U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Children’s exposure to violence 

Juvenile reentry 

Evidence-based practices 

Mentoring 

Internet crimes against children 

Training and technical assistance 

At-risk girls 

Disproportionate minority contact 

Dissemination and outreach 

Commercial sexual exploitation of children 

Supportive school discipline 

Research and evaluation 

Tribal youth 

Family engagement 

Youth violence prevention 

Office Of Juvenile Justice and delinquency PreventiOn 

2011 annual rePOrt 
2011 
O f f i c e O f J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e a n d d e l i n q u e n c y P r e v e n t i O n 

a n n u a l r e P O r t 

Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

this report covers activities undertaken by the Office of Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention 

during fiscal year 2011 (October 1, 2010–september 30, 2011) 

ncJ 238638 
U.S. Department of Justice
 

Office of Justice Programs
 

810 Seventh Street NW. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

Mary Lou Leary 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Melodee Hanes 

Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Justice Programs 

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

www.ojjdp.gov 

Photos used in this report: Copyright © 2012 Shutterstock and iStockphoto. Photo on page 20 courtesy of Karol Mason. 

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; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. 
 

 

 

 

To the President, the Attorney General, the President pro tempore of the Senate, 

the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chairmen of the Committees on 

the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, and 

Members of Congress 

It is my honor to transmit the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP's) 

annual report for fiscal year 2011. This report includes information pursuant to: 

• 	 OJJDP Annual Report—Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as 

amended; Public Law 93–415, section 207 [42 U.S.C. 5617]. 

• 	 Missing Children Program—JJDP Act of 1974, as amended; Public Law 93–415, section 404(a)(5) 

[42 U.S.C. 5773(a)(5)]. 

• 	 Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program—Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 

1968; Public Law 90–351, section 1808(b) [42 U.S.C. 3796ee–8(b)]. 

• 	 Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs—JJDP Act of 1974, as 

amended; Public Law 93–415, section 503(4) [42 U.S.C. 5782(4)]. 

• 	 Boys & Girls Clubs in Public Housing Projects—Economic Espionage Act of 1996; Public Law 

104–294, section 401(d) [42 U.S.C. 13751 note]. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Melodee Hanes 

Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Washington, DC 

fOreWOrd
 

Ensuring youth justice and safety has been a priority throughout my 30-year career in public service 

and law—whether it is a child who has been exposed to physical or sexual violence, a young person 

locked up for a minor offense like truancy, or an adolescent feeling peer pressure to join a gang. All of 

them deserve protection from destructive influences. And all of them deserve equitable treatment if 

they enter the juvenile justice system. 

Research tells us that children exposed to violence are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol; suffer 

from depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic disorders; fail or have difficulty in school; and become 

delinquent and engage in criminal behavior. We also know that early intervention works in countering 

the effects of this violence. 

To protect children from violence, prevent and intervene in delinquency, and strengthen the juvenile 

justice system, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored an array 

of programs and research in fiscal year (FY) 2011. In support of these activities, the Office awarded 

more than $393 million in discretionary funding and formula and block grant funding. 

As a major partner in the Attorney General’s Defending Childhood Initiative, OJJDP continued its 

groundbreaking research and demonstration programs to address the high rates of children’s exposure 

to violence. Also in FY 2011, we organized the launch of the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, 

which aims to reform inappropriate school discipline practices that land too many of our children 

in the juvenile justice system needlessly. We are also continuing to work with states in our Formula 

Grants program to promote safe conditions for youth in confinement and reduce racial disparities. In 

addition, we are serving youth in Indian country, supporting mentoring programs nationwide, and 

helping protect young people from violence, abduction, and sexual exploitation. In these and many 

other areas, OJJDP collaborated closely with federal, state, local, and nonprofit partners in FY 2011. 

With each step we take to make a positive difference in a child’s life, we are contributing not only to 

the well-being of one individual, but to the safety of communities as a whole. Serving as the voice 

of America’s children is important to our common welfare. Our children, and our nation, deserve 

nothing less. 

Melodee Hanes 

Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

abOut OJJdP 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention (OJJdP) was established by congress through the Juvenile Justice and delinquency 


Prevention (JJdP) act of 1974, Public law 93–415, as amended. a component of the Office of Justice Programs within the u.s. department of 


Justice, OJJdP works to prevent and control juvenile delinquency, improve the juvenile justice system, and protect children. 


Mission Statement 

OJJdP provides national leadership, coordination, and the resources to prevent and respond to juvenile 


delinquency and victimization. OJJdP supports states and communities in their efforts to develop and 


implement effective and coordinated prevention and intervention programs and to improve the juvenile
 

justice system so that it protects public safety, holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment 


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

Organization 

OJJdP is composed of the Office of the administrator, three program divisions (child Protection, 


demonstration Programs, and state relations and assistance), the Office of Policy development
 

(including the communications unit), and the Grants Management unit. appendix c summarizes 


each component’s role. 


table Of cOntents 

chaPter 1 : OJJDP Is Working for Youth Justice and Safety ..........................................2
 

chaPter 2 : OJJDP Is Preventing and Intervening in Delinquency ...................................12
 

Combating Gang Activity....................................................................... 13
 

Mentoring At-Risk Youth ....................................................................... 15
 

Drug Courts: Addressing Substance Abuse in Young Offenders and Families.......................... 18
 

Helping Young Offenders Successfully Reenter Their Communities .................................. 18
 

Reaching Out to Tribal Youth.................................................................... 19
 

chaPter 3 : OJJDP Is Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System .....................................22
 

Formula Grants Program ....................................................................... 23
 

Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program .................................................... 28
 

Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grants Program........................................ 30
 

Community Prevention Grants Program.......................................................... 31
 

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

chaPter 4 : OJJDP Is Defending Children Against Victimization ....................................36
 

Children’s Exposure to Violence ................................................................. 37
 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program.............................................. 39
 

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

AMBER Alert ................................................................................. 40
 

Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children ...................................................... 42
 

Children’s Advocacy Centers.................................................................... 43
 

chaPter 5 : OJJDP Is Disseminating Information and Resources to the Field .........................46
 

Statistical Briefing Book ........................................................................ 47
 

OJJDP’s National Juvenile Justice Data Collection Program ......................................... 48
 

OJJDP Web Site................................................................................ 49
 

OJJDP News @ a Glance ......................................................................... 49
 

JUVJUST ..................................................................................... 49
 

Pathways to Desistance Study Series ............................................................. 49
 
aPPendixes
 

Appendix A: OJJDP Fiscal Year 2011 Awards ...................................................... 57
 

Appendix B: Fiscal Year 2011 Publications ........................................................ 61
 

Appendix C: OJJDP Organization................................................................ 65
 
CHAPTER 1
 
CHAPTER 1

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

2 

Working for 

Youth Justice 

and Safety 

Since its founding nearly 40 years ago, the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) has provided national 

leadership to federal, state, tribal, and local efforts 

to prevent delinquency, strengthen the juvenile 

justice system, and protect children from violence, 

abuse, and exploitation. 

OJJDP is the only federal agency with a specific 

mission to develop and disseminate knowledge 

about “what works” in addressing the needs of 

youth who are at risk or who are involved in the 

juvenile justice system. Drawing on that knowledge, OJJDP is working with communities across 

the country to replicate proven, evidence-based 

programs through training and technical assistance, publications, and online resources, including 

Webinars and the Model Programs Guide, OJJDP’s 

online database of evidence-based programs. 

OJJDP remains steadfastly committed to supporting programs that have the greatest potential for 

addressing juvenile delinquency, reducing the 

incidence of child victimization, and improving the 

juvenile justice system. This is not only the right 
2011 ANNUAL REPORT

Chapter 1 3 

thing to do by America’s children. It makes sound 

economic sense and ensures the most efficient use 

of taxpayer dollars. 

In addition, as the only agency at the federal level 

focused on youth delinquency and victimization, 

OJJDP is uniquely positioned to lead a national 

conversation about critical issues affecting youth 

justice and safety, raise public awareness, and 

influence policies and practices in the field. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2011, as part of the Attorney 

General’s Defending Childhood Initiative, the 

Office prepared to launch a series of public 

As the only federal agency focused on youth delinquency and 

victimization, OJJDP is uniquely positioned to lead a national 

conversation about critical issues affecting youth justice and 

safety, raise public awareness, and influence policies and 

practices in the field. 

hearings across the country on children’s exposure 

to violence. OJJDP’s National Survey of Children’s 

Exposure to Violence is the most comprehensive 

and detailed study ever conducted at the national 

level on this topic; the ongoing study continues to 

inform the initiative’s work. 

The Office also was a guiding force behind the 

launch of a joint effort between the U.S. Departments 

of Justice (DOJ) and Education—the Supportive 

School Discipline Initiative—to address the excessive 

and counterproductive use of suspension, expulsion, 

and in-school arrests to discipline students. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

4 

SHARing WHAT WoRkS: ModEl PRogRAMS guidE 

oJJdP’s Model Programs guide (MPg) is an online portal that contains 

information on more than 200 scientifically tested delinquency prevention 

and intervention programs. Juvenile justice practitioners, administrators, 

and researchers can search the database by program category to target 

population, risk and protective factors, effectiveness rating, and other 

characteristics. The MPg covers the entire continuum of youth services, 

from prevention through sanctions to reentry. in FY 2011, 15 new 

programs were added to the MPg and its associated best practices 

databases on the deinstitutionalization of status offenders and the 

reduction of disproportionate minority contact. 

In support of its mission, in FY 2011 OJJDP awarded 

more than $393 million in grants, including more 

than $287 million in discretionary funding and more 

than $106 million in formula and block grant funding (see appendix A for a detailed breakdown). 

Included in those awards was $108 million for 

mentoring programs, which have been shown to 

help youth gain confidence, improve academic 

performance, and avoid risky behaviors. The Office 

also distributed about $30 million under its Internet Crimes Against Children task force program 

to support law enforcement operations, training 

and technical assistance, and research. In addition, 

OJJDP awarded almost $17 million in block grants 

to enforce state and local underage drinking laws 

nationwide. 

As with many federal agencies, OJJDP recently 

experienced dramatic cuts in congressional 

appropriations—about a 35-percent reduction 

in appropriations for juvenile justice programs 

in the past fiscal year alone. In the face of these 

constraints, OJJDP is working hard to leverage 

resources by forming partnerships with other federal agencies and with the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors. OJJDP is partnering with agencies 

across all levels of government and reaching out 

to a range of organizations that share our mission 

to help children and their families. These partnerships allow for critical information sharing across 

disciplines, more effective problem solving, and 

the efficient use of resources. 
Chapter 1

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

5 

Reforming School Discipline Practices 

in July 2011, Attorney general Eric Holder and Secretary of Education Arne duncan announced the creation of the Supportive School discipline initiative, a 

collaboration between the two agencies to target the school disciplinary policies and in-school arrests that push youth out of school and into the justice system, 

also known as the school-to-prison pipeline. 

The announcement came 2 days after the Council of State governments’ Justice Center released findings of a study on how school disciplinary practices impact 

students’ academic success and involvement in the juvenile justice system. 

The researchers found that when a student was suspended or expelled, his or her likelihood of being involved 

in the juvenile justice system the subsequent year increased significantly. The study also determined that only 3 

percent of the disciplinary actions taken by schools were for conduct for which state law mandates suspensions 

and expulsions; the vast majority of disciplinary actions were made at the discretion of school officials, 

primarily in response to violations of local schools’ conduct codes. 

Within a month of launching the initiative, the u.S. departments of Justice and Education (Ed) had organized 

a workgroup led by oJJdP and Ed staff. More than 30 federal staff are currently participating in the 

following activities to promote more positive school discipline practices: 

• developing a national consensus on policies and best practices. 

• Coordinating research and data collection. 

• issuing guidance documents for states and localities. 

• developing training and resources. 

“oJJdP does research to support best practices, and one of the things we’ve learned is that the minute a 

youth sets foot in detention or confinement, their prospects for success and having a job decrease dramatically 

and the likelihood that they will end up in the adult criminal system increases exponentially,” said oJJdP 

Acting Administrator Melodee Hanes. “That’s why the Supportive School discipline initiative is one of our 

top priorities.” 

“Ensuring that our educational system 

is a doorway to opportunity—and 

not a point of entry to our criminal 

justice system—is a critical, and 

achievable, goal.” 

—Attorney General Eric Holder 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

6 

The Defending Childhood Initiative, for example, 

marshals resources from across DOJ and the fed­

eral government. The National Forum on Youth 

Violence Prevention brings together people from 

diverse professions and perspectives in six U.S. 

cities to learn from each other about the crisis of 

youth and gang violence and to build comprehen­

sive solutions on the local and national levels. The 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative has drawn 

support from Atlantic Philanthropies and the Cali­

fornia Endowment. In FY 2011, OJJDP also contin­

ued to work with the Annie E. Casey Foundation 

on expanding efforts to reform the juvenile justice 

system through alternatives to detention. 

Such collaboration reaps benefits beyond the addi­

tion of fiscal resources. A partnership with Casey 

Family Programs in FY 2011 enriched OJJDP’s 

work by elevating family engagement—the 

involvement of families of incarcerated youth in 

the case planning, care, and reentry services for 

youth—to a top priority for the Office. In FY 2011, 

OJJDP convened a series of listening sessions with 

families of currently or previously incarcerated 

youth to better understand the challenges these 

families face, and to begin developing policy and 

practice recommendations to address their issues. 

Family perspectives have now been incorporated 

into numerous DOJ initiatives, including Defend­

ing Childhood and the National Forum on Youth 

Violence Prevention. 

Decades of experience in the juvenile justice field 

have shown that programs work best when they 

address the unique cultural, gender, and ethnic 

characteristics of the children, families, and com­

munities they serve. 

OJJDP’s Tribal Juvenile Detention and Reentry 

Green Demonstration Program anchors its pro­

grams in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

agricultural traditions—including organic farming 

and beekeeping—to promote pride in tribal history 

as a means of healing and recovery. OJJDP’s FY 2011 

mentoring initiatives include programs specifically 

tailored to the needs of child victims of commer­

cial sexual exploitation, youth with disabilities, 

and AI/AN youth. In addition, OJJDP’s National 

Girls Institute serves as a training and technical 

assistance center for gender-specific programming. 

In FY 2011, the institute held 64 listening sessions 

across the country with girls, their parents or care­

takers, and local professionals in a range of areas, 

including health, education, delinquency preven­

tion, and the courts. Recommendations from these 

sessions are informing all of the institute’s activi­

ties, including the development of a Web site that 

will offer tools, information, and resources not 

only for service providers, but also for girls and 

their families. 

These are just a few examples of the ways in which 

the Office is carefully addressing and responding 
Chapter 1

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

7 

oJJdP HoldS FAMilY EngAgEMEnT liSTEning SESSionS 

during the spring and summer of 2011, oJJdP hosted a series of Family Engagement listening Sessions across the 

country, enabling oJJdP, state juvenile justice agencies, and other stakeholders to hear firsthand what families face when 

their child becomes involved in the juvenile or criminal justice system. 

Families spoke of the frustrating circumstances leading up to their child’s involvement with the juvenile justice system. They 

shared their mostly unsuccessful attempts to address mounting behavior challenges and to obtain mental health services 

and educational responses to their child’s learning or other school-related needs. Many families had high hopes that the 

encounter with the juvenile justice system would be the beginning of helpful services for their child and for the family. 

Very few families found this to be the case once their child was incarcerated. 

instead, families faced a plethora of difficult, stressful, and, in some tragic cases, fatal challenges. Most spoke of having 

little or no information about their rights, their child’s rights, or the legal process at the beginning of or throughout 

the case. Several noted the lack of attention to their child’s 

medical, mental health, and educational needs. Few families 

received support or services for themselves while their child was 

incarcerated, and visiting requirements were often onerous. More 

than one family experienced the suicide of their child while in the 

system, while another family’s son died shortly after release. 

Some families spoke of supportive programs their child 

participated in while in a juvenile justice detention facility, 

including learning how to manage emotions and anger, 

obtaining a high school diploma, or receiving college credits. 

oJJdP is working on a report that compiles the families’ 

experiences and policy recommendations. The report will help 

oJJdP develop strategies to assist state juvenile justice systems 

in increasing positive experiences and outcomes for youth 

and families. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

8 

to the diverse needs of the juvenile justice 

field. 

As described throughout this report, in 

FY 2011 the Office made great strides in 

its mission to improve youth justice and 

safety—by preventing and intervening 

in delinquency (chapter 2), strength­

ening the justice system (chapter 3), 

protecting children (chapter 4), and sharing infor­

mation about the latest developments and research 

findings with the juvenile justice field (chapter 5). 

Although challenges lie ahead, the activities 

described on the following pages illustrate OJJDP’s 

commitment to working vigorously with all of its 

partners to build a better future for America’s chil­

dren, their families, and their communities. 
Chapter 1

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

9 

ConCEnTRATing FEdERAl EFFoRTS 

As part of the Concentration of Federal Efforts Program, oJJdP administers the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice 

and delinquency Prevention and the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FACJJ). These groups advance 

collaboration between agencies with responsibilities in the area of juvenile justice. 

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention brings together senior officials 

from the u.S. departments of Justice, Education (Ed), Health and Human Services (HHS), labor, and 

Housing and urban development, along with other federal agencies, to share information and resources 

and to align their efforts toward the enhancement and reform of policies and practices on a range of 

critical issues facing at-risk children as well as youth in the justice system. 

Among other FY 2011 developments, Attorney general Eric Holder, council chairperson, and Education Secretary Arne 

duncan launched the Supportive School discipline initiative, a collaborative effort to keep children in school and out 

of the justice system. in addition, a federal workgroup composed of staff from oJJdP, Ed, and HHS joined together to 

develop recommendations for integrating the voices of families more effectively into youth-serving programs. 

Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice 

The Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice advises the President 

and Congress on matters related to juvenile justice and advises the 

oJJdP Administrator on the work of oJJdP. A consultative body Federal Advisory

Committee on established by the Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention Act of Juvenile Justice 1974, as amended, FACJJ is composed of appointed representatives of 

State Advisory groups. 

during FY 2011, oJJdP worked to restructure FACJJ to facilitate deeper communication and collaboration with 

the leadership and staff of oJJdP, to forge stronger relationships among states and territories, and to provide 

more timely responses to legislative, policy, and program matters. 

CHAPTER 2
 
CHAPTER 2

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

12 

Preventing and 

Intervening in 

Delinquency 

Research over the past four decades has 

yielded a wealth of information about what 

strategies work in preventing and intervening in youth delinquency—and which do not. 

For example, studies have shown that a juvenile 

justice response to young offenders that combines 

sanctions and treatment (e.g., substance abuse and 

mental health services, family counseling, and job 

skills training) has a significantly greater impact 

on reducing delinquency than those that do not 

include treatment. Using evidence-based practices 

not only decreases juvenile crime, it also enhances 

public safety while maximizing the cost-effectiveness 

of taxpayer dollars. The Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is promoting 

the use of evidence-based practices across all of its 

funded activities, including anti-gang initiatives, 

mentoring, youth and family drug courts, and 

tribal youth programs. 
2011 ANNUAL REPORT

C h apter 2 13 

OJJDP is promoting the use of evidence-based practices 

across all of its funded activities, including anti-gang 

initiatives, mentoring, youth and family drug courts, and 

tribal youth programs. 

Combating Gang Activity 

Since the middle of the 20th century, gang violence in this country has become widespread. All 

50 states and the District of Columbia report gang 

problems, and reports have increased for 5 of the 

past 7 years. Gang activity and its associated violence are a significant component of the U.S. crime 

problem. 

OJJDP’s Community-Based Violence Prevention 

program, based on proven approaches such as the 

OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model, the Boston 

Gun Project, and the Chicago CeaseFire model, 

aims to change community norms regarding violence, provide youth with alternatives to violence, 

and increase their awareness of the risks and 

consequences of involvement in violence. OJJDP 

established the program in fiscal year (FY) 2010 

with sites in Denver, CO; Oakland, CA; Washington, DC; and New York, NY. In FY 2011, OJJDP 

awarded grants totaling $6.6 million to expand the 

implementation of this program to Boston, MA; 

Baltimore, MD; and Newark, NJ. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

14 

“In these tough budget times, 

it is especially important 

that we work together— 

in the community and across 

all levels of government— 

to support our young 

people and protect our 

neighborhoods.” 

—Boston Mayor 

Thomas Menino 

Six CiTiES WoRk To PREvEnT YouTH violEnCE 

At the direction of President obama, the 

u.S. Department of Justice, along with the 

Department of Education and other federal 

agencies, launched the national Forum 

on Youth violence Prevention in FY 2011. 

The forum is a network of cities and federal agencies that work together, share information, and build local capacity 

to prevent and reduce youth and gang violence. The first set of participating cities included Boston, MA; Chicago, il; 

Detroit, Mi; Memphis, Tn; Salinas, CA; and San Jose, CA—with additional cities to be added in FY 2012. 

After the forum’s first meeting in Washington, DC, in october 2010, the cities discussed the development of 

comprehensive plans to reduce violence, improve opportunities for youth, and encourage innovation at the local and 

federal levels. The cities presented their plans at the forum’s first annual summit, held in Washington, DC, in April 2011. 

OJJDP and the Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau 

of Justice Assistance (BJA) administer the Gang 

Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.) 

program, a school-based curriculum taught by 

law enforcement officers. Developed through the 

collaborative efforts of experienced law enforcement officers and specialists in criminology, 

sociology, psychology, education, and health, 

G.R.E.A.T. helps young people develop life skills 

that will enable them to avoid gang involvement 

and violent behavior. In FY 2011, OJJDP awarded 

G.R.E.A.T. approximately $1.6 million. 

In addition, OJJDP and BJA jointly sponsor the 

National Gang Center (NGC), a national training 

and technical assistance center offering proven 

approaches to address gang violence. NGC’s 

Web site provides the latest information about 

anti-gang programs and links to a wide range of 

resources that communities can use to implement 

community-based prevention, intervention, and 

suppression strategies. 

Sponsored by NGC in collaboration with Boys & 

Girls Clubs of America, the 2011 National Gang 

Symposium offered more than 60 workshop sessions for more than 1,000 professionals from the 

fields of education, law enforcement, courts/ 

corrections, prosecution, research, and youth 

development. Topics included school-based gang 
Chapter 2

2011 A NNUA L REPO RT

15 

responses; gang prevention, intervention, and sup­

pression strategies; gang prosecution/supervision 

issues; and current gang research. 

Each year, OJJDP 

publishes the findings 

from NGC’s annual 

National Youth Gang 

Survey of U.S. law 

enforcement agen­

cies. Released in FY 

2011, Highlights of the 

2009 National Youth 

Gang Survey reported, 

among other findings, 

that the number of jurisdictions with gang prob­

lems and the number of gangs increased more than 

20 percent from 2002 to 2009, with both indicators 

recording a 5-percent increase in more recent years. 

Through OJJDP’s 2011 Gang Field Initiated 

Research and Evaluation Programs, OJJDP pro­

vided approximately $2.4 million in funding to 

four sites across the country—the Arizona Board of 

Regents/Arizona State University, the Fund for the 

City of New York/Center for Court Innovation, the 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and 

the RAND Corporation—to research and evaluate 

a range of issues, including involvement in and 

desistance from gang activity; the effectiveness of 

prevention, intervention, and reentry strategies; 

youth gangs in juvenile detention and correctional 

facilities; and how tribal communities can effec­

tively address gang problems. 

Mentoring At-Risk Youth 

Research findings support the effectiveness of 

mentoring for improving outcomes across behav­

ioral, social, emotional, and academic domains of 

young people’s development. Recognizing these 

substantial benefits, OJJDP has long supported 

mentoring to promote successful outcomes for 

at-risk youth. 

In FY 2011, the Office awarded a total of $108 

million to support mentoring programs. Of that 

total, nearly $73 million was awarded through 

OJJDP’s National Mentoring Programs (organiza­

tions receiving funding include Big Brothers Big 

Sisters, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and the 

National 4–H Council) and more than $21 mil­

lion through the Office’s Multi-State Mentoring 

Initiative. 

OJJDP partnered with the U.S. Department of 

Defense in awarding $20 million through its 

mentoring initiatives to nine organizations 

to provide mentoring for youth who have 

parents in the military. The mentoring grants 

are helping youth develop resiliency skills, 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

16 

connect with other military families, acquire career 

training, and get involved in their communities. 

Other new FY 2011 mentoring initiatives focused 

on child victims of commercial sexual exploitation, 

children with disabilities, tribal youth, and youth 

reentering their communities after detention. 

Children may be forced into prostitution, pornography, and other forms of commercial sexual 

exploitation to meet their daily needs for food and 

shelter; they may be controlled through physical, 

verbal, or sexual abuse; or they may receive threats 

of violence against their families. They often feel 

isolated, afraid, and ashamed. With OJJDP funding, three organizations—Girls Educational & 

Mentoring Services, Inc.; the Justice Resource Institute, Inc.; and Motivating, Inspiring, Supporting 

and Serving Sexually Exploited Youth—are helping 

communities recruit and effectively train mentors 

and develop a comprehensive array of support services for these victimized youth. 

Compared with their nondisabled peers, youth 

with disabilities are more likely to experience 

an unintended pregnancy, drop out of school, or 

become involved in the juvenile justice system. 

Goodwill Industries of the Inland Northwest, Arts 

Tech, Be-a-Friend Program, Inc., and five other 

organizations are helping these young people 

develop self-confidence, achieve academic success, 

and develop social and vocational skills in close 

coordination with a network of community service 

providers. 

Youth in Indian country face serious challenges, 

including a violent crime rate that is twice that of 

the general population and high rates of substance 

abuse and suicide. OJJDP’s awards to Big Brothers 

Big Sisters and the National 4–H Council are helping underserved communities engage tribal elders 

as mentors and offer culturally appropriate activities that reinforce tribal history, traditions, and 

culture. 

Young people reentering the community from 

juvenile residential facilities often lack the support 

they need to change the course of their lives and 

avoid the destructive cycle of recidivism. Many 

struggle to stay in school, others lack the necessary 

skills to obtain meaningful employment, some may 

come from troubled or broken families, and many 

others have substance abuse and mental health 

problems. In FY 2011, through its Second Chance 

Act Juvenile Mentoring Initiative, OJJDP continued 

to fund mentoring and other support services for 

youth offenders to help ensure a successful 

transition. 

Although studies have shown mentoring to be a 

promising intervention for youth in general, more 

research and evaluation are needed to highlight the 

specific components of mentoring programs that 

contribute to their success. Research indicates that 
Chapter 2

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

17 

BoYS & GiRlS CluBS oF AMERiCA in 

unDERSERvED CoMMuniTiES 

oJJDP continues its work with Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) to make a significant and lasting impact on the lives 

of children living in disadvantaged communities. 

in FY 2011, oJJDP awarded more than $48 million through its national Mentoring Programs to BGCA to help local 

clubs launch new programs and enhance existing programs for at-risk youth. The funding enabled clubs to mentor more 

than 50,000 youth, more than 80 percent of whom are in programs proven to reduce substance abuse, crime, and other 

negative behaviors. BGCA provided mentoring funds to more than 180 

Boys & Girls Clubs in indian country and approximately 50 clubs in public 

housing communities. Participating clubs received support and resources 

to increase the number and quality of mentor-mentee matches for tribal 

youth. in addition, oJJDP’s FY 2011 funding supported: 

•	 Mentoring for military-connected club members in 

approximately 50 clubs on military installations and 

187 clubs off military installations. 

•	 Gang Prevention Through Targeted outreach programs 

in approximately 31 communities. 

•	 identification and recruitment of minority male mentors 

in 30 Boys & Girls Club organizations. 

the length, quality, and frequency of the mentoring relationship are crucial variables to achieving 

positive outcomes. Research also points to three 

factors that influence program effectiveness: parental involvement, ongoing training for mentors, and 

structured activities. 

In 2011, OJJDP funded two research projects that 

are evaluating the impact of ongoing training for 

mentors. Other studies funded in 2011 are examining the effect of parent engagement, cross-age 

mentoring (high school seniors mentoring middle 

school youth), and advocacy-based mentoring 

(mentors representing a child’s concerns and 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

18 

needs and influencing positive change). The goal 

of OJJDP’s mentoring research is to move the field 

toward best practices and ensure the best use of 

mentoring program funds. 

Drug Courts: Addressing 

Substance Abuse in Young 

Offenders and Families 

Juvenile drug courts combine substance abuse 

treatment, judicial supervision, mandatory drug 

testing, and sanctions and incentives to help young 

offenders get their lives back on track. 

In FY 2011, OJJDP awarded more than $2 million to 

the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges to provide training to practitioners on best 

practices in juvenile drug court operations. OJJDP 

also aims to improve the delivery of treatment ser­

vices through juvenile drug courts. 

OJJDP’s support for family drug courts is designed 

to decrease the incidence of child abuse and neglect, intervene in family risk factors, and reduce 

the likelihood of negative outcomes for youth by 

addressing parents’ substance abuse and providing 

services for their children. OJJDP awarded more 

than $5.5 million to jurisdictions in Alabama, Illi­

nois, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, 

Washington, and Wisconsin to use best practices to 

implement a new family drug court or enhance an 

existing court. 

In 2011, as OJJDP’s training and technical assis­

tance provider to family drug courts, the Center 

for Children and Family Futures responded to 128 

training and technical assistance requests, held an 

orientation for new family drug court grantees, 

maintained an active schedule of Webinars, and 

finalized a publication to assist states in devel­

oping guidelines and standards for family drug 

courts. 

Helping Young Offenders 

Successfully Reenter 

Their Communities 

In January 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder 

convened the inaugural meeting of the Federal 

Interagency Reentry Council. The council brings 

together 20 federal agencies to make communities 

safer by reducing recidivism and victimization, 

to assist those who return from prison and jail in 

becoming productive citizens, and to save taxpayer 

dollars by lowering the costs associated with incar­

ceration. OJJDP serves as the central resource for 

the council’s work in the area of juvenile reentry. 
Chapter 2

2011 A NNUA L REPO RT

19 

OJJDP continued to collaborate closely with BJA 

in FY 2011 on the implementation of the Second 

Chance Act (SCA) of 2007. SCA is the first legisla­

tion ever enacted authorizing federal grants to 

government agencies and nonprofit organizations 

to provide employment assistance, substance abuse 

treatment, literacy classes, housing, family pro­

gramming, mentoring, and other services to help 

reduce recidivism and offer ex-offenders a chance 

to lead productive lives. 

OJJDP awarded funds for the planning (more than 

$444,000) and implementation (more than $3 mil­

lion) of reentry demonstration programs in sites 

across the country. OJJDP also committed $5.4 mil­

lion to provide mentoring for youth in critical life 

skills, employment preparation, and other areas 

necessary to ensure a successful transition back to 

their communities. 

Reaching Out to Tribal Youth 

OJJDP’s Tribal Youth Program supports efforts to 

prevent and control delinquency among AI/AN 

youth and improve tribal juvenile justice systems. 

In FY 2011, OJJDP awarded more than $11 million 

through the Tribal Youth Program to 28 tribes in 

16 states. 

In OJJDP’s Tribal Juvenile Deten­

tion and Reentry Green Dem­

onstration Program, funded 

through a 4-year FY 2009 grant, 

three tribes are using agricul­

tural and green technologies as 

a platform to deepen pride in 

traditional tribal culture, foster 

community service, promote 

academic and vocational 

skills, and reduce alcohol 

and other drug use. The pro­

gram also provides tutoring 

and online educational opportunities as well as 

substance abuse and mental health counseling. 

Youth have worked closely with tribal elders and 

experts from local universities to create community 

gardens. Youth are responsible for preparing the 

soil and nurturing and harvesting the produce, 

which they deliver to elderly people in need. The 

produce also serves as a staple in the detention 

centers’ kitchens, where youth learn how to pre­

pare healthy meals incorporating traditional fruits 

and vegetables. Youth at the three sites have also 

been involved in a range of other green activities, 

including beekeeping, assisting in the construction 

of a solar power system, and launching a cleanup 

campaign to remove litter from tribal lands. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

 

20 

Tribal Youth Poised To Take 

Action in Indian Country 

in July 2011, youth from 45 tribes across indian country 

gathered in Santa Fe, nM, for the 2011 national intertribal 

Youth Summit. oJJDP partnered with a range of federal 

agencies to organize the event, which took place at the 

Santa Fe indian School. 

The summit’s theme, “Youth Taking Action in indian 

Country,” flowed through all activities to enhance 

tribal youth’s ability to influence public safety through 

leadership and positive community engagement. Youth 

developed their public speaking skills, broadened their 

knowledge of native American traditions and culture, 

and learned about healthy lifestyle choices. The summit 

provided a platform for tribal youth to share their 

concerns with federal leaders and discuss youth-led 

solutions to issues in their communities. 

During the week-long event, youth participated in talking 

circles and a town hall session, attended seminars led 

by subject-matter experts, and took part in a series of workshops led by traditional native American artisans and 

craftsmen. They also spent a full day visiting two pueblos—San Felipe and Santa Ana—to engage in a sports/health 

clinic and a feast day filled with ceremonial dances and traditional food. 

The summit concluded with a reflection session led by Mary lou leary, then-Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

of the office of Justice Programs. in this session, tribal youth teams shared their plans for commitment to service and 

leadership back home. Youth talked about developing an antidrug policy on the reservation, building a cultural center 

that also provides healthcare services and a safe place for youth, starting a fitness center to promote physical health, 

and sponsoring family days. 

“I learned a lot and got a lot of new ideas to 

help my tribe. Seeing other Native Americans with 

good careers taught me that if they could do it, 

I could as well, which meant a lot to me.” 

—Youth participant, 

2011 National Intertribal Youth Summit 
CHAPTER 3
 
CHAPTER 3

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

22 

Strengthening the 

Juvenile Justice 

System 

Ever since the passage of the Juvenile Justice activities, OJJDP is playing a leadership role in 

and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act preventing and controlling youth delinquency and 

nearly 40 years ago,1 the Office of Juvenile improving the treatment of youth involved in the 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), juvenile justice system. 

which is mandated to carry out the Act’s proviOJJDP developed a set of performance measures sions, has been changing the way the nation deals 

with troubled youth. Through its administration of that help the Office, Congress, and the juvenile 

justice field gauge the Office’s progress and the Formula Grants program and a range of other 

1

 Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (Pub. L. No. 93–415, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq.) in 1974. This landmark legislation 

established OJJDP to support local and state efforts to prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. On December 17, 2009, the Senate 

Judiciary Committee passed S. 678, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill was introduced on March 24, 

2009, by Senator Patrick Leahy. H.R. 6029, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2010, was introduced by Representative Keith Ellison with cosponsor Representative Robert C. “Bobby” Scott on July 30, 2010. This bill was referred to the House Committee on Education 

and Labor and the House Committee on the Judiciary. To obtain copies of these bills and updates on their status, go to thomas.loc.gov. 
2011 ANNUAL REPORT

C h apter 3 23 

challenges. OJJDP’s performance measurement 

system tracks progress in accomplishing specific 

goals, objectives, and outcomes. Measurements 

include not only the number of juveniles served, 

hours of service provided, and staff trained, but 

improvements in youth’s academic performance, 

prosocial behavior, and reoffense rates. Performance measures enable the Office to accurately 

assess the effectiveness of its programs and maximize the return on tax dollars. 

A major requirement for states receiving funding through 

OJJDP’s Formula Grants program is reducing the 

disproportionate number of minority youth who come 

into contact with the justice system. In FY 2011, all 

participating states complied with the requirement. 

Formula Grants Program 

The JJDP Act authorizes OJJDP to award formula 

grants to support state and local efforts in planning, operating, and evaluating projects that seek 

to prevent at-risk youth from entering the juvenile justice system or intervene with first-time 

and nonserious offenders to provide services that 

maximize their chances of leading productive, successful lives. The program also provides funds to 

enhance the effectiveness of the juvenile justice 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

24 

system. To receive funding, states must commit to 

achieving and maintaining compliance with the 

four core requirements of the Act. 

The requirements help ensure that youth are not 

inappropriately incarcerated for minor offenses, 

that youth are kept safe and healthy in juvenile jus­

tice residential facilities, and that racial and ethnic 

bias do not unfairly target minority youth. These 

mandates require states to: 

•	 Deinstitutionalize status offenders. 

•	 Separate juveniles from adults in secure 

facilities. 

•	 Remove juveniles from adult jails and lockups. 

•	 Reduce disproportionate minority contact 

(DMC) within the juvenile justice system. 

OJJDP has had a successful track record in meet­

ing these requirements. Since the JJDP Act was first 

enacted in 1974, the detention of status offend­

ers has decreased 97 percent, instances of youth 

held with adults have decreased 98 percent, and 

instances of youth held in adult jails and lockups 

have decreased 97 percent. In fiscal year (FY) 2011, 

all states in OJJDP’s Formula Grants program com­

plied with the requirements for reducing racial and 

ethnic disparities. 

OJJDP awarded more than $50 million in formula 

grant funds to designated state agencies in FY 2011. 

In addition, OJJDP made site visits, provided 

technical assistance, and sponsored numerous 

training conferences to assist states in preventing 

youth delinquency and implementing the four core 

requirements of the JJDP Act. 

OJJDP’s National Training and Technical Assis­

tance Center provided 61 training and technical 

assistance events to 2,666 participants in 28 states 

under the Formula Grants program during FY 2011. 

The topic areas most commonly addressed were 

DMC, monitoring compliance with the JJDP Act, 

juvenile justice system improvement, strategic 

community action planning, and delinquency 

prevention. 

Measuring Performance 

In 2011, states participating in the Formula Grant 

program reported data for a total of 1,317 grant 

awards, including 1,261 subgrants across 933 sepa­

rate organizations. This represents more than $77 

million in funded activities. Funds were allocated 

to activities across many program areas, with 

the largest proportion going to disproportionate 

minority contact (16 percent), delinquency preven­

tion (13 percent), and compliance monitoring (13 

percent). Formula grant programs served 257,971 
Chapter 3

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

25 

STATE ComPlIAnCE WITH JJDP ACT CoRE REquIREmEnTS 

If a state, despite its good faith efforts, fails to demonstrate compliance with any of the core requirements in any year, 

oJJDP will reduce its formula grant for the subsequent fiscal year by 20 percent for each requirement for which the 

state is noncompliant. The following table indicates (in blue) the states that received reduced FY 2011 funding for 

noncompliance with one or more of the JJDP Act’s core requirements. 

State1 

Deinstitutionalization 

of status offenders 

Separation of juveniles 

from adults in secure 

facilities 

Removal of juveniles 

from adult jails and 

lockups 

Reduction of 

disproportionate 

minority contact 

Alabama √ √ √ √ 

Alaska √ √ √ √ 

Arizona √ √ √ √ 

Arkansas √ √ √ √ 

California √ √ √ √ 

Colorado √ √ √ √ 

Connecticut √ √ √ √ 

Delaware √ √ √ √ 

District of Columbia √ √ √ √ 

Florida √ √ √ √ 

Georgia √ √ √ √ 

Hawaii √ √ √ √ 

Idaho √ √ √ √ 

Illinois √ √ √ √ 

Indiana √ √ √ √ 

Iowa √ √ √ √ 

Kansas √ √ √ √ 

continued on pg. 26 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

26 

STATE ComPlIAnCE WITH JJDP ACT CoRE REquIREmEnTS (continued)
 

State1 

Deinstitutionalization 

of status offenders 

Separation of juveniles 

from adults in secure 

facilities 

Removal of juveniles 

from adult jails and 

lockups 

Reduction of 

disproportionate 

minority contact 

Kentucky √ √ √ √ 

louisiana √ √ √ √ 

maine √ √ √ √ 

maryland √ √ X √ 

massachusetts √ X √ √ 

michigan √ √ √ √ 

minnesota √ √ √ √ 

mississippi X √ X √ 

missouri √ √ √ √ 

montana √ √ √ √ 

nebraska √ √ √ √ 

nevada √ √ √ √ 

new Hampshire √ √ √ √ 

new Jersey √ √ √ √ 

new mexico √ √ √ √ 

new York √ √ √ √ 

north Carolina X X X √ 

north Dakota √ √ √ √ 

ohio √ √ √ √ 

oklahoma √ √ √ √ 

oregon √ √ √ √ 

Pennsylvania √ √ √ √ 
Chapter 3

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

27 

STATE ComPlIAnCE WITH JJDP ACT CoRE REquIREmEnTS (continued)
 

State1 

Deinstitutionalization 

of status offenders 

Separation of juveniles 

from adults in secure 

facilities 

Removal of juveniles 

from adult jails and 

lockups 

Reduction of 

disproportionate 

minority contact 

Rhode Island √ √ √ √ 

South Carolina √ √ X √ 

South Dakota √ √ √ √ 

Tennessee √ √ √ √ 

Texas √ √ √ √ 

utah √ √ √ √ 

Vermont √ √ √ √ 

Virginia √ √ √ √ 

Washington √ √ √ √ 

West Virginia √ X X √ 

Wisconsin √ √ √ √ 

Wyoming2 – – – – 

American Samoa √ √ √ √ 

Guam X X X √ 

northern mariana 

Islands 

√ √ √ √ 

Puerto Rico3 √ X X – 

Virgin Islands X X X √ 

X = reduced FY 2011 funding for noncompliance; √ = full FY 2011 funding for compliance.
 

1 The term “state” means any state of the united States, the District of Columbia, and the five u.S. territories.
 

2 Wyoming does not participate in the Formula Grants program.
 

3 The u.S. Census Bureau has exempted Puerto Rico from reporting racial statistics.
 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

28 

youth during the reporting period. Of these youth, 

83 percent completed program requirements, 57 

percent exhibited a desired change in the targeted 

behavior,

2 and only 5 percent reoffended while 

participating in programs. Of the Formula Grantfunded programs, about 41 percent reported 

implementing at least one evidence-based 

program. 

Juvenile Accountability 

Block Grants Program 

The premise underlying the Juvenile Account­

ability Block Grants (JABG) program is that both 

individual youth offenders and the juvenile justice 

system must be held accountable. 

For youth, accountability is best 

achieved through a system of 

graduated sanctions imposed 

according to the nature and 

severity of the offense, moving 

from limited interventions to 

more restrictive actions if the 

offender continues delinquent 

activities. For the juvenile 

justice system, accountability involves a new set of 

expectations and demands, including increasing 

the system’s capacity to develop youth compe­

tence, to efficiently track youth through the system, 

and to provide restitution, community service, 

victim-offender mediation, and other restorative 

sanctions. 

States and units of local government implement 

JABG programs in any of 17 program purpose 

areas, which include developing and maintaining 

graduated sanctions; establishing accountability, 

restorative justice, and reentry programs; and hir­

ing and training additional juvenile court and 

corrections professionals. (For a complete list of 

the JABG program purpose areas, read Juvenile 

Accountability Block Grants Program, available at 

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/226357.pdf.) 

Measuring Performance 

The JABG program served more than 400,000 

youth and/or families during the 2011 reporting 

period. A total of 56 JABG grantees submitted 

some level of performance data for the 2011 report­

ing period (April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011). The 

2

 Targeted behaviors differed depending on the youth’s specific program goals. In the majority of cases, Formula Grant-funded programs targeted a 

reduction in antisocial behavior, improved school attendance, or increased social competence. The outcomes reported here represent the benefits or 

changes that participants experience by the time they leave or complete the program. These changes are usually noted from 0–6 months after the time 

they complete a program or service. 
Chapter 3

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

29 

Memphis City Schools Dramatically Reduce 

Disproportionate Minority Contact 

oJJDP’s formula grants funding is helping communities across the country reduce the 

disproportionate number of minority youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. 

one such community is memphis, Tn, the largest school district in the state and the 23rd largest 

public school system in the united States. of the more than 100,000 students enrolled during the 

2010–11 academic year, about 86 percent were identified as African American and about 

6 percent as Hispanic. 

In July 2007, memphis City Schools received oJJDP formula grants funding through the 

Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth’s DmC [Disproportionate minority Contact] Pilot 

Project to implement the School House Adjustment Program Enterprise (SHAPE). The goal of the 

program is to reduce the number of minority students sent to juvenile detention for relatively minor offenses 

such as disorderly conduct, trespassing, and gambling. SHAPE has been implemented in 22 middle and high schools in memphis. 

When students commit minor offenses, SHAPE encourages school resource officers to issue a juvenile summons rather than transport students to court. If students 

and their parents agree to participate in SHAPE, a juvenile summons will not be filed. However, a potential summons remains active for 6 months and can be 

filed any time during this period. This ensures accountability and provides an incentive for youth to comply with the program’s requirements. If they comply, the 

potential summons is withdrawn and no charges are filed. 

Students participate in a 14-week evidence-based curriculum designed to equip them with the knowledge and behavioral skills they need to be drug free, 

improve decisionmaking, and change negative behaviors. many schools ask SHAPE participants to engage in community service projects. others organize 

circle discussions where students must confront how their delinquent behavior affects others. Some students are required to write an apology letter, and others to 

provide financial restitution. 

An evaluation of the program conducted by the university of memphis showed that transports to juvenile court from schools participating in the SHAPE program 

dropped 60 percent over the course of 3 years—from approximately 1,000 in the 2007–08 school year to slightly more than 400 in the 2010–11 school year. 

“Tennessee would not have been able to do this without formula grants funding,” said John Hall, SHAPE’s coordinator. “In the Tennessee model, kids are 

participating in alternatives to the juvenile justice system like community service instead of being referred to the courts, having charges filed, or being placed in 

secure detention. We may be able to see a statewide transformation if things keep going the way they are going.” 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

30 

states submitted information for approximately 

1,478 subgrants and reported performance data 

for 1,256 of those subgrants. This represents 

approximately $78 million in funded activities. 

JABG grantees and subgrantees reported per­

formance measures data regarding activities 

that were funded by active awards received in 

FY 2005 through FY 2010.3 

Although funds were allocated to activi­

ties across all 17 JABG purpose areas, the 

activities with the largest funding allocations 

included accountability-based programs 

(27 percent), court/probation programming 

(9 percent), and risk/needs assessments 

(9 percent). Eighty-six percent of youth success­

fully completed program requirements, 72 percent 

of program youth exhibited a desired change in 

the targeted behavior,

4 65 percent of programs 

reported using an evidence-based program or 

practice, and 9 percent of program youth reoffended during the reporting period. 

Tribal Juvenile 

Accountability Discretionary 

Grants Program 

OJJDP’s Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretion­

ary Grants (T–JADG) program provides funding 

competitively to federally recognized tribes to 

strengthen tribal juvenile justice systems and to 

hold youth accountable. T–JADG funds are a sepa­

rate allocation within the JABG appropriation. In 

FY 2011, OJJDP awarded more than $1 million to 

four tribes: the Crow Tribe (Montana), the Hopi 

Tribe (Arizona), the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

(North Dakota), and the White Earth Nation 

(Minnesota). 

Measuring Performance 

In FY 2011, OJJDP had 16 active T–JADG awards, 

representing $4.7 million in funding. Of the 16 

T–JADG grantees, 15 provided performance data 

for the 2011 reporting period. Ninety percent of 

3

 Because JABG grantees have a multiple-year funding period, they do not necessarily spend funds in the calendar year or fiscal year in which their funds 

are awarded. Thus, the specific funds a state may award to its subgrantees during a given fiscal year can actually derive from prior fiscal years. 4

 Targeted behaviors differed depending on the youth’s specific program goals. In the majority of cases, JABG programs targeted a reduction in antisocial 

behavior, improved school attendance, or increased social competence. The outcomes reported here represent the benefits or changes that participants 

experience by the time they leave or complete the program. These changes are usually noted from 0–6 months after the time they complete a program or 

service. 
Chapter 3

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

31 

program youth exhibited a desired change in the 

targeted behavior,5 67 percent of program youth 

successfully completed program requirements, 

and 62 percent of programs reported using an 

evidence-based program or practice. 

Community Prevention 

Grants Program 

Preventing young people from engaging in delinquent behavior, thus diverting many of them from 

a future of criminal activity, is a central goal of the 

juvenile justice system in this country. Since 1994, 

OJJDP has administered the Community Prevention Grants (CPG) program (funded through Title 

V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention), which provides funds to help communities 

develop and implement delinquency prevention 

programs. The program focuses on helping youth 

avoid involvement in delinquency by reducing the 

risk factors and enhancing the protective factors in 

their schools, communities, and families. 

The CPG program provides funds that enable 

communities to address these factors in a locally 

suitable and sustainable manner. Local leaders are encouraged to initiate multidisciplinary 

needs assessments of the risks and resources in 

their communities and develop locally relevant 

prevention plans that simultaneously draw on 

community resources, address gaps in services or 

risks, and employ evidence-based strategies. The 

program funds delinquency prevention efforts 

across 19 program areas reflecting a range of 

activities, from mental health services to mentoring to job training. (For a complete list of the CPG 

program areas, read Community Prevention Grants 

Program, available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ 

ojjdp/227345.pdf.) 

In FY 2011, OJJDP awarded $2.6 

million in grants through the 

CPG program, with $50,000 

going to most states. In FY 2011, 

states reported data for a total 

of 151 active subgrants from 

97 subgrantees, representing more than $4 million in 

funded activities. 

5

 Targeted behaviors differed depending on the youth’s specific program goals. In the majority of cases, T–JADG programs targeted a reduction in antisocial behavior, improved school attendance, or increased social competence. The outcomes reported here represent the benefits or changes that participants experience by the time they leave or complete the program. These changes are usually noted from 0–6 months after the time they complete a 

program or service. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

32 

Measuring Performance 

During FY 2011, CPG programs served 15,836 

youth, 54 percent of whom completed program 

requirements. Of the 151 local programs that pro­

vided performance data during this reporting 

cycle, 59 percent were evidence based. 

Program areas to which the greatest number of 

subgrants were allocated were delinquency pre­

vention (72 subgrants), disproportionate minority 

contact (32 subgrants), school programs (12 sub-

grants), and mental health services (12 subgrants). 

These local programs addressed a wide range 

of youth behaviors. Overall, 79 percent of youth 

participants exhibited positive changes in behav­

ior targeted by the program.

6 Specifically, youth 

showed improvements in the following areas: 

87 percent improved their school attendance, 

87 percent reduced their antisocial behavior, 

62 percent improved relationships with their 

families, and 78 percent reduced their substance 

use. The ultimate outcome measure for delin­

quency prevention programs is a low offending 

rate among program participants. In FY 2011, the 

offending and reoffending rate of CPG program 

participants was 1.8 percent and 1.4 percent, 

respectively. 

Enforcing Underage 

Drinking Laws Program 

Underage drinking is a widespread problem that 

can have serious social consequences. Youth who 

drink are more likely to abuse and become depen­

dent on alcohol, to cause traffic injuries and fatali­

ties, and to commit aggravated assault, property 

theft, and other antisocial acts. 

The Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) 

program, the only federal initiative directed exclu­

sively toward preventing underage drinking, 

supports and enhances efforts by states and local 

jurisdictions to prohibit the sale of alcoholic bever­

ages to minors and the purchase and consump­

tion of alcoholic beverages by minors. OJJDP has 

administered the EUDL program since Congress 

created the initiative in 1998. 

Under the EUDL block grants program, each state, 

territory, and the District of Columbia received 

$300,000 in FY 2011, totaling nearly $17 million. 

The funds support a range of activities, includ­

ing compliance checks of retail alcohol outlets by 

law enforcement, programs to deter older youth 

or adults from providing alcohol to minors, party 

6

 Targeted behaviors differed depending on the youth’s specific program goals. In the majority of cases, CPG programs targeted a reduction in antisocial 

behavior, improved school attendance, or increased social competence. The outcomes reported here represent the benefits or changes that participants 

experience by the time they leave or complete the program. These changes are usually noted from 0–6 months after the time they complete a program or 

service. 
Chapter 3

2011 A NNUA L REPO RT

33 

patrols to prevent drinking at large gatherings, and 

youth-led campaigns to reduce underage drinking. 

Measuring Performance 

During 2011, states reported data for 1,413 EUDL 

subgrant awards across 624 separate organizations. 

In this period, states reported data for more than 

$47 million in subgrant and statewide awards. 

Nationally, 76 percent of subgrants focused on 

enforcement, 31 percent on media initiatives, 29 

percent on statewide task forces and/or coalitions, 

and 28 percent on education, training, and other 

activities. 

Performance data for 2011 indicate some posi­

tive trends: 86 percent of funded projects are 

using an evidence-based model, 89 percent of 

establishments selling alcohol for consump­

tion off their premises were in compliance 

(82,072 of 92,127 establishments checked 

for compliance), and 88 percent of alcohol 

establishments selling alcohol for consump­

tion on their premises were in compliance 

(33,018 of 37,727 establishments checked for 

compliance). 

CHAPTER 4
 
CHAPTER 4

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

36 

Defending Children
 

Against Victimization
 

Children’s exposure to violence, crime, and 

abuse can leave long-lasting scars, often in 

the form of anxiety, depression, substance 

abuse, truancy, and even involvement in juvenile 

delinquency. Despite many inroads made in the 

protection of children, the fact remains that children in this country continue to be victimized at 

alarming rates through physical and sexual abuse, 

commercial sexual exploitation, abduction, bullying, and gun violence. The proliferation of child 

pornography and heightened online activity by 

predators searching for unsupervised contact with 

underage victims present both a significant threat 

to the health and safety of young people and a formidable challenge for law enforcement. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) continued its longstanding commitment to conducting research and supporting 

initiatives designed to help the field address crimes 

against children. The Office’s third National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and 

Thrownaway Children, scheduled for release in fiscal 

year (FY) 2014, is comprehensively measuring the 
2011 ANNUAL REPORT

C h apter 4 37 

Since OJJDP established the Internet Crimes Against Children 

program in 1998, its task forces have reviewed more than 

280,000 complaints of alleged child sexual victimization, 

resulting in the arrest of more than 30,000 individuals. 

scope and nature of the nation’s missing children 

problem and estimating the number of missing children recovered each year. In addition, the Office’s 

engagement in programs such as the Defending 

Childhood Initiative, the Internet Crimes Against 

Children (ICAC) program, and the AMBER Alert 

program are making a tangible difference in the lives 

of America’s children by preventing and intervening 

in crimes against children, returning abducted children home safely, and bringing perpetrators of these 

crimes to justice. All of these initiatives are making 

our nation’s communities safer places in which to 

grow up and live. 

Children’s Exposure 

to Violence 

Exposure to violence has become part of daily 

life for many of America’s children. According 

to the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to 

Violence (NatSCEV), sponsored by OJJDP with 

support from the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, more than 60 percent of children were 

exposed to violence, crime, or abuse in the past 

year, either directly or indirectly. Almost 40 percent 

of American children were direct victims of 2 or 

more violent acts, and 1 in 10 were victims of 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

38 

violence 5 or more times. Also, nearly 1 in 10 

American children saw a family member assault 

another family member during the past year.7 

To address this serious problem, in September 

2010 Attorney General Eric Holder launched the 

Defending Childhood Initiative, which aims to 

prevent exposure to violence, mitigate the negative 

effects experienced by children exposed to violence, and develop knowledge about and spread 

awareness of this issue. 

A key component of the Defending Childhood 

Initiative is OJJDP’s multiyear demonstration 

program. In FY 2010, the Office awarded grants to 

eight demonstration sites for a 1-year assessment 

and program planning period. In FY 2011, four 

sites—Boston, MA; Cuyahoga County, OH; Grand 

Forks, ND; and Shelby County, TN—were selected 

to receive $2 million for 2 years to implement their 

comprehensive plans. Two tribes—Rosebud Sioux, 

SD; and Chippewa Cree, Rocky Boy, MT—received 

$1 million for 2 years to continue comprehensive planning and to begin implementation. Two 

sites—Portland, ME; and Multnomah County, 

OR—received $500,000 for 2 years for partial 

implementation. The implementation of comprehensive plans, involving cross-sector teams of 

local leadership, will serve as the basis for developing model programs that can be adopted by 

communities across the country. In FY 2011, OJJDP 

awarded $1.6 million to Futures Without Violence 

to provide training and technical assistance to the 

eight demonstration sites and $1.5 million to the 

Center for Court Innovation to conduct an evaluation of the demonstration program. 

The Safe Start Center, OJJDP’s national resource 

center for information and training related to 

reducing children’s exposure to violence, received 

$1 million from OJJDP in FY 2011. As part of the 

Safe Start Initiative, OJJDP continues its partnership with the RAND Corporation to collect and 

disseminate process and outcome data on interventions for children exposed to violence at 10 sites. 

In FY 2011, OJJDP awarded more than $765,000 to 

RAND to conduct a national evaluation of strategies implemented at the sites. 

In FY 2011, OJJDP awarded nearly $790,000 to 

the Crimes against Children Research Center at 

the University of New Hampshire to conduct the 

second wave of NatSCEV, a national longitudinal 

trend survey, to document changes in the incidence 

and prevalence of children’s exposure to violence, 

crime, and abuse. 

7

 Indirect exposure is defined as being a witness to a violent act; learning of a violent act against a family member, neighbor, or close friend; or experiencing a threat against one’s home or school. NatSCEV studied U.S. children and adolescents ranging in age from birth to age 17. 
Chapter 4

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

39 

Internet Crimes Against 

Children Task Force Program 

The ICAC program is a national network of 61 

coordinated task forces representing more than 

2,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement and 

prosecutorial agencies. The task forces are engaged 

in proactive investigations, forensic investigations, 

and criminal prosecutions. By helping state and 

local agencies to develop effective, sustainable 

responses to online child victimization and child 

pornography, OJJDP has increased their capacity to 

address Internet crimes against children. 

Since the ICAC program’s inception in 1998, more 

than 338,000 law enforcement officers, prosecutors, 

and other professionals have been trained in the 

United States and in 17 other countries on techniques to investigate and prosecute ICAC-related 

cases. In addition, ICAC task forces have reviewed 

more than 280,000 complaints of alleged child 

sexual victimization, resulting in the arrest of more 

than 30,000 individuals. 

In FY 2011, OJJDP awarded more than $30 million 

to support the ICAC task forces. This support 

consisted of funding for law enforcement operations, training and technical assistance, and 

research. 

ICAC task forces received more than 

40,000 documented complaints of 

child sexual exploitation from the 

public and from electronic service 

providers in FY 2011. Investigations 

from these reports led to the arrest 

of more than 5,700 individuals, 

forensic examinations of more than 

45,000 computers, and the referral 

of more than 9,800 cases to other 

law enforcement agencies. 

In May 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice’s 

(DOJ’s) Project Safe Childhood Initiative and 

OJJDP’s ICAC program hosted the National Strategy Conference on Combating Child Exploitation 

in San Jose, CA. The event is the nation’s largest 

training conference for law enforcement investigators, forensic experts, and prosecutors involved in 

combating the online exploitation of children. The 

conference, attended by nearly 1,300 professionals, 

featured highly specialized training provided by 

the ICAC task force program, its federal partner 

agencies, and other organizations. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

40 

National Center for Missing 

& Exploited Children 

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Chil­

dren (NCMEC) observed its 27th year of operation 

in June 2011. As a clearinghouse and resource cen­

ter, NCMEC collects and distributes data regard­

ing missing and exploited children. In partnership 

with OJJDP, the center offers critical intervention 

and prevention services to families and supports 

law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, 

and local levels in cases involving missing and 

exploited children. OJJDP funding for NCMEC 

totaled approximately $30.2 million in FY 2011. 

NCMEC operates a 24-hour, toll-free missing chil­

dren’s hotline (1–800–THE–LOST); a CyberTipline 

for the public to use to report 

Internet-related child sexual 

exploitation; and the Child 

Victim Identification Program 

(CVIP), which uses specialized 

computer software to determine 

the identities of children whose 

images appear in pornography. 

In FY 2011, the center ’s hot-

line received 174,994 calls. 

During the same period, 

its CyberTipline handled 

277,552 reports regarding potential child exploita­

tion or online harm to children. As of the end of 

2011, a total of 3,802 identified children were in the 

CVIP system. During FY 2011, NCMEC assisted in 

the recovery of 11,690 children; since its inception, 

NCMEC has assisted in the recovery of 172,566 

children. 

NCMEC also is a key participant in the AMBER 

Alert program and the annual National Missing 

Children’s Day commemoration. 

AMBER Alert 

The AMBER Alert system issues media alerts when 

a law enforcement agency determines that a child 

has been abducted and is in imminent danger. The 

broadcasts provide information about the child 

and the abductor that can lead to the child’s recov­

ery, such as a physical description of each and a 

description of the abductor ’s vehicle. The Office of 

Justice Programs manages the program with the 

assistance of OJJDP. 

With support from DOJ’s Office of Overseas Pros­

ecutorial Development Assistance and Training, 

in FY 2011 OJJDP awarded a grant of more than 

$3.5 million to expand AMBER Alert trainings in 

Mexico as part of AMBER Alert’s Southern Border 
Chapter 4

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

41 

AMBER Alerts for Abducted Children 

Now Available on Facebook 

At a press conference on January 12, 2011, Laurie O. Robinson, then-Assistant Attorney 

General for the Office of Justice Programs and National AMBER Alert Coordinator, joined 

representatives of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and Facebook as they 

announced a partnership to enable millions of Facebook users across the country to receive 

AMBER Alerts via their accounts. The goal of an AMBER Alert is to instantly galvanize the 

entire community to assist in the search for and the safe recovery of an abducted child. 

Facebook users in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands can sign up to receive AMBER Alerts for their region. Facebook users can share 

the AMBER Alerts with their friends. There are more than half a billion Facebook users 

worldwide. 

“These efforts demonstrate the high priority this Administration places on child protection,” said Robinson. “While 

we can’t fulfill every parent’s dream and completely insulate children, we can promote programs and partnerships 

that protect children and help bring them home.” 

The press conference was held the day before the 15th anniversary of the abduction and murder of 9-year-old 

Amber Hagerman of Arlington, TX. Although her case has never been solved, it prompted the creation of the 

national AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert program in 1996. Since that time, 

the program has grown into a network of 120 AMBER plans across the country. As of the end of FY 2011, the 

AMBER Alert program had been credited with the safe recovery of 562 children. 

“The social media enable law enforcement to reach way beyond our normal footprint. . . . I can 

only dream and imagine what we’ll be able to accomplish with this new tool in our toolbox.” 

—Col. Steven Flaherty 

Superintendent, Virginia State Police 

Press conference speaker 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

42 

Initiative. The initiative responds to child abduc­

tion and trafficking crimes across the U.S. southern 

border. As a result of these efforts, the federal gov­

ernment of Mexico has committed to implement­

ing the AMBER Alert program throughout the 

country. According to NCMEC, Mexico accounts 

for 47 percent of all international child abductions 

from the United States. 

Among other 2011 highlights, a new partnership 

with Facebook has significantly expanded the 

reach of AMBER Alerts by enabling users of the 

social networking site to sign up to receive bul­

letins about missing children in their area. OJJDP 

also sponsored the AMBER Alert Training Sympo­

sium in FY 2011. Attendees included state, local, 

regional, and tribal AMBER Alert 

coordinators along with repre­

sentatives from missing children 

clearinghouses, law enforce­

ment, the media, transportation 

agencies, the wireless industry, 

NCMEC, and the Surviving 

Parents Coalition. The sym­

posium was funded through 

OJJDP’s AMBER Alert Train­

ing and Technical Assistance 

Program. 

Commercial Sexual 

Exploitation of Children 

The commercial sexual exploitation of children 

(CSEC) involves crimes of a sexual nature com­

mitted against juvenile victims for financial gain. 

These crimes include trafficking for sexual pur­

poses, pornography, prostitution, sex tourism, 

stripping, and performing in sexual venues such as 

peep shows or clubs. At a time when the number 

of known CSEC cases is growing, more needs to be 

done to raise public awareness about this problem 

and to develop effective strategies to reduce its 

incidence. 

In its ongoing effort to address this issue, in FY 

2011 OJJDP awarded a grant of $1.5 million to the 

National Institute of Medicine to conduct a study 

(in collaboration with the National Research Coun­

cil’s Committee on Law and Justice) about the 

causes and consequences of CSEC and to examine 

current strategies to address the problem at the 

local, state, and federal levels. 

OJJDP also awarded a $1.5 million grant to support 

the efforts of community service organizations to 

develop or enhance their mentoring capacity, facili­

tate outreach efforts, and increase the availability 

of direct services for child victims of commercial 

sexual exploitation or domestic sex trafficking. 
Chapter 4

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

43 

MISSING CHILDREN’S DAY 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) commemorated the 28th annual National 

Missing Children’s Day on May 25, 2011, with a ceremony at DOJ’s Great Hall in 

Washington, DC. The ceremony, planned and managed by OJJDP, honored missing 

children and the efforts made by law enforcement personnel and citizens to protect 

children from harm. 

Speakers at the ceremony included James Cole, Deputy Attorney General; Ernie 

Allen, then-President and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited 

Children; and Mika Moulton, the parent of an abducted child and founder of 

Christopher’s Clubhouse, a community safety education program. 

A video message from then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton described 

the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues as a clearinghouse of resources and information 

for families seeking to prevent or address international parental abductions. “International parental child abduction is 

a painful scourge for so many, and it’s something that deeply concerns me,” she said. In 2010, the Office of Children’s 

Issues helped more than 575 children return to their homes. 

OJJDP highlighted several publications at the event, including Guide for Implementing or Enhancing an Endangered 

Missing Advisory, which describes how a community can create voluntary partnerships to rapidly recover missing 

persons who do not fit the AMBER Alert criteria but who may be in danger. 

Children’s Advocacy Centers 

OJJDP’s Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) are 

child-focused, child-friendly programs that bring 

together teams of investigators, prosecutors, medical personnel, and social service and mental health 

professionals to provide a continuum of services to 

victims and nonoffending family members. CACs 

also coordinate the investigation and prosecution 

of child abuse cases. 

OJJDP has long recognized the efficacy of the CAC 

model and has provided funding to support and 

expand access to CACs through the Victims of 

Child Abuse Act of 1990. In FY 2011, $18 million 

was appropriated for the program. Currently, there 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

44 

are a total of 750 CACs, with approximately 150 

developing centers. In 2011, CACs provided services to more than 279,000 children and provided 

child sexual abuse prevention education to more 

than 500,000 members of the public. In addition, 

CACs are being established in many foreign 

countries. 

The National Children’s Alliance (NCA) serves as 

the accrediting and membership body for CACs 

and administers federal grants to develop and 

improve these advocacy centers. In collaboration 

with NCA, the National Children’s Advocacy 

Center and four regional CACs—in the Midwest, 

Northeast, South, and West—work in close partnership to provide existing and developing centers 

with training, technical assistance, and other 

services. 
CHAPTER 5
 
CHAPTER 5

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

46 

Disseminating 

Information and 

Resources to the Field 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has a responsibility to keep the nation informed about 

pressing juvenile justice issues and promising 

programs to address them. As part of this mission, 

during fiscal year (FY) 2011 the Office completed 

preparations for its National Conference for Children’s Justice and Safety, scheduled for early FY 

2012. The agenda for the event included 7 plenaries, 330 speakers, and more than 65 workshops 

and sessions as well as special tracks on children’s 

exposure to violence, anti-gang strategies, child 

protection and advocacy, truancy and dropping 

out, at-risk and delinquent girls, trends in tribal 

youth policy, evidence-based practices, and reforming the treatment of juveniles in custody, among 

other topics. 

OJJDP continued to disseminate information about 

the latest developments in the juvenile justice field 
2011 ANNUAL REPORT

C h apter 5 47 

through a range of other vehicles during FY 2011, 

including online data tools with a wealth of statistical information; a Web site featuring information 

about research, programs, and funding; a listserv 

that alerts subscribers to important funding opportunities, resources, and events; and Webinars to 

keep researchers, practitioners, and policymakers 

up to date on trends in the field. In FY 2011, OJJDP 

released 25 new publications to inform the nation 

about critical juvenile justice issues and approaches 

to solving them. A list of FY 2011 publications is 

available in appendix B. 

OJJDP is committed to providing practitioners, policymakers, 

and the public with timely and reliable juvenile justice 

information. The Office’s resources include comprehensive 

online data systems; a Web site featuring information about 

research, model programs, and funding; and a range of print 

and online publications. 

Statistical Briefing Book 

Developed for OJJDP by the National Center for 

Juvenile Justice, the online Statistical Briefing Book 

(SBB) provides timely and reliable answers to 

the most frequently asked questions from policymakers, the media, and the general public. SBB is 

a major source of U.S. juvenile crime and juvenile 

justice data. During FY 2011, the SBB page of the 

OJJDP Web site received nearly 14.6 million hits, 

and there were more than 465,000 visits to the site. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

48 

OJJDP’s National Juvenile 

Justice Data Collection 

Program 

OJJDP sponsors the nation’s most comprehensive 

data collection program on juvenile offenders in 

custody and the facilities that hold them. OJJDP’s 

constellation of surveys on youth in custody 

includes the Survey of Youth in Residential Place­

ment (SYRP), the only national survey that gathers 

data directly from youth in custody using anony­

mous interviews; the biennial Juvenile Residential 

Facility Census (JRFC), which collects data on 

facility characteristics; and the biennial Census of 

Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), which 

focuses on information about individual youth 

such as gender, race, and most serious offense. 

These surveys provide critical data to researchers 

for trend analysis as well as to OJJDP for planning 

and funding purposes. 

In FY 2011, OJJDP published the following bulle­

tins on SYRP and JRFC findings: 

• Youth’s Characteristics and Back

­

grounds, the fourth bulletin 

in the SYRP series, reports 

on youth’s current and prior 

offenses, disposition, fam­

ily and educational back­

grounds, and expectations 

for the future. SYRP’s 

findings are based on interviews with a nation­

ally representative sample of 7,073 youth in 

custody during 2003. 

• Juvenile Residential Facility 

Census, 2008: Selected Find­

ings is part of the Juvenile 

Offenders and Victims 

National Report series. The 

bulletin summarizes 2008 

data from the biennial 

JRFC, which collects infor­

mation about the facilities in which juvenile 

offenders are held: size, structure, type, owner­

ship, and security arrangements as well as the 

number of juveniles who died in custody dur­

ing the past 12 months. 
Chapter 5

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

49 

OJJDP Web Site 

The OJJDP Web site is a leading online resource for 

information on topics related to juvenile justice. 

Homepage spotlights feature breaking news on 

upcoming events and current funding opportunities, as well as publications and other resources. 

The homepage also provides ready access to information about the Office’s research, publications, 

and programs. A special “InFocus” feature highlights topics such as child abduction, commercial 

sexual exploitation of children, gang involvement, 

at-risk girls, and underage drinking. In FY 2011, 

OJJDP’s Web site received more than 45 million 

hits; there were more than 3 million visits to the 

Web site during the same period. 

OJJDP News @ a Glance 

OJJDP’s bimonthly online newsletter provides the 

most up-to-date and comprehensive information 

available on topics of importance to the juvenile 

justice field, including reentry, gang violence prevention, bullying, school discipline, children’s 

exposure to violence, at-risk girls, and evidencebased practices, to name a few. The newsletter also 

highlights major OJJDP activities, presents updates 

from OJJDP-funded programs, and provides links 

to free publications and resources. By the end of 

FY 2011, the newsletter had more than 30,000 

subscribers. 

JUVJUST 

OJJDP’s electronic listserv, JUVJUST, provides 

e-mail notices several times a week about 

resources, events, funding opportunities, and 

other youth service-related news. JUVJUST 

announcements are frequently picked up by other 

governmental sources and private-sector media, 

significantly expanding the audience they reach. 

By the end of FY 2011, the number of subscribers 

had reached 26,000. 

To subscribe to OJJDP News @ a Glance and 

JUVJUST, go to the OJJDP Web site, ojjdp.gov 

(click on the appropriate “Subscribe” button on the 

homepage). Both services are free. 

Pathways to Desistance 

Study Series 

The Pathways to Desistance study, which receives 

support from OJJDP, has collected the most comprehensive dataset currently available about serious adolescent offenders and their lives in late 

adolescence and early adulthood. Researchers conducted more than 21,000 interviews over 8 years 

with more than 1,300 felony offenders ages 14–18 

in Philadelphia, PA, and Phoenix, AZ. Researchers 

also interviewed parents and peers and examined 

arrest records. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

50 

U.S. Department of Justice Discourages 

the Use of “Scared Straight” Programs 

Established in the 1970s, Scared Straight programs 

are used throughout the United States as a means 

of deterring juvenile crime. They usually entail visits 

to adult prisons by at-risk youth, where youth hear 

about the harsh reality of prison life from inmates. 

The programs can involve tours of the facility, living 

the life of a prisoner for a full day, aggressive 

presentations by inmates, and one-on-one counseling. 

However well-intentioned these prison-visit programs 

may be, decades of research have shown that this 

approach not only does not work, but may also be 

harmful to youth. 

On January 13, 2011, A&E Television Networks 

aired the first of a multi-episode series of reality 

shows called “Beyond Scared Straight.” The original, 

award-winning documentary, “Scared Straight,” 

aired in 1978. The popular A&E series elicited a 

strong response from the juvenile justice field and 

the U.S. Department of Justice. In an op-ed piece 

published January 31, 2011, in The Baltimore Sun, 

then-Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 

Justice Programs Laurie O. Robinson and OJJDP’s 

then-Acting Administrator Jeff Slowikowski emphasized 

the ineffectiveness of Scared Straight programs in 

preventing delinquency. 

“The fact that [Scared Straight] programs 

are still being touted as effective, despite 

stark evidence to the contrary, is troubling.” 

—Laurie O. Robinson, then-Assistant Attorney 

General for the Office of Justice Programs 

—Jeff Slowikowski, then-Acting Administrator, OJJDP 
Chapter 5

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

51 

Robinson and Slowikowski emphasized that the U.S. Department of Justice does not support Scared Straight-style programs 

and instead focuses on programs that research has proven effective, such as mentoring programs, which use positive 

relationships to modify youth’s behavior. 

The op-ed piece was picked up by 165 media outlets throughout the country. Of the three states whose programs were 

featured in the “Beyond Scared Straight” series, two—Maryland and California—suspended their programs in January. 

“It is understandable why desperate parents hoping to divert their troubled children from further misbehavior would 

place their hopes in a program they see touted as effective on TV, and why in years past policymakers opted to fund 

what appeared to be an easy fix for juvenile offending,” wrote Robinson and Slowikowski. “However, we have a 


responsibility—as both policymakers and parents—to follow evidence, not anecdote, in finding answers, especially 

when it comes to our children.”
 

In December 2010, OJJDP launched a publication of aftercare for incarcerated youth, and the 

series presenting the findings of the Pathways to effectiveness of substance abuse treatment in 

Desistance study. Following are descriptions of the reducing both substance use and offending. 

publications released in FY 2011: • Substance Use and Delinquent 

Behavior Among Serious Ado­ • Highlights From Pathways to 

Desistance: A Longitudinal lescent Offenders. This bulletin

presents key findings on Study of Serious Adolescent 

Offenders. This fact sheet the link between adolescent

presents an overview of find substance use and seri­ ­

ous offending. Serious and ings from the Pathways to 

Desistance study. The pri chronic offenders are much ­

mary findings to date include a more likely than other juvenile offenders to be 

decrease in self-reported offending over time substance users and to qualify as having substance use disorders. Dispositional factors (e.g., by most serious adolescent offenders, the relasensation seeking, behavioral disinhibition, tive inefficacy of longer juvenile incarcerations 

poor affect regulation, stress, depression) can in decreasing recidivism, the effectiveness of 

lead to “externalizing” behaviors such as community-based supervision as a component 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

52 

substance use and criminal activity. The study 

also found that substance use and serious 

offending decrease in late adolescence. 

Future publications in this series will address the 

transfer of adolescents to adult court; psychosocial 

maturity and desistance from crime; mental health 

services for serious adolescent offenders; deterrence among high-risk adolescents; and cultural 

orientation, substance use, and offending among 

Mexican American youth. 

OJJDP MONITORS TRENDS RELATED TO JUVENILE 

OffENDERS IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT 

This section highlights key trends from the 1997–2010 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) and briefly 

summarizes information on deaths of juveniles in custody from the 2010 Juvenile Residential facility Census (JRfC). 

facilities included in both the CJRP and the JRfC data collections represent a wide range of facility types: secure and 

nonsecure as well as publicly operated (state and local) and privately operated (including long-term and short-term 

holding). Of all juveniles in residential placement, 69 percent were held in public facilities and 31 percent were in 

private facilities. In addition, tribal facilities held 177 youth, Puerto Rico held 588 youth, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

held 21 youth. 

Offense Trends 

A total of 70,792 youth were held in publicly and privately operated juvenile residential facilities on the 2010 census 

date. The last time that so few juvenile offenders were counted in the national census of juvenile facilities was in 1989, 

when the tally was slightly less than 67,000. The 1-day count of juvenile offenders in residential placement in 2010 was 

33 percent below the 1997 figure. Declines were seen in every general offense category: person offenses (26 percent), 

property offenses (47 percent), drug offenses (45 percent), public order offenses (21 percent), technical violations of 

probation or parole (6 percent), and status offenses, which are law violations that are not crimes for adults (52 percent). 
Chapter 5

2011 A NNU A L REP O RT

53 

Data Source: Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., and Puzzanchera, C. 2011. “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles 

in Residential Placement.” Available online: www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/. 

Declines were also seen in the number of juvenile nonoffenders in residential placement in facilities that held juvenile 

offenders. Nonoffenders include youth held because they had been abused, neglected, or abandoned; because they 

require mental health or substance abuse treatment (not ordered by the court); or because they have run away, been 

truant or incorrigible, or violated curfew in states where these behaviors are not considered illegal. Nationally, the 1-day 

count of nonoffenders younger than age 21 in facilities that were holding juvenile offenders declined 22 percent from 

1997 to 2010, to a low of 8,014 for the period. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

54 

Gender Trends 

Although males outnumber females in residential placement more than 6 to 1 on average, since 1997 the trends for 

males and females in residential placement have been remarkably similar. The decline for females began 1 year later 

than the decline for males, but females have had a steeper decline in recent years. The drop from 1997 to 2010 was 

32 percent for males and 34 percent for females. 

Race/Ethnicity Trends 

Nearly 48,000 minority youth were in residential placement on the 2010 census date—representing 68 percent of all 

offenders held, with non-Hispanic black youth accounting for 41 percent of the population. 

Other than Asian youth, the residential placement rates for minority youth were higher than the overall placement rate 

across all years from 1997 to 2010. The placement rates were highest for black youth, followed by American Indian/ 

Alaska Native youth and Hispanic youth. The rates for non-Hispanic white youth and Asian youth were lower than the 

total rates (for all race/ethnicity groups combined), with Asian youth having the lowest rates. 

The total residential placement rate dropped 37 percent from 1997 to 2010. The overall placement rate in 2010 was 

225 youth in residential placement for every 100,000 youth age 10 through the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction. 

The relative drops in rates for white (37 percent) and black (38 percent) youth were similar to the overall rate decline. 

Hispanic (51 percent) and Asian (76 percent) youth saw the largest relative drop in rates. The residential placement 

rates for American Indian/Alaska Native youth dropped relatively little over the period (25 percent). 

Deaths in Residential Placement 

A total of 2,132 facilities reported holding 66,654 juvenile offenders on the 2010 census date (excluding tribal facilities 

and facilities in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). A decline in the number of facilities has paralleled the decline in the 

population of juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities. Overall, there were 30 percent fewer facilities holding 

juvenile offenders in 2010 than in 2000. 

Juvenile facilities reported a total of 11 deaths of youth younger than age 21 in residential placement for the 12 months 

prior to the 2010 census. Deaths of juveniles in residential placement remain relatively rare. There were five deaths 

from suicide and four deaths by illness/natural causes other than HIV/AIDS. There was one death from an accident 

and one death from an unknown cause. No homicides were reported. The death rate in 2010 (1.6 per 100,000) was 

substantially lower than the rate in 2000 (2.8 per 100,000). 
APPENDIXES 
 

2011 ANNUAL REPORT

OJJDP Fiscal Year 

2011 Awards

APPENDIX A

5 7

I

n fiscal year (FY) 2011, OJJDP awarded more than $393 million in grants to help at-risk youth, protect 

children from victimization, and improve juvenile justice systems nationwide. The 514 awards were 

made through formula, block, and discretionary grant funding. 

Formula and Block Grants 

Funding through formula and block grants is available to states and territories through the state agency 

designated by the Governor. Juvenile Justice Specialists in each state administer the funding through subgrants to units of local government, local private agencies, and American Indian/Alaska Native jurisdictions for programs in accordance with legislative requirements. In FY 2011, OJJDP awarded more than 

$106 million under the following formula and block grants programs: 

• Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program: $16,800,000 

• Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program: $36,271,028 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

5 8

• Title II Formula Grants Program: $50,486,020 

• Title V Community Prevention Grants Program: $2,600,000 

Discretionary Grants 

OJJDP awards discretionary grants to states, units of local government, and private organizations to 

administer programs. More than $287 million in discretionary grants was awarded in FY 2011 under the 

following programs: 

• Attorney General’s Children Exposed to Violence Demonstration Program—Phase 2: $11,000,000 

• Attorney General’s Defending Childhood Task Force: $1,000,000 

• Best Practices for Juvenile Drug Courts Training: $2,091,144 

• Child Protection Programs Grants: $34,884,340 

• Child Protection Research Program: $1,385,000 

• Community-Based Violence Prevention Demonstration Program: $6,596,084 

• Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation Purpose Area 7—Juvenile Justice Program: $1,053,637 

• Defending Childhood Technical Assistance: $1,677,255 

• Demonstration Programs Division Grants: $17,148,653 

• Disproportionate Minority Contact Community and Strategic Planning Project: $142,042 

• Evaluation of Girls’ Delinquency Programs: $753,556 

• Family Drug Court Programs: $5,528,856 

• Field Initiated Research and Evaluation Program: $1,872,451 
APPENDIX A

2011 ANNUAL REPORT

5 9

•	 Gang Field Initiated Research and Evaluation Programs: $2,389,491 

•	 Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Deconfliction System: $500,000 

•	 ICAC Task Force Continuations: $19,018,652 

•	 ICAC Task Force Program—Missouri: $335,000 

•	 Law Enforcement Strategies for Protecting Children From Commercial Sexual Exploitation: $1,166,492 

•	 Mentoring for Child Victims of Commercial Sexual Exploitation Initiative: $1,499,831 

•	 Mentoring for Youth with Disabilities Initiative: $2,205,393 

•	 Mentoring Research Best Practices: $2,218,963 

•	 Multi-State Mentoring Initiative: $21,070,000 

•	 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children Program: $21,070,000 

•	 National Gang Center: $2,000,000 

•	 National Juvenile Probation Census Project: $400,000 

•	 National Mentoring Programs: $72,930,000 

•	 Nonparticipating State Program—Wyoming: $570,000 

•	 Second Chance Act Juvenile Mentoring Initiative: $5,408,358 

•	 Second Chance Act Juvenile Offender Reentry Program for Planning and Demonstration Projects— 

Implementation: $3,039,275 

•	 Second Chance Act Juvenile Offender Reentry Program for Planning and Demonstration Projects— 

Planning: $444,263 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

6 0

•	 State Juvenile Justice Formula and Block Grants Training and Technical Assistance Program: $1,306,083 

•	 State Relations and Assistance Division Grants: $850,000 

•	 Technical Assistance Program to Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation/Domestic Minor Sex 

Trafficking: $450,000 

•	 Tribal Youth Field Initiated Research and Evaluation Programs: $500,000 

•	 Tribal Youth National Mentoring Program: $2,999,854 

•	 Tribal Youth Program: $11,167,890 

•	 Victims of Child Abuse Act Program Continuation Grants: $19,019,561 

Award information for FYs 2007–11 is available on the OJJDP Web site, ojjdp.gov (click on “Funding,” 

then “Awards”). 
2011 ANNUAL REPORT

Fiscal Year 2011

Publications

APPENDIX B

6 1

Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer Laws and Reporting (bulletin). September 2011. 


NCJ 232434.
 

Reducing Drinking Among Underage Air Force Members in Five Communities (bulletin). August 2011. 


NCJ 232616.
 

OJJDP News @ a Glance, July/August 2011 (newsletter). August 2011. NCJ 235188.
 

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2008: Selected Findings (bulletin). July 2011. NCJ 231683.
 

America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2011 (report). July 2011. NCJ 235151.
 

Juvenile Court Statistics 2008 (report). July 2011. NCJ 236106.
 

Highlights of the 2009 National Youth Gang Survey (fact sheet). June 2011. NCJ 233581.
 

OJJDP News @ a Glance, May/June 2011 (newsletter). June 2011. NCJ 234318.
 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

6 2

Federal Resources on Missing and Exploited Children: A Directory for Law Enforcement and Other Public and 


Private Agencies, Sixth Edition (report). May 2011. NCJ 231619.
 

Cuando su Niño está desaparecido: Una guía de supervivencia familiar, Fourth Edition (report). May 2011. 


NCJ 232789.
 

El Delito del Secuestro Familiar: La perspectiva de hijos y padres (report). May 2011. NCJ 234086.
 

OJJDP News @ a Glance, March/April 2011 (newsletter). April 2011. NCJ 234084.
 

2009 Report to Congress: Title V Community Prevention Grants Program (report). April 2011. NCJ 234161.
 

Highlights From Pathways to Desistance: A Longitudinal Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders (fact sheet). 


March 2011. NCJ 230971.
 

2008 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs (report). March 


2011. NCJ 231131.
 

Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program: 2008–2009 Report to Congress (report). March 2011. NCJ 231990.
 

Guide for Implementing or Enhancing an Endangered Missing Advisory (report). March 2011. NCJ 232001.
 

OJJDP News @ a Glance, January/February 2011 (newsletter). February 2011. NCJ 233339.
 

Youth’s Characteristics and Backgrounds: Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP
 

bulletin). December 2010. NCJ 227730.
 

Findings From the Evaluation of OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Program (bulletin). December 2010. NCJ 230106.
 

Gang Prevention: An Overview of Research and Programs (bulletin). December 2010. NCJ 231116.
 

Substance Use and Delinquent Behavior Among Serious Adolescent Offenders (Pathways to Desistance bulletin). 


December 2010. NCJ 232790.
 
APPENDIX B

2011 ANNUAL REPORT

6 3

OJJDP News @ a Glance, November/December 2010 (newsletter). December 2010. NCJ 232214. 

Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model, Second Edition 

(report). October 2010. NCJ 231200. 

OJJDP News @ a Glance, September/October 2010 (newsletter). October 2010. NCJ 232007. 

All OJJDP publications can be viewed and downloaded from the OJJDP Web site, ojjdp.gov (select the 

“Publications” section). Print publications can also be ordered online at the National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service (NCJRS) Web site, ncjrs.gov (select the “A–Z Publications/Products” section). The NCJ 

numbers at the end of the entries in the publications list above can be used to search for or order resources 

from NCJRS or to locate specific resources in the NCJRS library, including items produced by OJJDP. 

2011 ANNUAL REPORT

OJJDP Organization

APPENDIX C

6 5

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

6 6

Office of the Administrator 

The Office of the Administrator (OA) establishes OJJDP’s priorities and policies, oversees the management 

of the Office’s divisions, and fosters collaboration with federal, state, and local agencies and associations 

that share OJJDP’s commitment to preventing and combating juvenile delinquency and addressing the 

problem of missing and exploited children. 

Office of Policy Development 

The Office of Policy Development (OPD) assists the OJJDP Administrator in coordinating national policy 

on juvenile justice. OPD advises the Administrator on policy and legal issues and how OJJDP can best 

accomplish its mission. OPD also provides leadership and direction for OJJDP’s research and training 

and technical assistance efforts and oversees the agency’s communications and planning activities. 

Communications Unit 

The Communications Unit (CU) is responsible for OJJDP’s information dissemination and outreach. CU 

develops OJJDP publications, manages its Web site and online services, and performs a range of writing 

and editing functions to support the Office. CU also serves as a liaison to the Office of Justice Programs 

on media-related issues. 

Budget and Planning Division 

The Budget and Planning Division handles OJJDP’s budget and planning operations and manages the 

Office’s research and training and technical assistance functions. The division also oversees all administrative and personnel matters. 

Child Protection Division 

The Child Protection Division (CPD) develops and administers programs related to crimes against children and children’s exposure to violence. It provides leadership and funding in the areas of enforcement, 

intervention, and prevention. CPD’s activities include supporting programs that promote effective policies 
APPENDIX C

2011 ANNUAL REPORT

6 7

and procedures to respond to the problems of missing and exploited children, Internet crimes against children, abused and neglected children, and children exposed to domestic or community violence. 

Demonstration Programs Division 

The Demonstration Programs Division (DPD) provides funds to public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals to develop and support programs and replicate tested approaches to delinquency 

prevention, treatment, and control in areas such as mentoring, substance abuse, gangs, truancy, chronic 

juvenile offending, and community-based sanctions. DPD also supports and coordinates efforts with tribal 

governments to expand and improve tribal juvenile justice systems and develop programs and policies 

that address problems facing tribal youth. 

State Relations and Assistance Division 

The State Relations and Assistance Division (SRAD) provides funds to help state and local governments 

achieve the system improvement goals of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, combat 

underage drinking, implement delinquency prevention programs, address disproportionate minority contact, and support initiatives to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions. SRAD also supports 

and coordinates community efforts to identify and respond to critical juvenile justice and delinquency 

prevention needs. 




PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

DOJ/OJJDP 

PERmIT NO. G–91 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs ice of Justice Programs OJJDP Report 

Office of Jice of J ice of Juvenile Juvenile J uvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention vention *NCJ~238638*

Washington, DC ashington, DC 20531 

Official Business icial Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 ate Use $300