-risk offenders to communities has long been a factor in violent crime in

the United States. More than 630,000 offenders

are released from prison every year, and recidivism

among these offenders has become a pervasive

problem in many communities. A program that addresses this crisis was a major focus for OJP and

OJJDP in FY 2002. Developed by OJP in conjunction with several other federal partners, the Serious

and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (Reentry

A EUDL Success Story

When police and bar owners in Newport, RI,

noted an increase in the number of minors using

fake identification to buy alcohol, a program was

developed to ensure that the identification materials were confiscated and taken out of circulation.

To date, the program has netted more than 800

fake pieces of identification. Just as importantly,

the program has attracted considerable media

attention, helping to raise public awareness.
FY 2002 31

Annual Report

Initiative) is a collaborative effort of multiple federal

entities, including the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice,

Labor, and Veterans Affairs; the Social Security

Administration; and the White House Office of

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

In January 2002, OJP released a solicitation seeking

applications for funding to develop model reentry

strategies that serve offenders housed in correctional

institutions and support offenders’ transition to and

stabilization in the community. Subsequently, 68 programs in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and

the Virgin Islands were selected to share more than

$100 million in funding to develop such strategies.

OJJDP manages 23 of the programs that target a

juvenile population (ages 14–17).

The Reentry Initiative challenges each funded program to develop an effective service delivery plan

that includes coordinated case management and

monitoring and to establish a continuum of services

that incorporates screening and assessment and

individualized treatment and reentry plans.

Programs support offenders throughout three

phases of reentry:

✦ Institution-based programs are designed to prepare offenders to reenter society. Services in this

phase include education, mental health and substance abuse treatment, job training and preparation, mentoring, and diagnostic and risk

assessment.

✦ Community-based transition programs work with

offenders before and immediately after release.

Services include, as appropriate, education, monitoring, mentoring, life skills training, job skills

development, ongoing assessment, and mental

health and substance abuse treatment.

✦ Community-based long-term support programs

are designed to connect individuals who have

left the supervision of the justice system with

a network of social services agencies and

community-based organizations that provide

ongoing support. 

As part of the Reentry Initiative, OJJDP has played

a significant role in the development of OJP’s reentry Web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry). The Web

site provides an overview of the initiative, information about each of the 68 grantees, and additional

resources on promising programs that address the

reintegration of returning offenders into the community. It includes the following sections:

✦ Federal & National Resources, which links viewers to Web sites of OJP’s partners in the Reentry

Initiative, making it easy to find pertinent information. This section also contains information

about grant-writing resources.

✦ Publications, which provides a bibliography of

reentry-related publications (organized by topic

area) and links to online documents. 

✦ State Activities & Resources, which contains

information about each of OJP’s reentry

grantees, accessible by state. The section lists

state agency contacts, including state departments of corrections and education, and provides

descriptions of and links to local reentry organizations and resources. 

✦ Training & Technical Assistance, which guides

grantees to sources of assistance in implementing

their workplans.

The Web site also includes a “What’s New” section

and a calendar of upcoming reentry-related events. 

OJJDP’s National Training and Technical Assistance Center provides assistance to Reentry Initiative grantees. For details, see page 48.

New Publications 

Most of OJJDP’s publications are of interest to a

wide range of audiences. However, some publications developed during FY 2002 contain information of special interest to law enforcement agencies.

These include several publications related to missing and abused children, discussed on pages 15–16,

and the statistical Bulletin described on page 32.
32 FY 2002

Annual Report

Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime. Every 4

years, OJJDP publishes a national report that contains a wealth of information about juvenile offenders and victims. The report was last published in

September 1999. To provide access to the latest

information in interim years, OJJDP developed a

National Report Series of Bulletins. Law Enforcement

and Juvenile Crime is part of this series. This 32-page

Bulletin describes the extent and characteristics of

juvenile arrests in 1999. It provides arrest rates

for violent and property crimes, drug and weapon

offenses, and violations of alcohol, curfew, and

loitering laws. It also compares arrests and arrest

trends for males and females and for various racial

groups. 
FY 2002 33

Annual Report

OJJDP has been tracking the prevalence of youth

gangs since 1996. Findings from the National Youth

Gang Survey—an annual survey of a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies—

clearly demonstrate the importance of supporting

youth gang prevention, intervention, suppression,

and reintegration efforts. For example, survey data

available in FY 2002 showed that all cities with

populations of 250,000 or more reported gang activity in every year from 1996 to 2000. Eighty-six percent of cities with populations between 100,000 and

249,999 reported gangs in each of these 5 years, as

did 61 percent of cities with populations between

50,000 and 99,999. Youth gang activity is not confined to cities, however. Many suburban and rural

areas also experience significant gang activity. Survey results led researchers to estimate that more

than 24,500 gangs and 772,500 gang members were

active in 2000. Of the more than 1,000 jurisdictions

that reported youth gang activity in 2000, 84 percent

reported at least one incident involving gang use of a

firearm in an assault crime, and most reported gang

activity in at least one school (95 percent had activity in high schools, 91 percent in middle schools).

Related research further underscores the importance of effective gang prevention, intervention,

suppression, and reintegration efforts. Longitudinal

research supported by OJJDP has found that gang

members account for twice as many delinquent acts

as would be expected given their share of the population; the disproportionate contribution of gang

members to delinquency is even greater for more

serious offenses.

Recognizing that youth gangs are a serious national

issue, OJJDP has long supported the development

and implementation of demonstration programs that

address gang prevention, intervention, and suppression, as well as gang-related research and evaluation

activities, training and technical assistance, and

information dissemination. This chapter describes

examples of these activities. Special accomplishments in FY 2002 included a National Youth Gang

Symposium and the production of six new publications. These efforts reflect OJJDP’s commitment

to helping communities respond to the problem of

gangs and the violence associated with them.

Boys & Girls Clubs of America:

Targeted Outreach Programs 

During FY 2002, OJJDP continued to support

Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) Targeted

Outreach programs that address three aspects of

youth gangs: prevention, intervention, and reentry

after confinement. Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach works with youth at risk of gang

involvement. Gang Intervention Through Targeted

Outreach works with gang-involved youth. These

programs operate in the club setting and include

elements of community mobilization, active recruitment of and outreach to appropriate youth, promotion of positive developmental experiences, and

individualized case management. Gang Reentry

Through Targeted Outreach is a new program that

works with confinement facilities and uses both

facility-based and community-based components to

help gang-involved youth successfully return to

their communities after release from confinement.

During FY 2002, OJJDP provided funding to support 25 new prevention sites, 3 new intervention

sites, and 3 new reentry sites.

OJJDP also continues to provide funds to the

national BGCA organization in Atlanta, GA, to help

local affiliate clubs prevent youth from entering

gangs, intervene with gang members in the early

stages of gang involvement, and divert youth from

gangs into more constructive activities. Partnership

with OJJDP enhances the ability of BGCA to

Chapter 5

Addressing Youth Gangs
34 FY 2002

Annual Report

serve more than 3.6 million youth annually in more

than 3,300 clubs nationwide. BGCA has more than

25 national programs available to teach young people the skills they need to succeed. In addition

to gang prevention, programs include education,

health, alcohol/drug abuse prevention, pregnancy

prevention, leadership development, and athletics.

Gang-Free Schools and

Communities Initiative 

OJJDP developed the Gang-Free Schools and

Communities Initiative in 2001 to help schools and

communities address their youth gang problems.

In FY 2002, the Office continued to support 10

demonstration sites. The initiative has two components: the Comprehensive Gang Model: An

Enhanced School/Community Approach to Reducing Youth Gang Crime (Gang-Free Schools

Program) and the Gang-Free Communities Program. Both components are based on OJJDP’s

Comprehensive Gang Model, which includes five

key strategies: mobilizing communities, providing

social intervention services and street outreach, providing opportunities for youth, suppressing gang

violence, and facilitating organizational change.

These strategies are combined through a local multidisciplinary steering committee and intervention

team to implement gang prevention, intervention,

and suppression activities. Before implementation

can begin, grantees are required to complete a

detailed assessment of their community’s gang problem and a strategic planning process. OJJDP’s

National Youth Gang Center (see below) provides

training and technical assistance to the grantees. 

The Gang-Free Schools Program is a demonstration

program that incorporates school-focused enhancements to the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model.

The four participating sites are East Cleveland,

OH; Houston, TX; Miami, FL; and Pittsburgh, PA.

These sites have completed the assessment and

planning process and have begun implementation.

OJJDP also continues to support an evaluation of

this effort, conducted by the COSMOS Corporation of Bethesda, MD. 

Six sites—Broward County, FL; Lakewood, WA;

Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; San Francisco,

CA; and Washington, DC—are participating in

the Gang-Free Communities Program, which is

intended as a replication of earlier OJJDP-funded

efforts. These grantees received minimal federal

funding to start their programs and have leveraged

other local resources. Using their leveraged funding,

they have completed the assessment and planning

process and have begun implementation.

National Youth Gang Center 

In 1994, OJJDP established the National Youth

Gang Center (NYGC) at the Institute for Intergovernmental Research of Tallahassee, FL, to maintain

and expand the body of knowledge about youth

Evaluating Gang-Related 

Targeted Outreach

In partnership with OJJDP and others, Boys &

Girls Clubs of America has demonstrated the

effectiveness of its Targeted Outreach programs,

designed to prevent gang involvement among atrisk youth and intervene positively in the lives

of gang-involved youth. Evaluations showed the

following results among program participants:

✦ Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach:

delayed onset of gang behavior, less contact

with the justice system, fewer delinquent

behaviors, improved school outcomes, and

more positive social relationships. 

✦ Gang Intervention Through Targeted Outreach:

disengagement from gang-associated behaviors, less contact with the justice system, and

more positive engagement with school. 

Source: A.J.A. Arbreton and W.S. McClanahan, Targeted Outreach:

Boys & Girls Clubs of America’s Approach to Gang Prevention

and Intervention, Public/Private Ventures, 2002.
FY 2002 35

Annual Report

gangs and effective responses to them. NYGC’s

many functions include conducting surveys; providing reliable information to researchers, law

enforcement personnel, practitioners, and others;

maintaining a Web site; and providing training and

technical assistance to OJJDP grantees. 

Highlights of NYGC activities during FY 2002

included partnering with OJJDP to sponsor

the third National Youth Gang Symposium (see

page 36), releasing findings from two youth gang

surveys, and developing several publications.

NYGC has been conducting the National Youth

Gang Survey since 1995. This annual survey of

police and sheriff’s departments helps researchers

determine the extent of the nation’s gang problem.

Highlights from the surveys are published as

OJJDP Fact Sheets. Findings from the 2000

National Youth Gang Survey, which were released

by OJJDP in February 2002, suggest that the

youth gang problem in the United States continues

to be widespread and substantial.

Detailed results from each of the annual youth gang

surveys conducted from 1995 to 1998 were presented in annual summary reports. Detailed results

from subsequent surveys will be published every 3

years in a large report that combines findings from

the three most recent surveys. The first combined

report, which will include findings from the 1999,

2000, and 2001 surveys, is scheduled for publication

in 2004.

In response to a growing number of reports of

gang activity on American Indian lands, NYGC

conducted a survey in 2001 of youth gang activities

in Indian country during 2000. Highlights of findings from this survey were published in June 2002

(see page 37).

Findings from the annual surveys have led NYGC

researchers to track the changing boundaries of

youth gangs. For example, two NYGC research

studies have examined the characteristics of modernday youth gangs—those that have emerged since

1985, particularly during the 1990s. Half of the

localities that currently report gang activity say

their gangs first emerged in the 1990s. Compared

with earlier gangs, modern-day gangs have a far

higher proportion of younger gang members,

females, and middle-class teens. Recent years have

also seen the growth of hybrid gangs. Because

these groups do not fit the mold of earlier gangs,

NYGC uses the term “hybrid gang culture” to

describe them. Characterized by a mixture of gang

cultures, they often “cut and paste” bits of Hollywood images and big-city gang lore into their local

versions of gangs. They often have unclear rules or

codes of conduct, and they may use mixed symbols

(e.g., colors and graffiti) to identify themselves.

Their members may belong to multiple gangs, or

they may have symbolic associations with more than

one well-established gang. Hybrid gangs may not

follow the established rules or methods of operation

carried out by their predecessors from Los Angeles

or Chicago. These homegrown gangs consider

themselves to be distinct gangster entities with

no alliance to groups such as the Bloods/Crips or

Folk/People. Because the resulting hodgepodge

of features makes classifying these gangs difficult,

communities should make a comprehensive assessment of their local gang problems before determining appropriate responses. (Two OJJDP Bulletins,

Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs and Modern-Day Youth

Gangs, discussed on pages 36–37, summarize this

research.)

NYGC maintains a Web site (www.iir.com/nygc/),

which provides information about gang programs,

research, and legislation, including full-text publications, bibliographies of publications related to gang

research, and lists of gang legislation organized by

state and subject. The center also manages GANGINFO, an electronic mailing list, which provides a

forum for professionals to exchange information

about youth gangs. 

NYGC continues to provide training and technical

assistance to the 10 demonstration sites participating in the Gang-Free Schools and Communities

Initiative (see page 34). NYGC is assisting these

communities by developing training and support

materials, providing cross-site “cluster” training,
36 FY 2002

Annual Report

and offering onsite and remote training and technical assistance.

NYGC also provides technical support to the Youth

Gang Consortium, which is convened by OJJDP

three times a year to bring together federal departments and agencies engaged in antigang activities.

The consortium builds partnerships and coordinates

federal resources to help communities develop comprehensive local approaches to gang prevention,

intervention, and suppression. 

National Youth Gang

Symposium 

More than 1,200 individuals attended OJJDP’s

third National Youth Gang Symposium, held June

11–13, 2002, in Orlando, FL. The theme of the event

was “Together We Can: Comprehensive Approaches

to Youth Gangs.” The symposium was sponsored by

OJJDP in partnership with NYGC and the Boys

& Girls Clubs of America. Attendees included law

enforcement and corrections professionals who work

with gang members daily, community-based youth

outreach workers, social services and education professionals, and representatives from the faith-based

community.

The symposium’s keynote speaker was Father Greg

Boyle, executive director of Homeboy Industries,

Los Angeles, CA, which provides job opportunities

and support for young gang members. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft welcomed attendees via

video message. Drawing on the symposium’s theme,

OJJDP Administrator J. Robert Flores challenged

each symposium participant, upon returning home,

to meet with three individuals, agencies, or organizations; explain why they should be concerned

about youth gangs; and suggest positive ways to

address the local gang problem. 

The symposium featured plenary sessions led by

national experts and workshops that highlighted

recent gang trends and provided information about

innovative and effective programs to combat gang

problems. Workshop topics ranged from prison

gangs and their influence on the street to faithbased approaches to gangs. 

OJJDP’s first gang symposium was held in 1996

in Dallas, TX, followed by a second in 1999 in Las

Vegas, NV. Whereas most gang-related conferences

focus on intelligence information and are intended

only for law enforcement professionals, OJJDP’s

conferences have addressed a range of topics related

to youth gang prevention, intervention, and suppression and reintegration of gang members into the

community. The OJJDP conferences are open to

all professionals whose work brings them into contact with youth gangs, individual gang members,

and members’ families. 

New Publications 

OJJDP developed and published several new gangrelated publications during FY 2002. These publications, briefly described below, provide statistics and

analyses about youth gang problems. 

Early Precursors of Gang Membership: A Study

of Seattle Youth. This 6-page Bulletin presents

data from the Seattle Social Development Project

(SSDP), an OJJDP-sponsored longitudinal study

of youth living in high-crime neighborhoods. Focusing on youth who join gangs, the Bulletin analyzes

SSDP data on the relationship between risk factors

present at ages 10 to 12 and the likelihood of joining

a gang between ages 13 and 18. The Bulletin also

explores implications of the risk factor analysis for

the design of prevention strategies. 

Highlights of the 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

Major findings from the 2000 National Youth Gang

Survey are highlighted in this 2-page Fact Sheet.

Included are statistics on prevalence of gangs, gangrelated violent crime, gang activity in schools, gang

members returning to the community from prison,

and other topics. (A Fact Sheet presenting highlights

from the 2001 survey was released in April 2003.)

Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs. This 8-page Bulletin focuses on the nature of hybrid gangs, drawing

on survey data, research findings, and field reports
FY 2002 37

Annual Report

to detail the critical differences between these

groups and more traditional gangs. The Bulletin

also discusses related issues such as gang

stereotypes and gang migration.

Modern-Day Youth Gangs. Drawing on data from

National Youth Gang Surveys, this 12-page Bulletin

compares the characteristics of gangs in jurisdictions where gang problems began prior to 1991

with those in jurisdictions where gang problems

began more recently. 

National Youth Gang Survey Trends From 1996 to

2000. Findings from the five National Youth Gang

Surveys conducted since 1996 are highlighted in

this 2-page Fact Sheet. Topics include patterns of

gang activity, number of gangs and gang members,

gang-related homicides, and demographics of gang

members.

2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

This 2-page Fact Sheet published by NYGC presents findings from a survey undertaken to determine the prevalence, composition, and activities of

youth gangs in federally recognized tribes that are

not traditionally included in the National Youth

Gang Survey of law enforcement officials. This

Fact Sheet, which is discussed in more detail on

page 58, is available online from the Tribal Youth

Program page of OJJDP’s Web site or from the

NYGC Web site.

FY 2002 39

Annual Report

Many juvenile justice policymakers, practitioners,

and systems find themselves struggling to keep up

with the changing needs of the juveniles and communities they serve at the same time they are dealing with reduced budgets and programs. These

challenges make it essential for local and state governments to have reliable information about innovative, effective new programs and for them to have

the opportunity to participate in specialized training

and technical assistance activities. OJJDP works

closely with local and state governments to provide

them with the types of programs and services they

need to strengthen their juvenile justice systems.

At the core of these efforts is the Formula Grants

program, which provides formula and block grants

to states to assist in the development of activities

based specifically on the needs of the states and

their communities. As part of this effort, the Office

works with states to help them reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice

system. 

Encouraging states to develop programs that hold

young offenders accountable for their actions also

remained a priority for OJJDP in FY 2002, as did

providing incentives for states to respond to specific

challenge areas. In addition, the Office has instituted a new program, Targeted Community Action

Planning (TCAP), to help communities identify

and respond to their most pressing juvenile justice

needs. This program stresses the importance of

developing targeted community responses that

focus on results, not process.

OJJDP also provides juvenile justice advocacy

leaders and practitioners with the tools they need

to develop and implement effective programs by

offering an intensive program of training and technical assistance. To make it easier for practitioners

to access this information, the Office supports a

national center, which coordinates the services of

more than 70 OJJDP training and technical assistance providers. 

The programs discussed in this chapter illustrate

OJJDP’s efforts to help states and local communities reduce juvenile delinquency and strengthen

their juvenile justice systems. These efforts seek to

ensure that offenders are held accountable and

treated fairly, the public is protected, and appropriate prevention, intervention, and rehabilitative

services are available to meet the needs of victims,

families, and offenders. 

Addressing Disproportionate

Minority Confinement 

For more than a decade, OJJDP has been a leader

in efforts to reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in the nation’s juvenile justice system.

The 1988 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 required states participating in OJJDP’s Formula

Grants program (see page 41) to make efforts to

reduce the disproportionate confinement of minority youth in secure facilities. In 1992, Congress

elevated the issue of addressing disproportionate

minority confinement (DMC) to a core requirement

of the JJDP Act, meaning that states failing to

demonstrate efforts to reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in confinement would risk

losing 25 percent of their annual Formula Grant

allocation. OJJDP is helping states fulfill this

requirement by providing training and technical

assistance and by disseminating resources through

a DMC section on its Web site.

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. (REA), of

Chapel Hill, NC, is one of four OJJDP grantees

and contractors responsible for providing states

Chapter 6

Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System 
40 FY 2002

Annual Report

with technical assistance in their efforts to reduce

DMC. In FY 2001, REA developed a set of strategic tools and materials to help jurisdictions address

this issue and provided intensive technical assistance to several states. While working with these

states, REA developed a protocol for delivering

technical assistance in response to DMC issues. The

protocol was designed to help states identify and

prioritize interventions that have both immediate

and long-term effects. During FY 2002, REA provided intensive technical assistance services to

Alaska, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New

Mexico, and South Carolina and to two or three

local jurisdictions within each of these states. REA

also conducted a review of the status of all states’

efforts to reduce DMC. OJJDP and REA will use

findings from the review to develop a technical assistance plan to help states address DMC. In addition,

REA has established listservs to facilitate the sharing of information and skills and has identified and

trained approximately 50 potential consultants to

provide technical assistance on DMC-related issues. 

REA also developed an OJJDP Bulletin, Disproportionate Minority Confinement: A Review of the Research

Literature From 1989 Through 2001. The purpose of

this Bulletin, which is available as an online prepublication on OJJDP’s DMC Web page (see

next column), is to extend earlier analysis of

DMC by examining research found in professional academic journals and edited books during

the 12-year period.

OJJDP also provides funding to the Juvenile

Justice Evaluation Center (JJEC) to help states

enhance their capacity to evaluate their efforts to

reduce DMC. Operated by the Justice Research

and Statistical Association of Washington, DC,

JJEC develops publications and assists states in

incorporating evaluation into program development

and planning processes and in forming evaluation

partnerships with state and local juvenile justice

agencies and professionals.

OJJDP’s training and technical assistance provider

for the Formula Grants program, Development

Services Group, Inc. (DSG), of Bethesda, MD, also

works with states to address DMC. In FY 2002,

DSG responded to nearly 25 requests from states.

OJJDP, along with seven foundations and the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, also funded the Building Blocks for Youth initiative, a partnership of

organizations led by the Youth Law Center. The

Building Blocks for Youth initiative is dedicated to

protecting minority youth in the justice system and

to promoting rational and effective justice system

policies. Activities included conducting research,

analyzing decisionmaking, advocating for minority

youth, building constituencies for change, and

developing communication strategies.

In addition, OJJDP expanded its DMC research

consultant pool, which is made available to local

and state governments, by inviting 45 social science

researchers to an orientation meeting about DMC

research. A list of 22 qualified research consultants

resulted from this effort. The Office also sponsored

a DMC researchers’ focus group, which provided

guidance to OJJDP in developing a research

agenda. On an ongoing basis, the Office provides

training to OJJDP staff and other juvenile justice

professionals to help strengthen their understanding

of DMC and compliance issues. 

As mentioned above, OJJDP maintains a DMC

section on its Web site. The section provides information about related tools and resources, including

a catalog of state research reports and a technical

assistance manual to help states address DMC. The

catalog of state reports, which provides a central

repository for historical records of DMC efforts in

each state, has proven valuable to the field. The section also contains relevant publications and information about OJJDP’s DMC Working Group, which

coordinates the Office’s efforts to reduce DMC and

shares information about these efforts with OJJDP

and other DOJ staff. 

The 2002 reauthorization of the JJDP Act broadened the requirement of addressing disproportionate

minority confinement to address the disproportionate

numbers of minority youth who come into contact

with the juvenile justice system at any point. During

FY 2003, OJJDP will focus on enhancing its efforts
FY 2002 41

Annual Report

6

On November 2, 2002, the President signed into law the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 2002. This

new public law reauthorized the Formula Grants and Juvenile

Accountability Block Grants (formerly the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants) programs and authorized a new

Crime Prevention Block Grant. Changes to these programs

will not become effective until FY 2004.

7

Contact information for each state’s administering agency for

Formula Grants and other grants can be found at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/state.htm.

to address this issue, including helping states adopt

a comprehensive, balanced, and multidisciplinary

approach to reducing DMC. 

Formula Grants Program 

The Formula Grants program, established by the

JJDP Act of 1974, provides funds directly to

states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia

to help them implement comprehensive state juvenile justice plans based on detailed studies of needs

in their jurisdictions.6 (The term “states,” as used

throughout this section, refers to the 50 states, the

District of Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.) Forty-eight

states, the District of Columbia, and all five territories are participating in the Formula Grants

program. (South Dakota and Wyoming are not

participating.)

During FY 2002, OJJDP awarded more than $76

million to the states under the Formula Grants program to support a variety of juvenile justice activities,

from prevention efforts to secure confinement. Allocations are based on the number of juveniles under

age 18 in a state. In FY 2002, the allocations (other

than those for territories) ranged from $641,000

(Washington, DC) to $8.431 million (California).

The Governor of each state designates a state agency

to implement the Formula Grants program.7 Although the awards go to the designated agency, the

JJDP Act requires that two-thirds of all Formula

Grant funds be passed through to units of general

local government, local private agencies, and Indian

tribes that perform law enforcement functions.

To participate in the Formula Grants program, a

state must address 25 state planning requirements

set forth in the JJDP Act and comply with 4 core

protections for juveniles involved in the justice

system:

✦ Deinstitutionalizing status offenders and nonoffenders (DSO).

✦ Separating adult and juvenile offenders in secure

institutions (separation).

✦ Eliminating the practice of detaining or confining

juveniles in adult jails and lockups (jail and

lockup removal).

✦ Addressing the disproportionate confinement of

minority juveniles in secure juvenile justice system facilities and in jails and lockups where such

overrepresentation exists (DMC).

With OJJDP’s leadership, states continue to make

significant progress in achieving or maintaining

compliance with these core protections. The majority of the 54 participants in the Formula Grants

program are now in full compliance (or in full compliance with de minimis exceptions) with the first 3

requirements and are making satisfactory progress

in meeting the DMC requirement, which was added

as a core protection in 1992. Most states have completed the initial identification and assessment

phases for the DMC provision and are implementing the intervention and/or monitoring phases. Four

territories have completed the identification phase

and found that no DMC problem exists. Because of

the homogeneity of Puerto Rico’s population, the

U.S. Bureau of the Census has exempted the territory from reporting racial statistics; therefore,

Puerto Rico is exempt from the DMC requirement.

For more detailed information on individual states’

compliance with the core protections of the JJDP

Act, see the tables on pages 42–46. OJJDP’s efforts

to help states and communities address DMC are

described earlier, on pages 39–41. 
42 FY 2002

Annual Report

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Number of Jurisdictions

Full compliance—zero violations 7

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 44

Not in compliance 3

Not participating in FY 2002 Formula Grants program 2

Separation of Juvenile and Adult Offenders

Full compliance—zero violations 43

Full compliance—exception provision 10

Not in compliance 1

Jail and Lockup Removal

Full compliance—zero violations 12

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 40

Not in compliance 2

Not participating in FY 2002 Formula Grants program 2

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) 

Completed identification and assessment/

implementing intervention, monitoring, and evaluation 3

Completed identification and assessment/

25

Completed identification and assessment/

implementing intervention 11

Completed identification/implementing intervention/

5

Core Protections Compliance Summary Totals

(as of December 2002)

Note: States’ eligibility to receive FY 2002 formula grants was initially determined on the basis of 1999 monitoring reports for compliance with JJDP Act

core protections regarding DSO, separation, and jail and lockup removal and on the basis of information in FY 2002 Formula Grants program

comprehensive plans for compliance with the DMC core protection.

implementing intervention and conducting or planning monitoring

conducting or planning formal assessment

Completed/conducting identification or assessment

Exempt from DMC requirement or no DMC problem found 5

DMC status under review 2

Not participating in FY 2002 Formula Grants program 2

Not participating in FY 2002 Formula Grants program 2

3
FY 2002 43

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 2002)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotab

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingb

Amer. Samoa

Guam

N. Mariana Is.

Puerto Rico

Virgin Is.

TOTALS

Full compliance— 

de minimis exceptionsa ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance— 

zero 

violations

Not in compliance

State Compliance Based on 2000 Reports: Deinstitutionalization of 

Status Offenders (DSO), Sec. 223(a)(12)(A)

Formula 

Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 2002)

Full compliance— 

de minimis exceptionsa ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance— 

zero 

violations

Not in compliance

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

7 44 3

a

Fewer than 29.4 violations per 100,000 persons under age 18 in the state. 

b

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2002 Formula Grants program.
44 FY 2002

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 2002)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotab

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingb

Amer. Samoa

Guam

N. Mariana Is.

Puerto Rico

Virgin Is.

TOTALS

Full compliance—

exception provisiona ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance— 

zero 

violations

State Compliance Based on 2000 Reports: Separation of 

Juvenile and Adult Offenders, Sec. 223(a)(13)

Formula 

Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 2002)

Full compliance— 

exception provisiona

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance— 

zero 

violations

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

43 10

a

OJJDP regulatory criteria set forth in Section 31.303(f)(6)(ii) of the OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation (28 C.F.R. 31), 

and published in the May 31, 1995, Federal Register, allow states reporting noncompliant incidents to continue 

in the program provided the incidents are not in violation of state law and no pattern or practice exists.

b

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2002 Formula Grants program.

✦

✦

1

Not in compliance

Not in compliance
FY 2002 45

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 2002)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotab

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingb

Amer. Samoa

Guam

N. Mariana Is.

Puerto Rico

Virgin Is.

TOTALS

Full compliance— 

de minimis exceptionsa ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance— 

zero 

violations

Not in compliance

State Compliance Based on 2000 Reports: Jail and 

Lockup Removal, Sec. 223(a)(14)

Formula 

Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 2002)

Full compliance— 

de minimis exceptionsa ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance— 

zero 

violations

Not in compliance

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

12 40 2

a

State was found in compliance based on the numerical or substantive de minimis standard criteria set forth in Section 

31.303(f)(6)(iii)(B) of the OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation (28 C.F.R. 31) and published in the May 31, 1995, Federal Register.

b

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2002 Formula Grants program.
46 FY 2002

Annual Report

Formula

Grant

Participants

(as of December 2002)

Alabama

Alaskaa

Arizona

Arkansas

Californiaa

Colorado

Connecticut

Delawareb

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentuckyc

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusettsc

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexicoc

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolinac

South Dakotad

Tennesseea

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingd

Amer. Samoae

Guame

N. Mariana Is.e

Puerto Ricof

Virgin Is.e

TOTALS

Completed identification and

assessment/implementing

intervention and conducting

or planning monitoring

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

3 25 11 5 3 5 2

Completed identification

and assessment/implementing

intervention, monitoring,

and evaluation

Completed identification and

assessment/implementing

intervention

Completed identification/

implementing intervention/

conducting or planning formal

assessment

Completed/conducting

identification or assessment

Exempt from DMC requirement

or no DMC problem found

Completed identification and

assessment/implementing

intervention and conducting

or planning monitoring

Completed identification

and assessment/implementing

intervention, monitoring,

and evaluation

Completed identification and

assessment/implementing

intervention

Completed identification/

implementing intervention/

conducting or planning formal

assessment

Completed/conducting

identification or assessment

Exempt from DMC requirement

or no DMC problem found

DMC status under review

DMC status under review

Formula

Grant

Participants

(as of December 2002)

a

States that began to receive intensive DMC technical assistance in January 2002 to further enhance their DMC efforts.

b

State that received intensive DMC technical assistance from November 2000 to July 2001 to further enhance its DMC efforts.

c

States that received intensive DMC technical assistance since November 2000 to further enhance their DMC efforts.

d

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2002 Formula Grants program.

e

In four territories, it has been determined that minority juveniles are not disproportionately arrested or detained.

f

Puerto Rico is exempt from reporting racial statistics because of the homogeneity of its population.

State Compliance Based on FY 2002 Formula Grants Program Comprehensive Plan:

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC), Sec. 223(a)(23)

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦
Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grants

Program 

OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block

Grants (JAIBG) program strengthens the juvenile

justice system by encouraging states and local jurisdictions to implement accountability-based reforms.8

Under the program, OJJDP awards block grants

to states, which in turn distribute funds to local

jurisdictions. JAIBG also supports program-related

research, demonstration, evaluation, training, and

technical assistance activities.

During FY 2002, 56 eligible jurisdictions (including

all 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia) received JAIBG awards totaling $215 million.

The awards can be used to fund programs in 12

purpose areas, including construction of juvenile

detention and corrections facilities; development of

accountability-based sanctions programs; hiring

of prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and probation officers to address drug, gang, and youth

violence; and establishment and maintenance of

interagency information-sharing programs to promote more informed decisionmaking in the control,

supervision, and treatment of juvenile offenders.9

To help states and local jurisdictions implement

JAIBG programs, OJJDP provides training and

technical assistance through a grant to the OJJDP

National Training and Technical Assistance Center

(described on page 48) and 11 other training and

technical assistance providers. Since the program’s

inception, OJJDP, via its various grantees, has

responded to more than 5,000 technical assistance

requests. Training events, workshops, presentations,

and videoconferences have been provided to juvenile justice practitioners, including juvenile justice

specialists, judges, probation officers, law enforcement officers, court and school personnel, prosecutors, and detention staff. During FY 2002, the

training program featured five topical training sessions (held in different regions of the nation) for

state and local JAIBG grantees and several Webbased training sessions. By directly training state

and local practitioners on best practices in juvenile

accountability and graduated sanctions, OJJDP

helps state and local governments improve their

juvenile justice systems’ capacity to enhance

accountability. Additionally, OJJDP and OJP’s

Bureau of Justice Statistics established the JAIBG

Technical Support Center to help states calculate

the amount of JAIBG funds to be allocated to local

jurisdictions. 

To provide practitioners with information about

JAIBG, OJJDP has published a series of JAIBG

Best Practices Bulletins, which present up-to-date

information about specific JAIBG program purpose

areas. The Best Practices Bulletin Juvenile Gun Courts:

Promoting Accountability and Providing Treatment was

released during FY 2002. This Bulletin describes

the development of juvenile gun courts, which are

targeted interventions for youth charged with gun

offenses. Gun courts feature small caseloads, frequent hearings, immediate sanctions, family involvement, and treatment services. The final Bulletin in

the JAIBG Best Practices series, Best Practices in

Juvenile Accountability: Overview, was published in April

2003. 

In FY 1999, Abt Associates, Inc., of Cambridge, MA,

began a 48-month national evaluation of the JAIBG

program that focused on its administration, including

how grants are used by state and local recipients and

what types of programs are funded. The study also

documented state and local programs’ access to and

use of training and technical assistance, practitioners’

and policymakers’ attitudes toward the JAIBG

FY 2002 47

Annual Report

8

The November 2002 reauthorization of the JJDP Act changed

the name of the program to the Juvenile Accountability Block

Grants (JABG) program and revised the purpose areas, reporting and monitoring requirements, and other aspects of the program. The changes, which go into effect on October 1, 2003,

are highlighted in the Bulletin Changes to OJJDP’s Juvenile

Accountability Program.

9

The Bulletin Changes to OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Program,

described in footnote 8, includes a complete list of JAIBG

program purpose areas and the revised purpose areas under

JABG.
48 FY 2002

Annual Report

State Challenge Activities 

OJJDP’s State Challenge Activities Program was

established by the 1992 reauthorization of the JJDP

Act of 1974. This program provides incentives for

the states participating in the Formula Grants program (see page 41) to improve their juvenile justice

systems by developing, adopting, or improving policies and programs in 1 or more of 10 specific State

Challenge activities (see page 49). Only states participating in the Formula Grants program are eligible to

receive State Challenge grants.

During FY 2002, OJJDP awarded nearly $8.8

million in State Challenge grants to 48 states, the

District of Columbia, and 5 territories. The State

Challenge activities most often addressed during

FY 2002 were aftercare—or reentry—services

(24 states), gender bias policies and programs

program, and states’ responses to the JAIBG

purpose areas. In addition, evaluators conducted

a mail survey of state and local practitioners and

policymakers to assess their attitudes about the

JAIBG program and their perceptions of how

it was implemented in their jurisdictions. The

national evaluation has been completed and the

final report is available on the OJJDP Web site’s

JAIBG section.

National Training and

Technical Assistance Center 

Juvenile justice practitioners face enormous challenges in their efforts to change existing delinquency prevention and intervention practices in ways

that will improve outcomes. Recognizing that effective training and technical assistance (T&TA) can

boost such efforts, OJJDP established the National

Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC)

in 1995. Specifically, NTTAC was established to

increase responsiveness to consumer needs, promote

the use of best practices when providing T&TA, and

assist in the overall enhancement of OJJDP’s delivery of T&TA services. Operated by Caliber Associates of Fairfax, VA, the center coordinates the

services of more than 70 OJJDP T&TA providers.

The center also identifies and assesses T&TA resources in the field, collects and provides access to

the best available T&TA materials, develops new

T&TA materials, and disseminates model T&TA

protocols and guides.

During FY 2002, NTTAC began providing T&TA

to grantees of OJP’s Serious and Violent Offender

Reentry Initiative, described on pages 30–31. In collaboration with the federal partners participating in

the Reentry Initiative, NTTAC convened a meeting

in Washington, DC, for grantees. The theme of the

3-day meeting was “From Policy to Practice: Keys to

Opening the Doors to Reentry.” Some 600 state and

local decisionmakers and federal agency representatives attended the meeting and participated in events

designed to strengthen grantees’ efforts to develop

effective reentry programs. 

During FY 2003, NTTAC plans to update and disseminate the OJJDP Training and Technical Assistance

Resource Catalog, which provides contact information

and descriptions of the organizations funded by

OJJDP to provide T&TA. The center also will help

state juvenile corrections training academies facilitate revisions and updates of basic job descriptions

and will serve as a repository of training materials

developed by these academies.

How To Contact NTTAC

OJJDP National Training and Technical 

Assistance Center

10530 Rosehaven Street, Suite 400

Fairfax, VA 22030

800–830–4031

www.nttac.org
FY 2002 49

Annual Report

State Challenge Activities

Challenge Activity A: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide basic health,

mental health, and education services to youth

in the juvenile justice system.

Challenge Activity B: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide all juveniles in

the justice system access to counsel.

Challenge Activity C: Increasing community-based

alternatives to incarceration by establishing programs

(such as expanded use of probation, mediation, restitution, community service, treatment, home detention, intensive supervision, and electronic monitoring) and developing and adopting a set of objective

criteria for the appropriate placement of juveniles in

detention and secure confinement.

Challenge Activity D: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide secure settings

for violent juvenile offenders by closing down traditional training schools and replacing them with

secure settings that have capacities of no more than

50 youth and staff-youth ratios sufficient to permit

close supervision and effective treatment.

Challenge Activity E: Developing and adopting

policies to prohibit gender bias in juvenile placement and treatment and establishing programs to

ensure female youth access to the full range of

health and mental health services (including treatment for physical or sexual assault or abuse), educational opportunities, training and vocational 

services, instruction in self-defense, and instruction in parenting.

Challenge Activity F: Establishing and operating,

either directly or by contract, a State Ombudsman office for children, youth, and families to

investigate and resolve complaints relating to actions, inactions, or decisions of those providing

out-of-home care to children and youth. 

Challenge Activity G: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to remove status offenders

from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, when

appropriate.

Challenge Activity H: Developing and adopting

policies and programs designed to serve as alternatives to suspension and expulsion.

Challenge Activity I: Increasing aftercare services

by establishing programs and developing and

adopting policies to provide comprehensive

health, mental health, education, family, and

vocational services to youth upon their release

from the juvenile justice system.

Challenge Activity J: Developing and adopting

policies to establish a state administrative structure to develop program and fiscal policies for

children with emotional or behavioral problems

and their families. The structure would coordinate the activities of major child-serving systems

and implement a statewide case review system.

(22 states), basic system services and alternatives

to suspension and expulsion (19 states each), and

community-based alternatives (18 states). Activities least often addressed by states were violent

juvenile offender facilities (no states), state agency

coordination/case review system (2 states), state

ombudsman and access to counsel (3 states each),

and deinstitutionalization of status offenders and

nonoffenders (6 states). State-by-state details of

State Challenge activities are presented on page 50. 
50 FY 2002

Annual Report

FY 2002 Challenge Activities by State

A Basic System Services

B Access to Counsel

C Community-Based Alternatives

D Violent Juvenile Offender

Facilities

Note: South Dakota and Wyoming are ineligible because they are not participating in the Formula Grants program.

Alabama H,I

Alaska H,I

Arizona G,I

Arkansas A,I

California C,E,G,H,I

Colorado A,H

Connecticut G

Delaware C,I

District of Columbia A,E

Florida E,H

Georgia E,F

Hawaii E,G

Idaho A,H

Illinois E,C

Indiana A,H

Iowa E,J

Kansas A,C,G,H

Kentucky A,H

Louisiana

Maine C,H

Maryland A,C,I

Massachusetts C,H,I

Michigan E,I

Minnesota E,I

Mississippi B

Missouri A,C

Montana C,I

Nebraska A,E

Nevada E,I

New Hampshire E,H

New Jersey A,C,F,I

New Mexico C,E

New York A,H,I

North Carolina E,I

North Dakota H,I

Ohio A,C

Oklahoma C,J

Oregon E,H

State Activities State Activities State Activities

Pennsylvania A,E

Rhode Island E,H

South Carolina C,H

South Dakota

Tennessee B,F

Texas E,I

Utah A,I

Vermont E,H

Virginia A,G

Washington A,E

West Virginia C,I

Wisconsin E,I

Wyoming

American Samoa A,C

Guam C,I

N. Mariana Islands A,C

Puerto Rico B,I

Virgin Islands E,I

E Gender Bias Policies and

Programs

F State Ombudsman

G Deinstitutionalization of Status

Offenders and Nonoffenders

H Alternatives to Suspension and

Expulsion

I Aftercare Services

J State Agency Coordination/Case

Review System

FY 2002 Challenge Activity Summary

Number of states selecting each activity

0 5 15 20 25

19

3

18

0

22

3 

6

24 

2

A: Basic System Services

B: Access to Counsel

C: Community-Based Alternatives

D: Violent Juvenile Offender Facilities

E: Gender Bias Policies and Programs

F: State Ombudsman

G: Deinstitutionalization of Status 

 Offenders and Nonoffenders

H: Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion

I: Aftercare Services

J: State Agency Coordination/Case Review 

 System 10

H,I

19
Since the State Challenge program began in 1992,

states have used program funds to bring about farreaching systemic changes in their juvenile justice

systems. These changes have generated many publications and other useful products that help jurisdictions across the nation improve their juvenile justice

systems. To further help states implement systems

change, OJJDP is developing an online Juvenile

Justice Practices Series of Bulletins. The online

series, which will begin with the 10 State Challenge

activity areas, will be a useful resource for juvenile

justice practitioners, regardless of their funding

source. The Bulletins will summarize the latest

research, describe existing best practices that have

been demonstrated as effective or promising, highlight common characteristics of these practices, and

identify useful tools. Publication of these online Bulletins will be announced in OJJDP’s bimonthly

newsletter, OJJDP News @ a Glance (see page 63),

and on the Office’s Web site.

Targeted Community 

Action Planning 

OJJDP’s TCAP initiative is a new program that

will help communities identify and respond to their

most critical juvenile justice and delinquency prevention needs. Since 1995, OJJDP, in partnership

with states, has provided long-term training and

technical assistance to help communities across the

nation develop local comprehensive strategic planning efforts. Building on the lessons learned from

this experience, OJJDP developed the TCAP program, which stresses the importance of a strategy

that focuses on results, not process. The initiative

uses a four-phase approach—diagnostic assessment,

interviews of key community leaders, summit meeting of key leaders, and development and implementation of a targeted response. OJJDP began pilot

testing the TCAP initiative in Washington, DC, in

October 2002. During FY 2003, the Office will

select additional communities for pilot tests. To be

eligible to participate, communities must have the

following characteristics:

✦ An identified high rate of juvenile crime and

delinquency.

✦ A community population of no more than 250,000.

(In larger cities, the community population may

be defined as that of a specific quadrant or zip

code area.)

✦ An existing local decisionmaking component

or community champion who can convene key

community leaders.

OJJDP developed and released a solicitation in

FY 2002 seeking an organization to provide intensive training and technical assistance to help the

FY 2002 51

Annual Report

Key Elements of TCAP

✦ Involvement and commitment of community

leaders.

✦ Identification of communities’ existing resources

and capacity to collect and map data on problem behaviors, crime, and risk factors.

✦ Identification of local infrastructure that can

support community planning.

✦ Access to resources and tools that support

community planning.

✦ Community responses based on the most

effective program models.

✦ Multifaceted responses that involve the

continuum of youth services.

✦ Reallocation of existing resources to address

problems.
52 FY 2002

Annual Report

communities selected as TCAP pilot sites develop

and deliver a targeted response to their most pressing juvenile justice issues. The assistance will be

community based, results oriented, and the product

of best practices and promising programs. Development Services Group, Inc., of Bethesda, MD, was

competitively selected to provide the technical assistance for this project.

OJJDP has launched a TCAP page on its Web

site. The page provides comprehensive information on the initiative and offers links to a wealth

of related resources. It explains the initiative’s

background, key elements, and activities; describes

community eligibility requirements for receiving

TCAP technical assistance; and provides links to

organizations, agencies, and publications that can

help communities address needs related to prevention, intervention, immediate sanctions, corrections,

and reentry. During FY 2003, OJJDP will continue to enhance online resources for communities

that are involved or interested in community planning. A step-by-step tutorial on community planning, tools for community planners, and resources

for program development and system improvement

activities will be added to the Web page. 
FY 2002 53

Annual Report

Tribal communities across the nation face many

formidable challenges. Although the difficulties that

affect American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN)

communities are similar to those in many other areas,

some problems are especially pervasive among tribal

populations.10 These problems include disproportionately high levels of violent victimization, child

abuse and neglect, youth gang involvement, and cooccurrence of alcohol use and offending. In addition,

tribal youth are exposed to a variety of risk factors

that increase their chances of becoming involved in

delinquency and violent offending. Furthermore,

many tribal communities lack adequate resources for

families and youth and for the social services and law

enforcement agencies that serve them. For the past

several years, OJJDP has made addressing these

problems a priority and has been working with tribes

to enhance Indian country law enforcement and

improve the quality of life in tribal communities. 

For many years, OJJDP assisted AI/AN tribes

through the passthrough of Formula Grants program

funds by the states to Indian tribes, discretionary

grant funds, and training and technical assistance.

In 1999, Congress established the Tribal Youth Program (TYP), the first federal program dedicated

solely to the overall goals of preventing and controlling juvenile crime in AI/AN communities and improving tribal juvenile justice systems. Administered

by OJJDP, TYP was created through the Omnibus

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2002 (Public

Law 107–77) and is part of the Indian Country Law

Enforcement Improvement Initiative. This 4-year

federal initiative was established in 1999 by DOJ

and the U.S. Department of the Interior to address

the need for improved law enforcement and administration of criminal and juvenile justice in Indian

country.

During FY 2002, OJJDP supported five broad

program areas designed to help tribes address

juvenile crime:

✦ Tribal Youth Program.

✦ Tribal Youth Program Mental Health Initiative.

✦ Federal Comprehensive Indian Resources for

Community and Law Enforcement (CIRCLE).

✦ Training and Technical Assistance.

✦ Research and Evaluation.

In addition to these specific program areas, which

are discussed in detail in this chapter, many other

OJJDP activities include tribal components. For

example, OJJDP funding is helping three tribal

communities establish Children’s Advocacy Centers

(see page 9), which develop multidisciplinary programs to address child abuse and neglect cases. Two

tribal sites are participating in the Safe Start Initiative (see page 13), which is helping communities

develop comprehensive programs to assist children

exposed to violence.

OJJDP also is helping tribal communities address

disproportionately high levels of alcohol abuse

through its Underage Drinking Enforcement

Training Center (UDETC), discussed on page 29.

UDETC’s 2002 leadership conference included a

series of workshops that focused on Indian country

issues. The center also expanded its training curriculum to include specialized training for American

Indians, held four audio teleconferences that

Chapter 7

Implementing Tribal Youth Initiatives

10Federally recognized Indian tribes include Alaska Native

tribal governments. Under current law (consolidated Appropriations Act, 2002), the terms “Indian tribe,” “tribal,” or

“tribe(s)” in OJP statutes mean: “any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including Alaska

Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in

or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement

Act . . . which is recognized as eligible for the special programs

and services provided by the United States to Indians because

of their status as Indians.”
54 FY 2002

Annual Report

addressed tribal issues, and began developing a document about Indian country law enforcement and

the challenges of enforcing underage drinking laws.

In addition, OJJDP works with local, state, and

tribal law enforcement professionals through the

Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program (see page 30). Another important

accomplishment during FY 2002 was a new survey

conducted by the National Youth Gang Center to

provide reliable information about youth gangs in

Indian country (see page 58). 

The programs highlighted in this chapter represent

the range of issues facing many tribal communities

and OJJDP’s multifaceted approach to providing

federal resources and assistance. Together, these

initiatives have the potential to help build a better

future for AI/AN youth and their families. 

Tribal Youth Program 

Congress established the Tribal Youth Program

(TYP) in 1999 to help tribal communities address

their rising rates of juvenile delinquency and crime.

OJJDP manages TYP, which provides funds

directly to tribal communities to develop juvenile

delinquency prevention and control programs,

reduce violent crime by and against tribal youth,

and improve juvenile justice systems. 

In FY 2002, OJJDP awarded 43 TYP grants to

tribes in 20 states (see list on page 55). Grant

awards ranged from $136,057 to $500,000, depending on the size of the total AI/AN service population

living on or near a particular reservation. The FY

2002 grants bring to 145 the total number of TYP

grants awarded since 1999. The new FY 2002

grantees were competitively selected from 68 applications. Eligible applicants included federally recognized tribes, consortiums of tribes, and corporations

that represent Alaska Native villages. 

Tribes are using their grants for a variety of

activities. For example:

✦ The Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ,

through its Haznojhi Youth Diversion project,

is incorporating traditional and western education and therapy in an intensive 3-week diversion program for court-involved youth and their

families. Participants receive information and

training on topics such as communication, drug

and alcohol abuse, juvenile crime and its consequences, the impact of crime on victims and the

community, and the Navajo view of offenses

against the community.

✦ The Wampanoag Tribe, located in rural Aquinnah, MA, on the island of Martha’s Vineyard, is

establishing the Wampanoag Youth Program to

engage at-risk youth in culturally appropriate

activities. The program has targeted 41 tribal

youth who have been referred by the juvenile

court or who are considered to be at risk of

entering the juvenile justice system. Activities

will include alcohol and drug abuse prevention

education and cultural events such as tribal powwows, nature walks, storytelling, and drumming

and dance shows. 

✦ The Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Atmore, AL,

a rural reservation that encompasses four southern Alabama counties and Florida’s Escambia

County, is developing a project to address the

needs of a target population of approximately

660 at-risk youth. The project will emphasize the

incorporation of traditional tribal cultural teachings and will include delinquency prevention

activities, an afterschool program, and intervention and prevention services in local schools.

TYP Mental Health Initiative 

The TYP Mental Health Initiative was implemented

in 2000 to promote mental health and substance

abuse (alcohol and drug abuse) services for AI/AN

youth involved in, or at risk of becoming involved

in, tribal and/or state juvenile justice systems. The

initiative also supports juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention efforts that help tribes develop

and implement culturally sensitive mental health

programs. The initiative is part of the Mental Health

and Community Safety Initiative for American

Indian/Alaska Native Children, Youth, and Families,
FY 2002 55

Annual Report

Tribal Youth Program FY 2002 Grantees

Acoma Pueblo Boys & Girls Club, Pueblo of

Acoma, NM

All Mission Indian Housing Authority, 

Valley Center, CA

Campo Band of Mission Indians, Campo, CA

Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the 

Trinidad Rancheria, Trinidad, CA

Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, MT

Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Plummer, ID

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde 

Community of Oregon, Grand Ronde, OR

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Siletz, OR

Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian

Reservation, Pendleton, OR

Coyote Band of Pomo Indians, 

Redwood Valley, CA

Crow Tribal Housing Authority, Crow Agency, MT

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, NC

Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Inc., Bernalillo, NM

Kaw Nation of Oklahoma, Kaw City, OK

Kenaitze Indian Tribe, I.R.A., Kenai, AK

Ketchikan Indian Corporation, Health 

Administrator, Ketchikan, AK

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa, Hayward, WI

Makah Tribe, Neah Bay, WA

Mescalero Apache Tribe, Mescalero, NM

Mount Sanford Tribal Consortium, Gakona, AK

Nisqually Indian Tribe, Olympia, WA

Nooksack Indian Tribe, Deming, WA

Osage Nation, Pawhuska, OK

Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Atmore, AL

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Niobrara, NE

Pueblo of Laguna Youth Cultural Enrichment 

Program, Old Laguna, NM

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 

Red Lake, MN

Robinson Rancheria, Nice, CA

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Mt. Pleasant, MI

San Carlos Housing Authority, Peridot, AZ

Santa Clara Pueblo, Espanola, NM

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians, 

Santa Ysabel, CA

Seldovia Village Tribe, Seldovia, AK

Seneca Nation of Indians, Salamanca, NY

Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, Tokeland, WA

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, Agency Village, SD

Spokane Tribe, Wellpinit, WA

Suquamish Tribe, Suquamish, WA

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah),

Aquinnah, MA

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, Anadarko, OK

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, Prescott, AZ

Yurok Tribe, Eureka, CA
56 FY 2002

Annual Report

developed by the U.S. Departments of Education,

Health and Human Services, the Interior, and

Justice.

Funding from the TYP Mental Health Initiative

helps tribes provide programs and services that

address the mental health and related needs of

AI/AN youth and their families in various community settings, such as schools, violence prevention

programs, healthcare programs, and the juvenile

justice system. Grant funds can be used to:

✦ Reduce, control, and prevent crime and

delinquency committed by and against

AI/AN youth.

✦ Provide interventions for court-involved

tribal youth.

✦ Improve juvenile justice systems.

✦ Provide programs that focus on alcohol and drugs.

In FY 2002, OJJDP awarded 5 new TYP Mental

Health Initiative grants, bringing to 16 the number

of grants awarded since FY 2000. The new grants

total $950,000; individual awards range from

$125,000 to $300,000, depending on the size of the

total AI/AN service population living on or near a

particular reservation. 

The new grantees were competitively selected from

16 applications received from tribes in 8 states.

The FY 2002 Mental Health Initiative grants were

awarded to Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

of Siletz, OR; Eastern Aleutian Tribes, Inc., of

Anchorage, AK; Mount Sanford Tribal Consortium of Gakona, AK; Osage Nation of Pawhuska,

OK; and Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation of

Mayetta, KS.

Grantees are using their funds for a variety of

programs. Grant activities include combating juvenile drug and alcohol use, improving access to

appropriate interventions for court-involved youth,

expanding mental health services to address delinquency risk factors, providing a continuum of prevention and residential treatment services for at-risk

males, and developing a mental health service program to address delinquency among tribal youth

residing on a reservation and in nearby rural and

urban areas.

Comprehensive Indian

Resources for Community and

Law Enforcement Project 

OJJDP participates in the Comprehensive Indian

Resources for Community and Law Enforcement

(CIRCLE) Project, a multiagency federal initiative

that helps tribal communities develop comprehensive planning and funding infrastructures to fight

crime, violence, and substance abuse. The CIRCLE

Project stresses the importance of involving local

leaders and using a comprehensive approach (i.e.,

coordinated, multidisciplinary efforts).

Through the CIRCLE Project, OJJDP awarded

TYP grants in FY 1999 and FY 2000 to tribes in

three pilot sites—the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in

Lame Deer, MT; Oglala Sioux Tribe in Pine Ridge,

SD; and Pueblo of Zuni in Zuni, NM. These tribes

receive special consideration for technical assistance

and training related to strategy development and

implementation and are eligible to apply for funding

for law enforcement, tribal courts, detention facilities, and youth programs. 

Several DOJ agencies work together to make

technical assistance and funding available for the

CIRCLE Project. Partner agencies include the

Office of the Attorney General, the Office of

Tribal Justice, OJP, and the Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services. The U.S. Attorney also

plays a role in the project, and the FBI and the

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian

Affairs contribute through the Indian Country

Law Enforcement Improvement Initiative. DOJ’s

National Institute of Justice is overseeing an evaluation of the CIRCLE Project, which is being conducted by the Harvard Project on American Indian

Development at Harvard University’s John F.

Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge,

MA. A draft report for Phase I of the evaluation,
FY 2002 57

Annual Report

which covers the first 18 months of the project, is

under review. Phase II began in December 2002

and will address the subsequent 30 months.

Training and Technical

Assistance 

OJJDP provides a comprehensive program of

training and technical assistance (T&TA) to help

TYP grantees implement their programs. These

services are designed to be culturally relevant and

appropriate for tribal communities.

OJJDP’s technical assistance addresses a number

of issues, including needs assessment, comprehensive planning, data management, data collection

instruments, and evaluation design. Training topics

include strategies for conducting juvenile justice

needs assessments, juvenile justice systems in Indian

country, indigenous justice systems, early intervention strategies, steps for incorporating culturally

relevant strategies into programs, and resource

development and grant writing strategies.

American Indian Development Associates (AIDA)

of Albuquerque, NM, provided this T&TA during

FY 2002. Major activities included conducting a

research and evaluation focus group, sponsoring

a series of grant-writing seminars, and holding a

national orientation meeting for new TYP grantees. 

During 2002, AIDA offered 40 T&TA events,

which involved nearly 800 participants and instructors. The events focused on a variety of

topics, including:

✦ Program evaluation and data management: use

of data collection instruments and computerized

databases in collecting, entering, and analyzing

program data for reports. 

✦ Collaboration: development of effective working

relationships with other tribal programs and

external agencies.

✦ Policy development: use of existing tribal and

state laws to develop intergovernmental and

interagency agreements to support program

implementation or systems. 

Training in other areas, such as mentoring, grant

writing, juvenile court management, probation, and

detention, provided competency-building opportunities for TYP staff, other tribal program staff, and

tribal community leaders and citizens. AIDA also

developed a number of curriculum materials and

helped TYP grantees develop their own materials.

OJJDP competitively solicited applicants in FY

2002 to continue providing training and technical

assistance to TYP grantees and other tribal communities. The Native American Alliance Foundation

of Albuquerque, NM, was selected to provide this

service.

Research and Evaluation 

OJJDP uses TYP funds to support a number of

research and evaluation activities designed to provide empirical evidence about juvenile justice and

delinquency prevention policies and practices and

their impact on tribal youth. During FY 2002, the

Office began a major new study, which will examine

risk and protective factors for juvenile delinquency

within the unique cultural and historical context of a

tribal community. The Longitudinal Study of Tribal

Youth Risk and Resiliency Using the Community

Readiness Model (Longitudinal Study) will be conducted by Colorado State University’s Tri-Ethnic

Center for Prevention Research of Boulder, CO.

By emphasizing cultural and historical factors,

the Longitudinal Study will significantly improve

knowledge about individual, family, community,

school, and peer factors that affect delinquency and

resiliency among tribal youth. It will also promote

the development of culturally appropriate research

methods for use with tribal communities. The first

2 years of the Longitudinal Study will consist of a

feasibility study to plan the research.

The Office also supports a number of field-initiated

research and evaluation programs. It funded two new

programs in FY 2001. Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Inc.,
58 FY 2002

Annual Report

a consortium of five pueblos in Sandoval County,

NM, received funds to explore the causes of and

responses to youth substance abuse and crime. The

study will use secondary and archival data sources,

youth surveys, and interviews of tribe members to

assess the nature of juvenile delinquency in the pueblos. Another new study, by the Red Cliff Band of

Lake Superior Chippewa of Bayfield, WI, will conduct an evaluation of the juvenile justice system on

the Red Cliff Reservation. The evaluation will focus

on the reservation’s tribal court, tribal substance

abuse programs, and Indian Child Welfare program.

OJJDP also continued to support several existing

research studies. These studies are examining a

wide range of topics, including culturally appropriate prevention programs, delinquency and legal

processing of American Indian juveniles, and gang

activity of tribal youth. These studies are described

in an OJJDP Fact Sheet, OJJDP’s Program of

Research for Tribal Youth.

Survey of Youth Gangs in

Indian Country 

OJJDP’s National Youth Gang Center (NYGC),

described on pages 34–36, conducted a survey of

youth gangs in Indian country in 2001. NYGC surveyed 577 federally recognized tribal communities

to measure the presence, size, and activity of youth

gangs in these communities. The survey was designed to assess the prevalence, composition, and

activities of youth gangs in federally recognized

tribes, which are not traditionally included in

NYGC’s annual National Youth Gang Survey of

law enforcement officials. The tribal survey was

developed in consultation with a number of tribal

members, officials, and representatives from the

Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Although the full report for this study is under

development, some key findings are already available. Of the 300 tribal communities that provided

data, 23 percent (69 tribes) reported active gangs

during 2000. This proportion is similar to proportions in rural counties that report active youth

gangs on the national survey. The majority of tribal

respondents indicated that they had five or fewer

gangs. The average time of onset for gang problems

in tribal communities was 1994. Property crimes

and drug sales were commonly reported activities

of these gangs. When asked about the severity of a

variety of social problems, respondents ranked gang

activity well below more general problems associated with drug abuse and domestic violence. Further analysis of the survey data will focus on gang

member offending, weapons use, and the influence

of nearby cities and border towns on tribal youth. 

An OJJDP/NYGC Fact Sheet, 2000 Survey of Youth

Gangs in Indian Country, summarizes the survey findings. This Fact Sheet is available online from the

Tribal Youth Program page of OJJDP’s Web site

or from the NYGC Web site.

New Publication 

The National Court Appointed Special Advocate

(CASA) Association began a Tribal Court CASA

Project in 1994 to support programs in which volunteers act as advocates for abused or neglected

AI/AN children. CASA volunteers are lay people

assigned by judges to represent the best interests

of children with cases before the court. (TYP grant

funds can be used to support tribal courts and

other activities, such as afterschool programs and

mentoring programs.) An OJJDP Fact Sheet,

Tribal Court CASA: A Guide to Program Development,

describes the project and offers guidance on program planning, management, and working with

volunteers. The Fact Sheet summarizes a tribal

court CASA guide published by the National Court

Appointed Special Advocate Association and the

Tribal Law and Policy Institute in 2000.
FY 2002 59

Annual Report

OJJDP has been collecting information for nearly

30 years on the number of juveniles held in detention and other facilities. Until 1995, these data were

gathered through the biennial Census of Public

and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and

Shelter Facilities, better known as the Children in

Custody (CIC) Census. In the late 1990s, OJJDP

initiated two new data collection programs to gather

comprehensive and detailed information about juvenile offenders in custody and about the facilities

themselves. The first of these, the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), has been

conducted three times—in 1997, 1999, and 2001—

and will be administered again in October 2003.

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC)

was conducted in 2000 and 2002. JRFC collects

information about the facilities (rather than the residents) and includes questions regarding available

beds, security, and education, mental health, medical, and substance abuse services. JRFC also asks

about deaths of residents in custody. OJJDP

administers CJRP and JRFC in alternating years. 

This chapter summarizes data derived mainly from

CJRP and JRFC. It also discusses two recent

OJJDP survey projects that will shed light on the

personal background and experience of juveniles in

custody and provide comprehensive data about

juveniles on probation.

Census of Juveniles in

Residential Placement 

CJRP covers all secure and nonsecure residential

facilities that house juvenile offenders, defined as

persons younger than 21 who are held in a residential setting because of an offense and as a result of

some contact with the justice system. The census

encompasses both status offenders and delinquent

offenders, including those who are either detained

or committed for an offense. 

In 1997, more than 96 percent of the 3,431 surveyed

facilities responded. In 1999, all 3,712 surveyed facilities provided at least some information. Based on

survey data, an estimated 105,790 juvenile offenders

were in residential placement in 1997. In 1999, the

number was 108,931—a 3-percent increase from

1997. In 1997, juvenile offenders were held in 2,844

residential facilities: 1,108 public and 1,736 private.

In 1999, juveniles were held in 2,939 residential

facilities: 1,136 public, 1,794 private, and 9 tribal.

In 1999, public facilities held 71 percent of all juvenile offenders in residential placement, private facilities held 29 percent, and tribal facilities held less

than 1 percent.

As a resource for those who want to learn more

about youth in custody, OJJDP makes CJRP data

available online in the “Statistical Briefing Book”

section of the OJJDP Web site. Data from the

2001 CJRP are being processed and are expected

to be available in 2004. 

Juvenile Residential 

Facility Census 

The first JRFC, conducted in October 2000, collected information from 3,690 juvenile residential

facilities.11 Of these facilities, 3,061 held a total of

110,284 offenders younger than 21 on the census

date. Four in ten of the surveyed facilities were

publicly operated, and these public facilities held

70 percent of all juvenile offenders in custody.

Chapter 8

Collecting Information on Juveniles in Custody

11JRFC does not capture data on adult prisons or jails, nor

does it include facilities used exclusively for mental health or

substance abuse treatment or for dependent children. Thus,

JRFC includes most, but not all, facilities that hold juvenile

offenders.
60 FY 2002

Annual Report

Nearly all (94 percent) of the facilities surveyed in

the 2000 JRFC reported the number of standard

beds available on the census date and whether they

had any currently occupied makeshift beds. Many—

about 4 in 10—said they did not have enough standard beds for all of their residents. These “crowded”

facilities held about 40 percent of all residents and

40 percent of offenders younger than 21. 

Crowding occurs when the number of residents

occupying all or part of a facility exceeds some predetermined limit based on square footage, utility use,

or fire codes. Comparing the number of residents to

the number of available standard beds, although not

a perfect measure of crowding, gives a sense of the

problem. However, a facility may be crowded even

if it is not relying on makeshift beds. For example,

using standard beds in an infirmary for youth who

are not sick or beds in seclusion for youth who have

not committed infractions may indicate crowding

problems. 

JRFC found a national average of nearly five empty

standard beds per facility. However, this average

masks a wide range: one facility with 567 residents

had 124 residents for whom it did not have standard

beds, and one facility with 1,207 residents reported

1,181 empty standard beds. JRFC also found that

facilities reporting fewer standard beds than residents were significantly more likely than other

facilities (45 percent versus 38 percent) to say they

transported youth to emergency rooms because of

injuries resulting from interpersonal conflict in the

month prior to the census. 

Findings from the 2000 JRFC are discussed in an

OJJDP Bulletin, Juvenile Residential Facility Census,

2000: Selected Findings. Data from the October 2002

JRFC are being processed and are expected to be

available in 2004.

Deaths in Custody 

In 1994, juvenile facilities reported that 45 juveniles

died while in custody. In 2000, the number (based

on JRFC findings) was 30. There has been concern

about the risk of death to youth in custody and

whether that risk is greater than the risk faced by

youth in general. In 1999, there was 1 death for

every 2,230 youth ages 13–17 in the general population. For youth in custody, there was 1 death for

every 3,990 beds occupied. Thus, the death rate for

youth in custody was a little more than half the rate

for youth in the general population.

More than half (17) of the 30 deaths of youth in

custody occurred outside the facility. Private facilities

accounted for most deaths outside the facility. Public

facilities accounted for most deaths that occurred

inside the facility. Public facilities reported 14 deaths

Accidents were the most commonly reported cause of 

death in custody during the 12 months prior to the census

Inside the facility Outside the facility

Cause of death Total All Public Private All Public Private

Total 30 13 9 4 17 5 12

Accident 9 2 0 2 7 2 5

Illness/natural 8 5 4 1 3 2 1

Suicide 7 6 5 1 1 0 1

Homicide by nonresident 4 0 0 0 4 1 3

Other 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Note: Data are reported deaths of youth in custody from 10/1/1999 through 9/30/2000. Death information was reported by 94% of facilities that

held 96% of all residents.

Source: Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000: Selected Findings. OJJDP National Report Series Bulletin, December 2002. Author's analysis of

Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2000 [machine-readable data file].
FY 2002 61

Annual Report

(9 inside, 5 outside). Private facilities reported 16

deaths (4 inside, 12 outside). 

All facilities reporting suicides said they evaluate

residents within 24 hours of arrival to determine

whether they are at risk for suicide. All but one

facility said they evaluate all residents for suicide

risk. The one facility that did not evaluate all residents said it evaluated youth who attempt suicide,

who display or communicate suicide risk, or for

whom no mental health record is available. Of the

135 facilities that reported transporting at least one

juvenile to a hospital emergency room because of a

suicide attempt, none reported a suicide death.

Survey of Youth in 

Residential Placement 

In addition to supporting the collection of important

information through CJRP and JRFC, OJJDP

recognizes the value of interviewing youth in juvenile justice system facilities. Such interviews provide

a wealth of information on past offending behavior,

pathways to delinquency, family and social environments, and experiences in custody. Using Juvenile

Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG)

funds, OJJDP awarded a cooperative agreement in

1998 to Westat, Inc., of Rockville, MD, to develop

the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement

(SYRP). This survey collects self-report data from

10,000 juveniles residing in juvenile facilities,

including youth with long-term placements in training schools and residential treatment facilities and

those with short-term placements in detention centers, shelters, and group homes.

SYRP addresses the experiences of youth before

they enter custodial facilities and during their stays.

It includes questions on topics such as education,

home environment, and substance abuse; number

and types of offenses committed; and types of sanctions received for previous offenses. OJJDP will

use SYRP data to complement other research on

delinquency careers and offending behavior and to

monitor the range of residential placements used for

juvenile offenders. In addition, SYRP supports the

JAIBG program goal of holding juveniles accountable for their delinquent acts. Westat conducted the

first SYRP in spring 2003. Results are expected in

2004.

Census and Survey of Juvenile Probation 

To help determine both the number of juveniles

under community supervision and the nature of that

supervision, OJJDP is funding the Census and

Survey of Juvenile Probation. The project, which is

being conducted jointly by George Mason University of Fairfax, VA, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census, consists of two surveys: the Census of Juvenile

Probation Supervision Offices (CJPSO) and the

Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP). CJPSO,

which gathers information on juvenile probation

counts, processing, and programming, will be field

tested in 2003 and administered in spring 2004.

CJP, which collects aggregate counts of juveniles on

probation by geographic area and information about

their demographic characteristics and offenses, is

expected to be field tested in 2004 and administered

in spring 2005.

FY 2002 63

Annual Report

Sharing information with juvenile justice practitioners, policymakers, and the public—information

about research, statistics, and programs that work—

is a longstanding priority at OJJDP. During 2002,

the Office began shifting its focus from primarily

printed documents to electronic ones. In connection

with this shift, OJJDP moved forward with major

redesign work on the Office’s Web site and on an

ancillary page, the “Statistical Briefing Book.” The

year also marked the introduction of a popular new

bimonthly newsletter. 

Other dissemination activities included inauguration

of a series of Bulletins on youth violence research

and continuation of a series that addresses crimes

against children and another series that updates statistics about juvenile offenders and victims. OJJDP

also began work on Spanish translations of two

major guides for families of missing children and

victims of international parental kidnapping.

These and the other activities discussed in this

chapter were all designed to help keep the juvenile

justice field informed about research findings, juvenile justice statistics, and promising programs. 

New Approach to Information

Dissemination 

Although still committed to sharing critical juvenile

justice information with the field, OJJDP began

updating and streamlining its approach to dissemination in FY 2002 by relying more on its Web site

and exploring electronic publishing activities. As

part of this effort, the Office started targeting its

mailings of publications and grant announcements

to more carefully defined audiences, limiting the

number of printed copies. Electronic versions of

all publications and solicitations may be viewed

and downloaded from the Office’s Web site.

OJJDP also began looking to online publication

as an alternative to print for disseminating certain

information. For example, statistics and other 

time-sensitive materials are a natural for the Web,

where they can be published more quickly, updated

more easily (and therefore more frequently), and

presented without the physical constraints of print

media. As a result of the Office’s new approach to

dissemination, the juvenile justice field is benefiting

from quicker, more focused access to the information it needs, and the federal government is making

better use of taxpayer dollars. 

Chapter 9

Getting the Word Out

I . . . would like to applaud you on your move

from mostly paper to mostly online. I have “subscribed” to and received hundreds of wonderful

study and statistical summaries, but feel your new

method of distribution is a great way to reduce

printing and mailing costs, in addition to other

distribution costs.

Professor

Rutgers University

Bimonthly

Newsletter 

One of OJJDP’s major

accomplishments in FY

2002 was the development

of OJJDP News @ a Glance,

a bimonthly newsletter—

disseminated in print and

electronic versions—

that provides up-to-date

notices of OJJDP’s activities,

recent publications, funding opportunities,
64 FY 2002

Annual Report

and upcoming events. The newsletter is a cornerstone in OJJDP’s growing emphasis on electronic

dissemination.

In addition to regular features, the newsletter issues

produced during FY 2002 included special articles

on a number of topics, including OJJDP’s new

administrator, major OJJDP conferences, missing

children’s issues and related activities, and youth

court programs. The newsletter garnered 1,000

subscribers in the first 5 months after its launch,

and that number grew to almost 2,000 within a year.

Both electronic and print subscriptions are available. Instructions for subscribing are available on

OJJDP’s Web site.

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse 

OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC)

is a one-stop shop that provides toll-free telephone

and online access to a wealth of information about

juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and child

protection. Clearinghouse clients include policymakers, practitioners, researchers, parents, youth,

members of the media, and representatives of community organizations. Operated by Aspen Systems

Corporation of Rockville, MD, JJC offers easy

access to up-to-date research and statistics, program descriptions, publications, practical guides

and manuals, information about grants and funding

opportunities, and many other useful resources.

The Clearinghouse is a component of the National

Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). 

The Clearinghouse produces many of OJJDP’s

publications, including research and statistical reports and training and technical assistance manuals.

JJC also maintains a toll-free number (800–851–

3420). During 2002, JJC distributed more than

1 million documents and responded to 35,323 telephone, fax, and e-mail requests. 

Juvenile justice publications, videotapes, and other

materials can be ordered 24 hours a day, 7 days

a week, through the NCJRS Online Ordering

System (puborder.ncjrs.org). In FY 2002, JJC

received 6,502 orders for juvenile justice products

through the NCJRS system. NCJRS also maintains a comprehensive database of approximately

180,000 titles, 55,000 of which are devoted to juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and child

protection issues. 

The Clearinghouse administers JUVJUST, OJJDP’s

popular electronic mailing list that provides timely

information about OJJDP and other youth-servicerelated publications, events, and funding opportunities. The number of JUVJUST subscribers continues

to grow, increasing from 7,881 to 9,069 between

October 2001 and September 2002. (The mailing

list had approximately 2,000 subscribers in 1997.)

OJJDP posted 79 JUVJUST announcements during FY 2002. Archived JUVJUSTs for the most

recent 12 months and instructions for subscribing

to JUVJUST are available on OJJDP’s Web site.

From a request for information and publications

about recidivism:

Thank you very much for your time and your

help. I did not expect such a quick and complete

response. I really appreciated it.

Assistant Attorney General of Ohio

Columbus, OH

Web Site 

JJC designed and maintains OJJDP’s Web site

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp). The site provides detailed information on OJJDP-sponsored programs,

announces new publications, allows users to download nearly all OJJDP-produced publications, lists

information about current and past funding opportunities, includes a calendar of events on upcoming

OJJDP-sponsored conferences, and provides access to speeches given by the OJJDP Administrator. The site’s “askjj@ncjrs.org” feature allows users

to ask questions via e-mail and receive individualized responses from JJC staff.
FY 2002 65

Annual Report

One of OJJDP’s and JJC’s major Web site activities during FY 2002 was working with OJP in

designing OJP’s comprehensive reentry Web site

for the Serious and Violent Offender Initiative,

discussed on pages 30–31. The reentry site provides

a wealth of information, ranging from state and

federal resources to publications to training and

technical assistance.

OJJDP also began developing mini Web pages

highlighting major conferences and other events.

These pages allow OJJDP to inform the field

promptly about speeches and activities that take

place at these events. One example is the page

developed after the White House Conference on

Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children (see

page 14).

Other highlights of the Web site include a “JJ

Facts & Figures” section that provides information

on juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and

violence and victimization. This section offers a

diagram showing how cases proceed through the

juvenile justice system. It also includes the “Statistical Briefing Book,” which presents timely and

reliable statistical answers to frequently asked questions about juvenile crime and victimization and the

juvenile justice system. During FY 2002, OJJDP

moved forward with a comprehensive redesign of

the “Briefing Book,” adding new topics (e.g., juvenile justice system structure and process, probation,

and reentry/aftercare) and features (e.g., a compendium of national data sets, links to other statistical

resources, and a statistical glossary) that will make

the site even easier and quicker to use. 

The OJJDP Web site also maintains separate

pages for many of the programs the Office funds

or administers. These include, among others, the

Drug-Free Communities Support Program, Juvenile

Accountability Incentive Block Grants program, and

Juvenile Mentoring Program. 

During 2002, the OJJDP Web site home page had

more than 2 million visits, and the overall site had

approximately 43 million visits (a 10-percent increase over 2001). OJJDP began redesigning the

Web site in FY 2002 and plans to unveil the new

site in 2003. 

New Publications 

During FY 2002, OJJDP developed and produced

new Fact Sheets, Bulletins, and Reports addressing

a wide range of issues (see appendix list). All of

these publications are available from JJC. Nearly

all may be downloaded from OJJDP’s Web site. 

Many of these new publications have been noted

throughout this Report, including important documents related to missing and exploited children

(Chapter 2) and a series of Bulletins about youth

gang issues (Chapter 5). In addition, the Office

developed three new series of documents, described

below.

Crimes Against Children Bulletin Series 

The Crimes Against Children Series of Bulletins

presents the latest information about child victimization, based on information from the FBI’s National

Incident-Based Reporting System. OJJDP released

three new Bulletins in this series during FY 2002:

The Criminal Justice System’s Response to Parental Abduction, Homicides of Children and Youth, and Offenders

Incarcerated for Crimes Against Juveniles. Topics of upcoming Bulletins in this series include child pornography, juvenile victims of intimate partner violence,

explanations for the decline in child sexual abuse

during the 1990s, and prostitution of juveniles.

National Report Bulletin Series 

Approximately every 4–5 years, OJJDP publishes

the Juvenile Offenders and Victims National Report. This

popular document provides a comprehensive statistical picture of the problems of juvenile crime, violence, and victimization and the response of the

juvenile justice system. The most recent Report

was published in 1999. During the years between

Reports, OJJDP publishes a series of updates

(Fact Sheets and Bulletins) that provide the latest
66 FY 2002

Annual Report

available information about juvenile offenders and

victims. During FY 2002, the agency published two

documents in this series:

✦ The Bulletin Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime

presents statistics on the extent and characteristics of juvenile arrests in 1999 and also includes

trends from the 1980s.

✦ The Fact Sheet Juvenile Offenders in Residential

Placement, 1997–1999, discusses findings from the

second wave of data collection for the Census of

Juveniles in Residential Placement (see page 59).

Youth Violence Research Series 

OJJDP and the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention

and Control are working together to reduce youth

violence. One component of their partnership is a

series of Youth Violence Research Bulletins, which

present the most recent research findings on topics

related to youth violence. The first Bulletin in the

series, Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Adolescent

Victimization, was published in FY 2002. This Bulletin analyzes National Youth Survey data to

explore how being a victim of crime during adolescence affects the likelihood of certain negative 

outcomes in adulthood, including offending and

victimization (both violent and property crimes),

domestic violence perpetration and victimization,

drug use, and mental health problems.

Satellite Videoconferencing 

Satellite videoconferencing is a cost-effective way

to help practitioners, policymakers, and researchers

keep abreast of developments in the field without

having to travel far from home. OJJDP has sponsored satellite videoconferences since 1995 through

its grantee, Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) of

Richmond, KY. A typical videoconference reaches

some 500 sites and approximately 15,000 individuals at downlink sites and computers. During FY

2002, OJJDP sponsored the videoconferences

described below.

✦ “School Safety by Management and Design,”

presented on October 25, 2001, was the third

in a series of satellite videoconferences on school

safety from the Hamilton Fish Institute of Washington, DC. The videoconference featured demonstrations of school safety programs coordinated by

EKU, the Morehouse School of Medicine, and the

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

✦ “OJJDP: Direction and Focus for 2002 and

Beyond” was broadcast on December 6, 2001.

This videoconference provided an overview of

the Office’s direction and focus for the coming

year.

✦ “Schoolwide Education for Violence Prevention,”

presented on April 11, 2002, was another in the

Hamilton Fish Institute series on school safety.

This videoconference highlighted several strategies used in programs the Institute has found to

be effective for violence prevention. The videoconference also featured discussions of effective

schoolwide strategies, including anger management, conflict resolution, social skills training,

communications skills training, and use of mediation, police, and legal services. 

In addition, OJP highlighted its Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (see page 30) in

a satellite videoconference on February 28, 2002.

The broadcast was designed for criminal and juvenile justice practitioners, judges and court staff, policymakers, community leaders, prosecutors, defense

attorneys, probation and parole officers, social service agencies, law enforcement agencies, and others

interested in promoting public safety and helping

former offenders live as law-abiding and contributing members of society. 

Information about past and future videoconferences

and instructions for purchasing tapes of past conferences are available on OJJDP’s Web site. Archived

broadcasts may be viewed free of charge at EKU’s

Web site (www.trc.eku.edu/jj/archive.html).
FY 2002 67

Annual Report

On the Horizon 

Electronic Bulletins and Fact Sheets 

In keeping with its growing emphasis on electronic

dissemination of information, OJJDP began development work in FY 2002 for a series of online

Juvenile Justice Practices Bulletins (see page 51),

which will facilitate systems change by providing

the juvenile justice field with the latest information

on research and best practices in a variety of areas.

The first Bulletin in the series, Aftercare Services,

was posted on the Office’s Web site in fall 2003.

OJJDP also put in place plans to substitute online

publications for many of its statistical Fact Sheets.

The first online statistical Fact Sheets, summarizing

the latest available juvenile court data, were also

posted in fall 2003.

Major New Print Publications 

Although OJJDP welcomes the efficiencies and

cost savings associated with electronic publishing, it

will continue to make many of its most popular publications available in print as well as electronic formats, to ensure that these important resources reach

the widest possible audience. In FY 2002, planning

and development work began for the next edition of

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report, which

offers comprehensive information about juvenile

crime, violence, and victimization and the response

of the juvenile justice system to these problems. The

Office also initiated plans to add several new titles

to its series of Portable Guides for law enforcement

and other professionals involved in investigating

cases of child abuse and neglect. New topics will

include basic information about child development,

response to child abduction, commercial sexual

exploitation of children, and investigation of child

fatalities. An update of the guide on investigation of

cases involving the use of computers in sexual

exploitation of children is also planned.

Spanish Translations of Family Guides 

Recognizing the importance of making its resources

readily available to members of the Hispanic community, OJJDP began work in FY 2002 on Spanish

translations of two major family guides published in

FY 2002: When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide (second edition) and A Family Resource Guide on

International Parental Kidnapping (see pages 15–16).

The translations, Cuando su Niño Desaparece: Una Guía

para la Supervivencia de la Familia and Guía de Recursos

de la Familia Contra el Secuestro Parental Internacional,

were released in July 2003.

FY 2002 69

Annual Report

As FY 2002 came to a close, OJJDP faced several

challenges in planning for the next fiscal year. These

challenges included a delay in FY 2003 funding

availability and a legislative restructuring of

program activities.

The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (DOJ reauthorization),

signed into law on November 2, 2002, while supporting the established mission of OJJDP, introduced

important changes that streamline the Office’s operations and bring a sharper focus to its role. The provisions of the reauthorization originally were to take

effect in FY 2003, but a subsequent appropriations

act postponed the effective date to FY 2004 (which

begins on October 1, 2003). Although OJJDP was

able to establish priorities for FY 2003, it was not

able to begin program planning for FY 2003 until a

bill allocating funding for the Office was signed into

law in February 2003. 

This chapter provides a brief overview of the

agency’s program priorities and planning for 2003.

It also summarizes the program changes mandated

by the DOJ reauthorization. 

OJJDP Priorities for FY 2003 

Children are the nation’s greatest resource, and

ensuring that every child has the opportunity to

become a productive member of society is at the

heart of OJJDP’s mission. Reflecting a renewed

focus on children who are most at risk of missing

out on that opportunity, OJJDP established the

following four program priorities for FY 2003:

✦ Prostitution of children. OJJDP will collaborate

with other agencies and the law enforcement and

social services communities to address this problem. As a first step, the agency held a national

summit on child prostitution in December 2002

(see page 16). 

✦ Truancy. The effects of truancy are pervasive.

The problem takes its toll not only on students

(who are more likely to fall behind in school,

drop out, and become involved with the juvenile

justice system), but also on schools and communities. Building on lessons learned at seven truancy reduction demonstration sites (discussed on

pages 23–25), OJJDP will work to ensure that

communities have access to strategies that work.

✦ Disproportionate minority contact (DMC).

The 2002 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act broadened the concept of disproportionate minority

confinement to address the disproportionate

numbers of minority youth who come into

contact with the juvenile justice system at any

point—from arrest to reentry. Recognizing that

addressing DMC will require long-term coordinated efforts at the federal, state, and local levels,

OJJDP will continue to support research and

targeted training and technical assistance to help

states and communities meet the challenges of

DMC.

✦ Tribal youth assistance. Recognizing the unique

needs of tribal communities, OJJDP will continue its direct support of delinquency prevention

and juvenile justice projects that originate with

the tribes themselves. These projects incorporate

indigenous customs and draw on tribal strengths

to help youth live up to their potential.

FY 2003 Funding for 

OJJDP Programs 

The new DOJ reauthorization restructured much

of OJJDP’s funding activity, consolidating several

previously independent programs and introducing

a number of other significant changes. OJJDP’s

funding situation for FY 2003 (which began

Chapter 10

Looking Ahead
70 FY 2002

Annual Report

October 1, 2002) was complicated by a combination

of this restructuring and issues related to the continuing resolution process that governed spending by

federal agencies until Congress enacted an appropriations bill. Only after February 20, 2003, when President Bush signed into law a bill that appropriated

operating funds through the remainder of FY 2003,

could OJJDP begin to publish program solicitation

notices in the Federal Register and announcements on

the OJJDP Web site. Programs for FY 2003 will be

funded as they existed prior to the November DOJ

reauthorization, and the provisions of the reauthorization will not take effect until FY 2004 (October 1,

2003).

OJJDP Program Restructuring 

The DOJ reauthorization restructured and consolidated several OJJDP programs. The major

program changes are summarized below.

Program consolidation. The JJDP Act of 2002,

which is part of the DOJ reauthorization, consolidates seven previously independent juvenile justice

programs of the JJDP Act of 1974 into a single

prevention block grant. It repeals the following

parts of Title II of the JJDP Act: Part C (National

Programs), Part D (Gangs), Part E (State Challenge Activities), Part F (Treatment of Juvenile

Offenders Who Are Victims of Child Abuse or

Neglect), Part G (Mentoring), Part H (Boot

Camps), and the first subpart of Part I (White

House Conference on Juvenile Justice). In their

place, it creates a new Part C that establishes the

Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant

Program, under which states and Indian tribes

may receive block grants to carry out the general

purposes of the repealed programs.

Research, training, technical assistance, demonstration, and information dissemination. The

new JJDP Act further amends Title II by creating

a new Part D that authorizes research, training,

technical assistance, and information dissemination

regarding juvenile justice matters. The Act also

adds a new Part E that authorizes awards of grants

for developing, testing, and demonstrating new initiatives and programs for the prevention, control,

and reduction of juvenile delinquency.

Title V Community Delinquency Prevention. The

new JJDP Act reauthorizes the Title V Community

Prevention Grants Program, expands its purpose

areas, and creates a new reporting requirement on

the effectiveness of funded programs.

Juvenile Accountability Block Grants. The reauthorization also revises the purpose areas, reporting and monitoring requirements, and other aspects

of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block

Grants (JAIBG) program, which will be called

the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants (JABG)

program.
FY 2002 71

Annual Report

The following publications are available through

OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC).

Most are available both in print and online. For

additional information, see page viii.

Addressing Youth Victimization (Action Plan Series

Bulletin), NCJ 186667

Burglary Cases in Juvenile Court, 1989–1998

(Fact Sheet), FS–200208

Children Abducted by Family Members: National

Estimates and Characteristics (NISMART Series

Bulletin), NCJ 196466

The Criminal Justice System’s Response to Parental

Abduction (Bulletin), NCJ 186160

Detention in Delinquency Cases, 1989–1998

(Fact Sheet), FS–200201

Early Precursors of Gang Membership: A Study of Seattle

Youth (Youth Gang Series Bulletin), NCJ 190106

The 8% Solution (Fact Sheet), FS–200139

A Family Resource Guide on International Parental

Kidnapping (Report), NCJ 190448 

Highlights From the NISMART Bulletins (NISMART

Series Fact Sheet, available online only)

Highlights of the 2000 National Youth Gang Survey

(Fact Sheet), FS–200204

Homicides of Children and Youth (Crimes Against

Children Series Bulletin), NCJ 187239

Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs (Youth Gang Series

Bulletin), NCJ 189916

Issues in Resolving Cases of International Child Abduction

by Parents (Bulletin), NCJ 190105

Juvenile Court Placement of Adjudicated Youth, 1989–1998

(Fact Sheet), FS–200202

Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability and

Providing Treatment (JAIBG Series Bulletin),

NCJ 187078

Juvenile Offenders in Residential Placement, 1997–1999

(National Report Series Fact Sheet), FS–200207

Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime (National Report

Series Bulletin), NCJ 191031

Law Enforcement Guide on International Parental

Kidnapping (Report), NCJ 194639 (not available

online)

Modern-Day Youth Gangs (Youth Gang Series

Bulletin), NCJ 191524

National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview

(NISMART Series Bulletin), NCJ 196465

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention

Grants Program (Fact Sheet), FS–200137

National Juvenile Court Data Archive Web Site

(Fact Sheet), FS–200140

National Youth Gang Survey Trends From 1996 to 2000

(Fact Sheet), FS–200203

NISMART Questions and Answers (NISMART Series

Fact Sheet, available online only)

Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates

and Characteristics (NISMART Series Bulletin),

NCJ 196467

Appendix

OJJDP Publications Produced in FY 2002
72 FY 2002

Annual Report

Offenders Incarcerated for Crimes Against Juveniles

(Crimes Against Children Series Bulletin),

NCJ 191028

OJJDP News @ a Glance (Newsletter) 

January/February 2002, Vol. I, No. 1, 

NCJ 190026

March/April 2002, Vol. I, No. 2, NCJ 194097

May/June 2002, Vol. I, No. 3, NCJ 194803

July/August 2002, Vol. I, No. 4, NCJ 195663

September/October 2002, Vol. I, No. 5,

NCJ 196856

Protecting Children in Cyberspace: The ICAC Task Force

Program (Bulletin), NCJ 191213

Public/Private Ventures’ Evaluation of Faith-Based

Programs (Fact Sheet), FS–200138 

Robbery Cases in Juvenile Court, 1989–1998 (Fact

Sheet), FS–200205

Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates

and Characteristics (NISMART Series Bulletin),

NCJ 196469

Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Adolescent Victimization (Youth Violence Research Series Bulletin),

NCJ 191210

Title V Community Prevention Grants Program: 2000

Report to Congress (Report), NCJ 190635 

Tribal Court CASA: A Guide to Program Development

(Fact Sheet), FS–200209

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement

Act (Bulletin), NCJ 189181

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide

[Second Edition] (Report), NCJ 170022
OJJDP produces a wide variety of materials,

including Bulletins, Fact Sheets, Reports, Summaries, videotapes, and the Juvenile Justice

journal. These materials and other resources

are available through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse (JJC), as described below.

The following list of publications highlights the

latest and most popular information published

by OJJDP, grouped by topical areas:

Corrections and Detention

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000:

Selected Findings. 2002, NCJ 196595 (4 pp.).

Courts

Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth. 2000, NCJ 182787 (116 pp.).

Juvenile Drug Court Programs. 2001,

NCJ 184744 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability

and Providing Treatment. 2002, NCJ 187078

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the

1990’s: Lessons Learned From Four Studies.

2000, NCJ 181301 (72 pp.).

Juveniles and the Death Penalty. 2000,

NCJ 184748 (16 pp.).

Juveniles in Court. 2003, NCJ 195420 (32 pp.).

Teen Courts: A Focus on Research. 2000,

NCJ 183472 (16 pp.).

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and

Enforcement Act. 2001, NCJ 189181 (16 pp.).

Delinquency Prevention

2001 Report to Congress: Title V Community

Prevention Grants Program. 2002, NCJ 198482

(42 pp.).

Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime. 2001,

NCJ 191031 (32 pp.).

Prevalence and Development of Child 

Delinquency. 2003, NCJ 193411 (8 pp.).

Restorative Justice Conferences as an Early

Response to Young Offenders. 2001,

NCJ 187769 (12 pp.).

Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending: An Analysis of Victim Survey Data. 2002, NCJ 191052

(20 pp.).

Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in

School. 2001, NCJ 188947 (16 pp.).

The YouthARTS Development Project. 2001,

NCJ 186668 (16 pp.).

Gangs

1998 National Youth Gang Survey. 2000,

NCJ 183109 (92 pp.).

Early Precursors of Gang Membership: A Study

of Seattle Youth. 2001, NCJ 190106 (6 pp.).

Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs. 2001,

NCJ 189916 (8 pp.).

Modern-Day Youth Gangs. 2002, NCJ 191524

(12 pp.).

General Juvenile Justice

Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability:

Overview. 2003, NCJ 184745 (12 pp.).

Changes to OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability

Program. 2003, NCJ 200220 (6 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 2000. 2002, NCJ 191729

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (Mental Health Issue), Volume

VII, Number 1. 2000, NCJ 178256 (44 pp.).

Latest Resources From OJJDP. 2003, 

BC 000115 (56 pp.).

OJJDP’s Tribal Youth Initiatives. 2003, 

NCJ 193763 (8 pp.).

Special Education and the Juvenile Justice

System. 2000, NCJ 179359 (16 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Child Abuse Reported to the Police. 2001,

NCJ 187238 (8 pp.).

Children Abducted by Family Members:

National Estimates and Characteristics. 2002,

NCJ 196466 (12 pp.).

The Criminal Justice System’s Response to

Parental Abduction. 2001, NCJ 186160 (16 pp.).

A Family Resource Guide on International

Parental Kidnapping. 2002, NCJ 190448

(148 pp.).

Issues in Resolving Cases of International

Child Abduction by Parents. 2001, NCJ 190105

(20 pp.).

A Law Enforcement Guide on International

Parental Kidnapping. 2002, NCJ 194639

(116 pp.).

National Estimates of Missing Children: An

Overview. 2002, NCJ 196465 (12 pp.).

Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics. 2002, NCJ 196467

(16 pp.).

Overview of the Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse: Update 2000. 2000,

NCJ 178893 (12 pp.).

Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics. 2002, NCJ 196469

(12 pp.).

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 2002, NCJ 170022 (94 pp.). Also available in Spanish. 2002, NCJ 178902.

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998,

NCJ 173393 (24 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

Addressing Youth Victimization. 2001,

NCJ 186667 (20 pp.).

Animal Abuse and Youth Violence. 2001,

NCJ 188677 (16 pp.).

Community Correlates of Rural Youth Violence.

2003, NCJ 193591 (12 pp.).

Crimes Against Children by Babysitters. 2001,

NCJ 189102 (8 pp.).

Gun Use by Male Juveniles: Research and

Prevention. 2001, NCJ 188992 (12 pp.).

Homicides of Children and Youth. 2001,

NCJ 187239 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Delinquency and Serious Injury Victimization. 2001, NCJ 188676 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (School Violence Issue), Volume

VIII, Number 1. 2001, NCJ 188158 (40 pp.).

Offenders Incarcerated for Crimes Against

Juveniles. 2001, NCJ 191028 (12 pp.).

Protecting Children in Cyberspace: The ICAC

Task Force Program. 2002, NCJ 191213 (8 pp.).

Race, Ethnicity, and Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending. 2000, NCJ 181202 (8 pp.).

Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Adolescent Victimization. 2002, NCJ 191210 (16 pp.).

Violent Victimization as a Risk Factor for Violent

Offending Among Juveniles. 2002, NCJ 195737

(12 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.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp.

To order materials online, visit JJC’s 24-hour

online store: puborder.ncjrs.org.

To ask questions about materials, go to

askjj.ncjrs.org.

To subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic mailing list, or OJJDP News @ a

Glance, the online bimonthly newsletter,

go to OJJDP’s Web site and click on the

appropriate “Subscribe.”

Phone:

800–851–3420

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS,

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

JJC, through the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service, 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/search.html.

Publications From OJJDP

Revised 02/23/2004
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

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

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

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

*NCJ~202038*

OJJDP Report