U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Annual Report 

2000
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile 

delinquency; supports a program for data collection 

and information sharing that incorporates elements 

of statistical and systems development; identifies the

pathways to delinquency and the best methods to

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

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides

juvenile justice training and technical assistance to

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

agencies, educational institutions, and community

organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to develop and support programs and

replicate tested approaches to delinquency prevention,

treatment, and control in such pertinent areas as 

mentoring, gangs, chronic juvenile offending, and 

community-based sanctions.

State and Tribal Assistance Division provides funds

for State, local, and tribal governments to help them

achieve the system improvement goals of the JJDP

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

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

are implementing OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy

for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

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

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

award activities. Information that meets the needs of

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

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

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

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

for discretionary funding awards.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes

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

responsibility through the Coordinating Council on

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

established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

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

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

address the problems of missing and exploited children,

abused or neglected children, and children exposed to

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

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

families; developing and demonstrating effective child

protection initiatives; and supporting the National

Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

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

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

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

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

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

described below.

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

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

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

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

treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of individual juveniles and their families.
OJJDP Annual Report 2000

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

June 2001

This Report covers activities undertaken by the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention during 

Fiscal Year 2000.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General
FY 2000 iii

Annual Report

Foreword

With greater recognition of what works and greater attention to incorporating that knowledge

into the planning and implementation of juvenile justice programs in recent years, America’s

communities have made considerable progress in reducing juvenile crime and violence. The

U.S. arrest rate for violent juvenile crime, for example, plummeted 36 percent from its peak

in 1994 to 1999, the most recent year for which such data are available. Indeed, while the juvenile population increased by 8 percent from 1993 to 1999, the number of juvenile arrests

declined in every category of violent crime—with the juvenile arrest rate for murder down

68 percent in the same period.

Despite the steady progress of the past several years, however, serious challenges remain that

require the ongoing attention of the juvenile justice system. The Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to fulfilling its statutory mandate to lead the

Nation’s efforts to combat delinquency, strengthen the juvenile justice system, enhance public

safety, and prevent youth victimization. OJJDP Annual Report 2000 describes OJJDP’s data

collection, research, evaluation, demonstration, training and technical assistance, and information dissemination initiatives in fiscal year 2000 to advance those worthy ends.

By working together on behalf of America’s children and their families, we can ensure that the

progress of the recent past shall be but a prologue to a brighter future in this new millennium.
Table of Contents

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

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

Chapter 1: An Overview of Major Accomplishments......................................................................................3

A Cycle of Activities ..........................................................................................................................................3

Building on Lessons Learned............................................................................................................................4

Collaboration......................................................................................................................................................4

Dissemination ....................................................................................................................................................4

Priority Program Areas ....................................................................................................................................4

Program Solicitations and Peer Reviews ........................................................................................................5

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................................5

Chapter 2: Preventing and Intervening in Delinquency ................................................................................7

Causes and Correlates of Delinquency ............................................................................................................7

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ....................................................8

Drug-Free Communities Support Program ....................................................................................................9

Juvenile Mentoring Program ........................................................................................................................10

National Youth Network ................................................................................................................................10

Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative ......................................................................................................11

Study of Marketing of Violent Entertainment to Children ..........................................................................11

Truancy Reduction Activities..........................................................................................................................12

Very Young Offenders Study Group..............................................................................................................13

Chapter 3: Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System ................................................................................15

Balanced and Restorative Justice ..................................................................................................................15

Community Assessment Centers ....................................................................................................................16

Formula Grants Program................................................................................................................................16

Interstate Compact on Juveniles ....................................................................................................................18

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program ..........................................................................18

National Juvenile Corrections and Detention Forum ..................................................................................21

National Training and Technical Assistance Center......................................................................................21

Performance-based Standards Project ..........................................................................................................21

Planning of New Institutions for Juveniles ..................................................................................................22

Private Sector Options for Juvenile Corrections..........................................................................................23

State Challenge Activities................................................................................................................................23

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

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

FY 2000 v

Annual Report
Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 4: Enhancing Public Safety and Law Enforcement ........................................................................35

Child Development-Community Policing ......................................................................................................35

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program........................................................................................36

Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program ..................................................................38

Partnerships To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence ..........................................................................................38

School Resource Officers................................................................................................................................39

Transfer of the Responsibility for Child Protective Investigations to 

Law Enforcement Agencies ............................................................................................................................40

Chapter 5: Comprehensive Community-Based Initiatives ............................................................................41

Community Prevention Grants Program ......................................................................................................41

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders........................................42

SafeFutures ......................................................................................................................................................43

Chapter 6: Reducing the Victimization of Children ......................................................................................45

Children Exposed to Violence Initiative ........................................................................................................45

Children’s Advocacy Centers ..........................................................................................................................45

Court Appointed Special Advocate Program ................................................................................................46

Crimes against Children Research Center ....................................................................................................46

Internet Crimes Initiatives ..............................................................................................................................46

Internet Safety Survey ....................................................................................................................................47

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ..................................................................................48

National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse ..........................................................................................48

Parents Anonymous® ......................................................................................................................................49

Safe Start Initiative..........................................................................................................................................49

Training and Technical Assistance..................................................................................................................50

Chapter 7: Gang Initiatives ............................................................................................................................51

Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, 

and Suppression Program ..............................................................................................................................51

Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach With Boys & Girls Clubs ..................................................52

National Youth Gang Center..........................................................................................................................53

Publications......................................................................................................................................................53

Research Activities ..........................................................................................................................................54

Rural Gang Initiative ......................................................................................................................................54

On the Horizon................................................................................................................................................54

vi FY 2000

Annual Report
Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 8: Gender Initiatives..........................................................................................................................55

Collaborative Effort for Court-Involved Girls ..............................................................................................55

Conduct Disorder in Girls ..............................................................................................................................55

Field-Initiated Gender Research ....................................................................................................................56

Gender Issue of OJJDP’s Journal................................................................................................................56

Interagency Working Group on Gender Issues ............................................................................................56

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

On the Horizon................................................................................................................................................57

Chapter 9: Tribal Youth Initiatives ................................................................................................................59

Tribal Youth Program......................................................................................................................................60

Training and Technical Assistance..................................................................................................................61

Research and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................61

Tribal Youth Mental Health Initiative............................................................................................................62

Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement (CIRCLE) Project ................63

On the Horizon................................................................................................................................................63

Chapter 10: Mental Health Initiatives............................................................................................................65

Assessing Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Disorders Among Juvenile Detainees ............................................65

Intergenerational Transmission of Antisocial Behavior ................................................................................66

Mental Health Issue of OJJDP’s Journal ....................................................................................................66

Multisite, Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder......66

Pathways to Desistance: A Prospective Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders ......................................67

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

Chapter 11: Juveniles Taken Into Custody....................................................................................................69

Juvenile Arrests in 1999 ................................................................................................................................69

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement ..............................................................................................70

Juvenile Residential Facility Census..............................................................................................................71

Deaths in Custody ..........................................................................................................................................71

Upcoming Surveys ..........................................................................................................................................72

Chapter 12: Getting the Word Out ................................................................................................................73

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse......................................................................................................................73

National Report CD–ROM............................................................................................................................74

OJJDP National Conference ........................................................................................................................74

OJJDP Web Sites ..........................................................................................................................................74

Publications......................................................................................................................................................75

OJJDP’s Journal ......................................................................................................................................75

Juvenile Transfers to Adult Courts ..........................................................................................................76

National Report Bulletins..........................................................................................................................76

Satellite Videoconferencing ............................................................................................................................76

Appendix: OJJDP Publications Produced in FY 2000 ................................................................................79

FY 2000 vii

Annual Report
viii FY 2000

Annual Report

How To Access Information From OJJDP’s 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

All OJJDP publications mentioned in this Report are available from

the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC) via telephone, fax, or the

Internet. JJC also welcomes questions via telephone, fax, or e-mail.

Telephone: 800–638–8736

Fax: 410–792–4358 (to order publications), 301–519–5600 

(to ask questions), 800–638–8736 (fax-on-demand, 

Fact Sheets and Bulletins only)

E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org (to ask questions)

Internet: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org (to view or download materials)

www.puborder.ncjrs.org (to order publications online)
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) was created by Congress in

1974 to help communities and States prevent and

control delinquency and improve their juvenile justice systems. A component of the U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, OJJDP is

the primary Federal agency responsible for addressing the issues of juvenile crime and delinquency and

the problems of abused, neglected, missing, and exploited children and for coordinating Federal

agency efforts in these areas.

Although the nature and extent of delinquency and

abuse have changed considerably since OJJDP

was created, the Office continues to provide national leadership and to support an array of activities

that help States, tribal jurisdictions, communities,

and local governments meet the many juvenile justice challenges facing them. These challenges

include dealing with the small percentage of juveniles who are serious, violent, and chronic offenders; holding offenders accountable for their unlawful actions; combating alcohol and drug abuse;

addressing gang and juvenile gun violence; addressing the growing number of girls entering the juvenile justice system; recognizing and meeting the

mental health needs of juvenile offenders; and helping children victimized by crime and child abuse. 

The Office supports important research and evaluation efforts, statistical studies, and demonstration

programs; provides technical assistance and training; produces and distributes publications and other

products containing reliable and relevant information about juvenile justice topics; manages programs

that address situations involving missing and

exploited children; and administers formula, block,

and discretionary grant programs.

During fiscal year (FY) 2000, OJJDP supported a

variety of activities to help communities develop

and implement multidisciplinary prevention and intervention programs and improve the capacity of

their juvenile justice systems to protect the public,

hold offenders accountable, and provide treatment

and rehabilitative services to juveniles and their

families. OJJDP also continued to provide up-todate information to policymakers and the public

about the extent and nature of juvenile crime and

about what works to prevent it.

This Report describes OJJDP’s major activities

and accomplishments in these areas during FY

2000. Together, they reflect the Office’s continuing

commitment to programs that have the greatest potential for reducing juvenile delinquency and the

victimization of children and for improving the juvenile justice system.

FY 2000 1

Annual Report

An Introduction to the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention
After peaking in 1994, juvenile violent crime

arrests, which had increased substantially since the

late 1980s, declined dramatically. According to the

OJJDP Bulletin Juvenile Arrests 1999, the juvenile

arrest rate for violent crime in 1999 (the most recent year for which juvenile arrest statistics are

available) was 36 percent below its peak in 1994.

From 1993 to 1999, the juvenile arrest rate for

murder decreased a remarkable 68 percent—to 

the lowest level since the 1970s. The number of juvenile arrests has declined in every violent crime

category, despite an 8-percent growth in the juvenile population from 1993 to 1999.

These statistics are encouraging. Nevertheless, the

Nation must not become complacent about the continuing need to combat delinquency and violent juvenile crime. Although the violent juvenile “superpredator” many feared at the beginning of the 1990s

never emerged, the country’s juvenile justice system

now faces a host of new challenges—drug dependency, underage drinking, child maltreatment, online

sexual exploitation of children, youth gangs, increasing numbers of female juvenile offenders, delinquency on tribal lands, and mental health problems—to

name just a few.

As the Federal agency responsible for leading the

Nation in addressing juvenile delinquency, crime,

and victimization, OJJDP recognizes the need to

find solutions to new challenges as they arise. In

FY 2000, the Office designed new programs and

continued to fund promising programs that address

both existing and emerging challenges. OJJDP

had many accomplishments during FY 2000, as evidenced by the programs described later in this Report. This chapter gives an overview of OJJDP’s

philosophy, approach, and priorities in undertaking

these activities.

A Cycle of Activities

OJJDP carries out its leadership role through a

cycle of activities that include data collection,

research, evaluation, demonstration, training and

technical assistance, and dissemination. For example, OJJDP collects and disseminates critical statistics about juvenile arrests, offenders, and victimization. These statistics help both the Office and the

juvenile justice field better understand issues affecting juveniles and also help OJJDP determine the

types of research that need to be conducted. Some

of the research projects that the Office funds are

short term; others are longitudinal studies that follow samples of youth over many years. This research

provides OJJDP and the Nation with an enormous

base of relevant and reliable data. Findings from

these research studies often lead to the development

of demonstration programs, many of which involve

community-based, comprehensive juvenile justice

strategies. To ensure that these strategies are working, OJJDP funds evaluations that are conducted

with scientific rigor—the Office is currently supporting more than 30 program evaluations. Once

OJJDP is confident that a strategy or program

works, it sponsors training and technical assistance

to help communities across the country replicate the

approach. Training and technical assistance are

available to policymakers and practitioners on a

broad range of juvenile justice topics. OJJDP also

provides seed money to States and local governments through formula and block grants to help

them implement effective and promising programs

to make systemwide improvements in their juvenile

justice systems. Finally, through an intense information dissemination strategy that includes printed

and electronic products as well as a Web site,

OJJDP keeps the field informed about statistics,

research findings, and lessons learned.

FY 2000 3

Annual Report

Chapter 1

An Overview of Major Accomplishments
Building on Lessons Learned 

During FY 2000, OJJDP continued to build on lessons learned from past activities. For example, after

findings from the Study Group on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders indicated that most chronic

juvenile offenders begin their criminal careers when

they are very young, the Office established a Study

Group on Very Young Offenders to gain further

knowledge about these youth (see page 13). OJJDP

also added another component to its ongoing Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency, a group of three longitudinal studies

that are providing the Nation with a rich base of empirical knowledge. One of these studies has followed

1,000 youth from Rochester, NY, and their parents

since the youth were in the seventh grade. Many of

these youth are now parents, and OJJDP has begun

gathering data on their children. This new intergenerational component, which is discussed in detail on

page 66, will allow researchers to examine and track

behavior over three generations.

Lessons learned through OJJDP’s programs and

evaluations also influence its program planning. For

example, in FY 2000, OJJDP launched a major

new antigang initiative, Gang-Free Schools and

Communities, discussed on pages 53 and 54. All

communities participating in this initiative will begin

their projects with a thorough assessment of the nature and scope of the local youth gang problem.

This “assessment prior to implementation” approach

was a key lesson from OJJDP’s earlier Comprehensive Gang Initiative, which was launched in

1994 and closely evaluated through 2000.

Collaboration 

For the past several years, OJJDP has stressed the

need for State and local agencies, communities, and

components of the juvenile justice system to work

together to address juvenile crime and victimization.

Leading by example, the Office made collaboration

the cornerstone of many of the programs it supported in FY 2000. At the heart of these programs is the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders, which is helping States

and local communities address juvenile delinquency

in a strategic and practical manner (see page 42).

Collaboration guides a number of other programs

discussed in this Report, including programs to address drug use, juvenile gun violence, gang violence,

truancy, and Internet crimes against children. The

Office also is collaborating with other Federal agencies on several critical programs, such as the Safe

Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, a joint effort of

the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and

Human Services, and Justice to reduce school violence (see page 11). To help make limited Federal

resources go further, OJJDP also has “piggybacked” onto existing programs of other agencies to

enhance project goals and products—for example,

the Office provided funds to the National Institute

of Mental Health to add a juvenile justice component to a study of children with attention deficit/

hyperactivity disorder (see page 66). 

Dissemination 

Providing information to the field is vital. OJJDP

works vigorously to get a full spectrum of information (about research, statistics, promising practices,

and emerging concerns and issues) into the hands of

those who can use it. Dissemination remained a priority at OJJDP in FY 2000. The Office’s accomplishments in this area included sponsoring a third

national juvenile justice conference and developing

two new Web sites. OJJDP also produced more

than 80 new publications in FY 2000 and established

electronic and printed products designed to make

information more accessible to the field. For example, a new series of Bulletins extracts pertinent statistics from Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National

Report (recognized nationally as an important resource on juvenile delinquency and victimization)

and highlights their topical relevance. OJJDP also

initiated an online ordering service to make it easier

for clients to order documents. These and other dissemination activities are highlighted in chapter 12. 

Priority Program Areas 

OJJDP administered numerous new program activities during FY 2000, paying special attention to

4 FY 2000

Annual Report
emerging challenges facing the juvenile justice system today. In some cases, the Office built on existing programs with demonstrated effectiveness; in

other cases, new, innovative approaches were designed. Priority areas in FY 2000 included the

following:

✦ Gang programs. Research has shown that gang

involvement leads to serious delinquency and

that gangs have proliferated over the past two

decades. In response, OJJDP is supporting a

range of initiatives to help prevent and suppress

juvenile gang violence, including research and

evaluation, training and technical assistance, and

information dissemination. These initiatives are

discussed in chapter 7.

✦ Girls’ programs. OJJDP took steps to close the

“gender gap” in programming by developing two

new programs and continuing support of several

others that specifically meet the needs of at-risk

and delinquent girls. These gender-specific activities are discussed in chapter 8.

✦ Mental health programs. OJJDP recognizes

the need to help the juvenile justice field respond

to the mental health problems that face so many

system-involved youth today and has collaborated for several years with other Federal agencies

on programs to address this issue. In FY 2000,

the Office added a new initiative to develop and

test a model program to meet the mental health

needs of youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system. The Office also developed a

new mental health initiative for tribal youth.

OJJDP’s mental health initiatives are discussed

in chapter 10.

✦ Safe Start Initiative. Research suggests that

children who are exposed to violence are more

prone to commit delinquent and violent acts later

in life. OJJDP is helping nine communities reduce the impact of family and community violence on young children by creating a comprehensive system of services. This activity is

described in greater detail on pages 49 and 50. 

✦ Tribal Youth Program. OJJDP is helping

American Indian and Alaska Native communities

across the country strengthen their juvenile justice systems and develop programs to meet the

needs of at-risk tribal youth and their families.

These initiatives are highlighted in chapter 9.

Program Solicitations and 

Peer Reviews 

Many of the programs that OJJDP supported in

FY 2000 were funded through a competitive application process. It was, in fact, a busy year, as

OJJDP issued solicitations for 22 discretionaryfunded programs and received 1,133 applications in

response. Several of the program announcements

resulted in hundreds of applications: for example,

the Drug-Free Communities Support Program received more than 200 applications and the Juvenile

Mentoring Program (JUMP) more than 500. To

ensure that only the highest quality programs are

funded, OJJDP conducts an intense peer review of

all eligible applications for competitive discretionary

funding. Peer reviewers include practitioners, researchers, and academicians from the public and

private sectors. During FY 2000, the Office convened 73 peer review panels to evaluate applications for funding for 22 programs. A total of

214 reviewers served on the panels. (Typically, a

panel consists of 3 reviewers and considers 10

applications.) 

Conclusion 

The philosophy OJJDP used to guide its programming in FY 2000 focused on solidifying the gains

achieved in reducing the rate of juvenile arrests

and emphasized the importance of continuing the

beneficial programs and effective intervention efforts currently under way. By supporting a cycle of

activities—research and statistics; program development, testing, and demonstration; replication;

training and technical assistance; and information

dissemination—the Office was able to help put

practitioners and policymakers in a better position

to make informed choices about programs and approaches to best serve their States and communities. 

FY 2000 5

Annual Report
OJJDP has long recognized the importance of developing programs that prevent delinquency or that

intervene immediately and effectively when delinquent or status offense behavior first occurs. Effective prevention and early intervention programs will

reduce the flow of juveniles into the juvenile justice

system, the numbers of serious and violent offenders, and the development of chronic delinquent careers. Although removing serious and violent juvenile offenders from the street protects the public,

long-term solutions lie primarily in taking aggressive steps to stop delinquency before it starts or becomes a pattern of behavior. Several OJJDP programs are providing research findings that will help

the juvenile justice system develop such interventions. One of these is the OJJDP Causes and Correlates longitudinal study, which has been following

a sample of inner-city youth since 1986; others include two study groups that examined serious and

violent offenders and very young offenders.

OJJDP also supports prevention programs that

help keep children safe at school and away from

drugs, initiatives that provide one-on-one mentoring, and early intervention programs (including a

program that addresses school truancy). Programs

that provide youth with positive opportunities are

also important, and OJJDP’s National Youth Network is one example of such programs.

Coordinating programs is essential. OJJDP works

closely with other Federal agencies on programs to

meet the needs of girls and parents. OJJDP also is

coordinating agencies’ efforts to identify critical

next steps in combating juvenile violence and

delinquency. 

These and the other activities highlighted in this

chapter provide valuable information for the juvenile justice system. This information helps the system prevent delinquency before it starts or intervene before it becomes a serious problem.

Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency 

Since 1986, OJJDP has sponsored three major

longitudinal studies—collectively known as the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency—that are examining how juveniles develop within the context of family, school, peers,

and community. Researchers are studying samples

of inner-city youth in Denver, CO; Pittsburgh, PA;

and Rochester, NY. On average, 90 percent of the

juveniles in the original sample populations have

remained in the studies. Findings from this research

project are providing valuable information about

what causes a juvenile to commit delinquent acts.

Many of the findings reinforce earlier beliefs and

knowledge about the roots of delinquency and

violence—for example, that childhood maltreatment

is associated with later behavioral problems and

that less serious problem behaviors precede more

serious delinquency.

Some of the newest findings from the research indicate that multiple family transitions (such as those

caused by separation or divorce) are a risk factor

for delinquency. Researchers found a consistent relationship between the number of transitions and

the level of delinquency and drug use among youth

in the three sample cities. Researchers also found

that a male youth’s early involvement in drug use

and delinquency is highly correlated with becoming

a teen father. Even when researchers controlled for

other variables, they found that a number of problem behaviors—early sexual activity (before age

16), gang membership, chronic involvement in violent behavior, and chronic drug use—substantially

increased a boy’s likelihood of becoming a teen father. Researchers also found that becoming a father

does not cause a young male to become more responsible and law abiding. Although some hypothesize

FY 2000 7

Annual Report

Chapter 2

Preventing and Intervening in Delinquency
that fatherhood might encourage young males to

become more mature and assume the tasks of helping to establish and support a family, researchers

found that fathering a child was associated with an

even greater increase in delinquent behavior. Teenage fathers were more likely to have court petitions

alleging delinquency, to drink alcohol frequently, 

to deal in drugs, or to drop out of school. These

findings from the Causes and Correlates research

are described in greater detail in three OJJDP

Bulletins: Co-occurrence of Delinquency and Other Problem Behaviors, Family Disruption and Delinquency, and

Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior. The Bulletins are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Topics for upcoming OJJDP reports

from these studies include characteristics and predictions of offending at a very young age, consequences of delinquency, and long-term effects of

involvement in the juvenile justice system. For

more information on the Causes and Correlates

program and a complete listing of all publications

resulting from this research, visit the OJJDP

Web site’s Causes and Correlates dedicated site

(www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ccd/index.html).

Coordinating Council

on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention 

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Council) identifies and

develops policies, objectives, and priorities for Federal programs and activities pertaining to juvenile

delinquency, juvenile victimization, and missing and

exploited children. The Attorney General is chairperson and the OJJDP Administrator is vice 

chairperson of the Council, which is supported by

OJJDP. The Council comprises ex officio members

from nine Federal agencies and nine practitioner

members appointed by the President, the President

of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House.

During FY 2000, the Council focused on updating

its 1996 juvenile justice action plan, developing 

resources to meet the needs of parents and at-risk

girls, and addressing the issue of juveniles and the

death penalty. The Council also met to discuss

youth employment.

The Council developed and published Combating

Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice

Action Plan (Action Plan) in 1996. The Action Plan encourages communities to develop partnerships with

State and Federal agencies to address and reduce

the impact of juvenile violence and delinquency. The

Council’s member agencies began updating the Action Plan in FY 2000 by summarizing their major accomplishments since 1996 in juvenile justice-related

programs, research, and training and technical assistance. The Council also plans to produce and collaboratively publish, through OJJDP, a series of

eight stand-alone Bulletins—one for each of the 

Action Plan’s original objectives—to encourage replication of successful delinquency prevention programs at the State and local levels. 

After reviewing Federal agencies’ existing programs

to help parents, the Council developed additional

informational resources for parents. Although impressed with the depth and breadth of available information, especially in the area of model programs

for family strengthening and support, the Council

concluded that the Federal Government could do a

better job of organizing information and providing

support for parents. As a result, in FY 2000, the

Council developed a national parenting Web site

(www.parentingresources.ncjrs.org), which was

launched in June and has already received more

than 134,000 hits. The Web site is discussed in

greater detail on page 75.

The Council also began focusing on the Federal

Government’s efforts to meet the needs of girls who

are at risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice system or who are already involved in the system. The Council created a Federal Interagency

Working Group on Gender Issues, which is cataloging, coordinating, and expanding gender-specific

programming across Federal agencies. This working group met twice in FY 2000 and will continue

to meet in FY 2001.

8 FY 2000

Annual Report
In FY 2000, the Council supported the development

and publication of a Bulletin discussing the use of

the death penalty for juvenile offenders. Juveniles and

the Death Penalty examines the history of capital punishment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions related

to its use with juveniles. It also includes profiles of

individuals sentenced to death for crimes they committed as juveniles and explores the international

movement toward abolishing the sanction. 

An OJJDP Fact Sheet on the Council’s activities

and responsibilities, Coordinating Council Promotes

Federal Collaboration, is available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse. The Bulletin Juveniles

and the Death Penalty also is available from the

Clearinghouse. 

Drug-Free Communities

Support Program 

In its third year of funding, the Drug-Free Communities Support Program (DFCSP) provides grants

to 307 community coalitions in all 50 States, the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.

Virgin Islands to strengthen their efforts to prevent

and reduce young people’s illegal use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. In FY 2000, OJJDP awarded

nearly $9 million in new grants to 94 sites, including Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; and

Washington, DC. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which oversees the program, and OJJDP, which awards and

administers the grants, selected the new sites from

228 applications through a competitive review

process. In the program’s first year (FY 1998),

ONDCP and OJJDP awarded grants to 93 sites.

An additional 124 sites received grants in FY 1999.

The coalitions, which must have worked together

on substance abuse reduction initiatives for a minimum of 6 months prior to receiving a grant, are

made up of youth; parents; business and media representatives; school officials; youth service organizations; law enforcement; civic, volunteer, and fraternal groups; healthcare professionals; religious

organizations; State, local, or tribal governmental

agencies with expertise in the field of substance

abuse; and other organizations involved in reducing

substance abuse. Effective project activities funded

under this program have included teen courts, alcohol and drug abstinence pledge programs, charter

schools, counseling services, peer mentoring programs, prevention and outreach activities, skillsbuilding programs, celebrity dinners, cultural

awareness initiatives, art clubs, town hall meetings,

and service projects.

Awards of up to $100,000 are made to coalitions 

for use over a 1-year period. The coalitions, which

have developed long-range plans to reduce substance abuse, are required to match grant awards

with funding from non-Federal sources. Although

the awards are for 1 year, grantees may apply for

continuation awards based on performance and

availability of funds. The program enables the coalitions to enhance their collaborative and coordination

efforts. The coalitions also encourage citizen participation in substance abuse reduction efforts and disseminate information about effective programs. 

The six regional Centers for Application of Prevention Technologies, through funding from OJJDP

and the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services’ Center for Substance Abuse Prevention,

also provide technical assistance to grantees. In addition, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of

America of Alexandria, VA, provides critical support to these grassroots organizations. 

In 1999, Caliber Associates of Fairfax, VA, received

an award to conduct process and outcome evaluations of the community-based coalition projects.

The evaluation is reviewing the implementation of

programs at more than 100 sites, with a more

indepth look at 12 sites to measure the impact and

outcome of program activities.

Some early findings from the evaluation indicate

that DFCSP coalitions serve urban, suburban,

rural, and tribal areas. Coalitions are concentrated

in urban and suburban areas (40 percent) and areas

that encompass urban, suburban, and rural communities (34 percent). A large proportion (42 percent)

FY 2000 9

Annual Report
of coalitions target the entire community, approximately one-fourth target youth, and almost onethird target a specific age group (elementary, middle, or high school). The strategies and activities

that coalitions plan to use reflect the range of services and activities frequently employed in substance abuse prevention and treatment. Forty-six

percent will engage in data-driven planning and decisionmaking with other agencies, 37 percent will

continue to mobilize and form partnerships, 55 percent will provide training and educational services,

and 56 percent plan to improve their informationsharing techniques. Evaluators continue to track

the implementation of these programs. Final evaluation results are expected in 2003.

Juvenile Mentoring Program 

The Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) supports one-to-one mentoring programs for youth at

risk of failing or dropping out of school or becoming

involved in delinquent activities, including drug use

and gang crime. OJJDP recently awarded more

than $5.6 million in FY 2000 grants for programs in

20 States and Puerto Rico. The 26 new sites were

competitively selected from a pool of 534 applicants.

Awards ranged from $190,000 to $210,000.

Each site participating in JUMP is required to coordinate its activities with local schools. Some of the

newly funded programs emphasize tutoring and academics; others focus on vocational counseling and

job skills. Many of the programs recruit law enforcement officers as mentors. In other programs,

volunteer mentors include college students, senior

citizens, military personnel, business leaders, clergy,

doctors, lawyers, teachers, tribal leaders, and government employees. The programs target youth

from first grade through high school. Ten of the new

programs focus on minority youth, two focus on

girls, and five specifically target youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system. The newly

funded programs represent a balanced cross-section

of America’s rural, urban, suburban, and tribal

communities. 

To help strengthen the quality of JUMP, OJJDP

funds the National Mentoring Center at Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory of Portland, OR.

The Center is a collaborative effort with Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBS) and Public/

Private Ventures, both of Philadelphia, PA. The

Center provides training and technical assistance

to JUMP and other mentoring programs, produces

publications and newsletters, and offers an online

lending library of mentoring resources. Information

about the Center is available through its Web site

(www.nwrel.org/mentoring). OJJDP also has provided $4.4 million to BBBS to strengthen its local

affiliates by implementing a comprehensive and

multifaceted effort to double the number of mentors

for at-risk youth.

OJJDP is funding an ongoing evaluation of

JUMP. Conducted by Information Technology

International (ITI) of Potomac, MD, the evaluation

will continue through 2001. Evaluators began collecting data from the initial 41 JUMP projects in

1997 and provided a report to Congress based on

this preliminary data in 1998. Researchers continue

to collect data for both process and outcome evaluations and have prepared a draft interim report of

their findings. The researchers also plan to conduct

several new activities, including helping local projects conduct their own evaluations to make the

projects more sustainable after Federal funding

ends and examining the long-term impact of mentoring on youth served by JUMP.

National Youth Network 

The National Youth Network (NYN), established

in 1997, consists of young people (ages 14 to 24)

representing key national and local nonprofit,

community-based, school, and juvenile justice

organizations. NYN is a cooperative partnership

among OJJDP, the National Crime Prevention

Council (NCPC), and 18 youth-serving organizations. NYN brings together youth and adults from

these organizations to promote youth leadership

development and increase opportunity for youth

around the country to participate in public policy

10 FY 2000

Annual Report
discussions and programmatic decisions on issues

that affect them. Network members and adults participate in annual meetings to develop a work plan

that is implemented by youth-led task forces. With

the support and resources of OJJDP staff, NYN

members assist communities and organizations in

training young people to produce youth forums and

town hall meetings.

During FY 2000, Network members made presentations to a variety of youth audiences, Members of

Congress, members of national organizations, and

attendees at State and local conferences. Their presentations addressed a number of issues facing

youth, including gun violence, underage drinking,

and violence prevention.

OJJDP and NYN, in collaboration with NCPC,

also produced and distributed several Youth in Action (YIA) Bulletins and Fact Sheets in FY 2000.

These publications, written by and for youth, provide information about activities that young people

have planned and implemented to prevent crime and

make their communities safer and healthier. Publications produced in FY 2000 discuss how youth can

work with the media, assess the performance of

their youth programs, develop mediation programs

to promote peaceful resolution of conflicts, create

crime-fighting publications, and raise awareness and

educate the public about youth violence prevention

efforts. (For a list of YIA Bulletins and Fact Sheets,

see “Youth in Action Publications,” page 81.)

Safe Schools/Healthy Students

Initiative 

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative is an unprecedented collaborative effort by the

U.S. Departments of Education (ED), Health and

Human Services (HHS), and Justice that began in

1999. Grants totaling $242 million have been distributed to 77 communities across the country to

help make their schools safe and drug free and to

promote healthy child development. Awards range

from (up to) $3 million per year for urban school

districts, $2 million for suburban school districts,

and $1 million for rural school districts and tribal

schools. The initiative helps students develop the

skills they need to promote positive mental health,

engage in prosocial behavior, and avoid violent behavior and drug use. Another goal of the initiative

is to help grantees create an infrastructure that will

institutionalize and sustain the services developed

to ensure that schools provide students a safe, disciplined, and drug-free environment. Each grantee is

implementing an SS/HS comprehensive, integrated

plan that addresses the following six elements:

school safety; prevention and early intervention efforts to respond to violence, alcohol use, and drug

use; school and community mental health preventive and treatment intervention services; early childhood and psychosocial and emotional development

services; educational reform; and safe school policies. This initiative is helping communities link and

integrate existing and new services and activities

into a comprehensive approach to violence prevention and healthy development that reflects an overall vision for the community.

OJJDP, through a cooperative agreement with the

Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle,

NC, is collaborating with ED and HHS to conduct 

a national evaluation of this program. The National

Mental Health Association of Alexandria, VA,

through a cooperative agreement funded by OJJDP,

ED, and HHS, has established the Safe Schools/

Healthy Students Action Center to provide training

and technical assistance to SS/HS sites. Information

about the Center is available on its Web site

(www.sshsac.org).

Study of Marketing of Violent

Entertainment to Children 

In 1999, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC),

with financial support from OJJDP, began a study

to determine the extent to which entertainment

products that are age-restricted because of their violent content—including movies, video and computer games, and music recordings—are marketed and

made available to youth. The study report, which

was published on September 11, 2000, concluded

FY 2000 11

Annual Report
that even though entertainment industry representatives acknowledge that such products warrant

parental caution, the industry promotes the products in venues where children make up a substantial

percentage of the audience and designs its advertisements to attract children and teenagers. The report recommended that the industry establish or expand codes that prohibit targeting marketing efforts

on children and impose sanctions for violations. The

report also recommended that the industry improve

self-regulatory system compliance at the retail level

and work to increase parental awareness of product

ratings and cautionary labels. 

OJJDP is working with the FTC to develop materials to help parents better control their children’s

access to media products inappropriate for their

age. The materials will explain the various rating

systems; explain how materials are marketed to

children, especially in locations not monitored by

parents; and suggest actions parents can take to reassert their control over the types of media products to which their children are exposed. 

Truancy Reduction Activities 

The goal of the Truancy Reduction Demonstration

Program is to encourage communities to develop

comprehensive approaches that involve schools,

parents, the justice system, law enforcement, and

social service agencies in identifying and tracking

truant youth. The truancy program is a collaborative effort of OJJDP, the Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, and

the Department of Justice’s Weed and Seed program, which supports communitywide efforts to

“weed out” violent crime, gang activity, drug trafficking, and drug use and “seed in” social programs. 

In 1998, OJJDP solicited applications from communities that were engaged in integrated, communitywide plans to reduce truancy. Applicants were required to outline a comprehensive program that

included four major components: a continuum of

services to support truant youth and their families;

system reform and accountability; data collection

(from schools, agencies, and courts) and evaluation;

and a community education and awareness program

that addresses the need to prevent truancy and intervene with truant youth.

Communities in several sites—Contra Costa County,

CA; Honolulu, HI; Houston, TX; Jacksonville, FL;

King County, WA; Suffolk County, NY; and Tacoma,

WA—are implementing programs that link truant

youth with community-based services and programs.

The sites are diverse in their geographic location,

ethnic and socioeconomic makeup, and communitybased leadership; therefore, the contexts in which

their projects exist differ. All the sites have a large

number of minority students and families and a significant number of students and families living in

poverty. Examples of site accomplishments in 2000

include a successful Faith-Based Truancy Prevention Conference in Jacksonville and a poster contest in Suffolk County. The project in King County

designed and implemented a popular truancy reduction media campaign using advertisements on the

sides of public transportation buses. 

OJJDP also is funding an evaluation of the truancy demonstration program. The evaluation, which

is being conducted by the Colorado Foundation for

Families and Children of Denver, CO, is documenting the implementation process and examining challenges faced by grantees, planned interventions, and

student and family outcomes. One of the goals of

the evaluation is to identify key components of projects that work to reduce truancy and other behaviors that are risk factors for delinquency. These findings will help to provide other communities with

guidance as they develop their own truancy reduction efforts. 

The first year of the truancy program evaluation

(1999) has yielded a strong base of information that

will help direct future program activities. Evaluators are providing the sites with support and training to implement their programs and to gather information needed for the evaluation. Support has

been provided for sites in developing and maintaining collaborative groups that direct the projects.

Several sites have been very successful in building

collaborative relationships and accessing data. In

12 FY 2000

Annual Report
2000, sites received training on using culturally appropriate practices and ensuring family involvement

in truancy reduction efforts.

Very Young Offenders 

Study Group 

OJJDP’s Study Group on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders found that most chronic juvenile

offenders begin their criminal careers prior to age

12 and some begin as early as age 10. Based on this

finding, OJJDP assembled in FY 2000 a Study

Group on Very Young Offenders. The distinguished

panel of 39 researchers examined what is known

about the prevalence and frequency of very young

offending—typically defined as delinquency by children younger than 13—and focused on identifying

whether young offending predicts future delinquent

or criminal careers, how very young offenders are

handled by various systems, and what the best

methods are to prevent very young offending and

persistent offending.

The Study Group on Very Young Offenders found

that action can be taken to identify risk and protective factors relevant to preventing child delinquency

and its escalation to chronic criminal behavior. Child

delinquency risk factors, like risk factors for older

juvenile offenders, exist within the individual child,

the family, the peer group, the school, and the neighborhood. For very young offenders, the most important risk factors are likely to be individual (e.g.,

birth complications, hyperactivity, impulsivity) and

familial (e.g., parental substance abuse or lack of

child-rearing skills). The Study Group also found

that protective factors such as prosocial behavior

during the preschool years and good cognitive performance can buffer or offset the impact of risk factors. Ultimately, children with many risk factors and

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

Study Group urged an emphasis on primary prevention and early intervention efforts, highlighting several well-evaluated primary prevention programs

geared toward conflict resolution and violence prevention that focus on enhancing children’s problemsolving and interaction skills. OJJDP will publish

the Study Group’s findings in 2001.

FY 2000 13

Annual Report
In keeping with its role of providing national leadership in juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, OJJDP continually strives to help improve

the juvenile justice system and the way it responds

to juvenile delinquents, status offenders, and victimized children. During FY 2000, the Office supported a number of programs that are helping to

strengthen juvenile justice systems across the country. The oldest of these programs, the Formula

Grants program, has been providing block grants

to States since 1975 to help them develop and implement comprehensive State juvenile justice plans

based on detailed studies of needs. OJJDP also

oversees several programs that recognize the importance of holding youth accountable for violating

the law and providing youth with rehabilitation

services. 

Many States and communities find themselves

struggling with detention and corrections issues,

and OJJDP is funding several initiatives to help

jurisdictions address these issues. One of these initiatives provides training on how to plan for the

construction or renovation of, and programming

for, facilities. Another is helping juvenile detention

and correctional facilities implement operating standards and conduct self-evaluations to monitor

implementation.

OJJDP also sponsors a number of training and

technical assistance activities that address the needs

of juvenile justice practitioners (such as law enforcement professionals, prosecutors, educators, and social service professionals) and communities. To

make it easier for the field to access information

about these activities, OJJDP has established a

National Training and Technical Assistance Center.

The Office also developed a number of new programs to address juvenile justice system issues. 

One of these programs will identify and examine

the principal reasons behind the statistical trends in

juvenile crime and violence. 

OJJDP continues to develop and fund a variety of

programs to help strengthen the juvenile justice system. The activities highlighted in this chapter illustrate the types of programs that are under way.

Balanced and Restorative

Justice 

During FY 2000, OJJDP continued to support

the Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ)

project, which promotes increased use of restitution, community service, victim-offender mediation,

and other innovative programs designed to hold

juvenile offenders accountable and protect the

community while, at the same time, developing the

competency of juveniles. Through its grantee,

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Fort Lauderdale, FL, OJJDP provides training, technical

assistance, and information/resources to States and

local jurisdictions interested in implementing

BARJ programs. 

In recent years, the BARJ project has reached justice system managers and practitioners in every

State, resulting in innovative restorative justice activity across the Nation. The project has developed

both basic and advanced BARJ training curriculums (in cooperation with the National Institute of

Corrections) and produced several BARJ resource

documents, including the Guide for Implementing the

Balanced and Restorative Justice Model, Balanced and

Restorative Justice for Juveniles: A Framework for Juvenile

Justice in the 21st Century, and Restorative Justice Inventory: An Organizational Assessment for Juvenile Justice

Agencies. The Guide for Implementing the Balanced and

Restorative Justice Model is available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse. The other publications are

FY 2000 15

Annual Report

Chapter 3

Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System
available from FAU. In addition, project staff and

consultants have written articles about BARJ for

numerous professional periodicals.

During FY 2000, BARJ staff and consultants presented more than 25 training and technical assistance events. Notable among these were a number of

roundtables for judges, juvenile justice administrators, and representatives of States interested in implementing BARJ. The roundtables are designed to

train from 30 to 40 local juvenile justice leaders.

BARJ staff also held forums on changing roles for

juvenile probation, prosecutor involvement in restorative justice, and strength-based rehabilitation

and competency development. In cooperation with

OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block

Grants program (see pages 18–20) and the National

Institute of Corrections, BARJ staff and consultants also delivered two “train the trainers” courses

and a course on basic BARJ principles. Since 1998,

the project grantee has organized or made presentations at more than 100 events, which were attended

by more than 10,000 practitioners. 

Community Assessment Centers 

Many communities are searching for more effective

and efficient methods to identify and intervene with

juveniles at risk of becoming serious, violent, and

chronic offenders. Research has demonstrated that

delinquent youth often face multiple risk factors

and that, as risk factors accumulate, higher levels 

of delinquency and other problem behaviors result.

Consequently, youth with these problems are often

involved with several different systems (e.g., juvenile justice, mental health, and/or alcohol and other

drug treatment) that may not communicate adequately with one another. OJJDP’s Community

Assessment Center (CAC) program currently is

helping two communities—Denver, CO, and Orlando, FL—test the efficacy of the CAC model in addressing these problems. (OJJDP originally funded four sites: Denver and Jefferson County, CO;

and Fort Myers and Orlando, FL.)

The main purpose of a CAC is to facilitate earlier and

more efficient delivery of prevention and intervention

services at the front end of the juvenile justice system. During FY 2000, Human Service Associates,

Inc., of Orlando and the Denver Juvenile Court

each worked to develop a fully operational CAC

that includes the following four components:

✦ A centralized point of intake and assessment for

juveniles who have come into contact with the

juvenile justice system or are likely to come into

contact with the system.

✦ Immediate and comprehensive needs assessments

for youth at the front end of the juvenile justice

system.

✦ A management information system to manage

and monitor youth served.

✦ Integrated case management for youth, which

includes making service recommendations, facilitating access to services, conducting followup,

and periodically reassessing youth. 

OJJDP also continued to fund an intensive process

and outcome evaluation of the sites through the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD)

of San Francisco, CA. NCCD has completed the

process evaluation of the four community assessment centers originally funded by OJJDP and is

continuing an outcome evaluation of the Denver

and Orlando sites. The evaluators also will conduct

a national survey of CACs to identify and describe

different concepts being implemented.

An OJJDP Bulletin, The Community Assessment Center Concept, describes this program. The Bulletin is

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Formula Grants Program 

The Formula Grants program, which was established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, is the core program supporting State and local program planning

and implementation. This program provides funds

directly to States, U.S. territories, and the District

of Columbia to help them implement comprehensive

State juvenile justice plans based on detailed studies

16 FY 2000

Annual Report
of needs in their jurisdictions. (The term “States” as

used throughout the remainder of this discussion

refers to the 50 States, the District of Columbia,

and 5 U.S. territories: American Samoa, Guam,

Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands.) 

During FY 2000, $76,540,000 was available for direct awards to States. Allocations are based on the

number of juveniles in a State and ranged (other

than for territories) from $638,000 (Washington,

DC) to $8.4 million (California). The Governor

of each State designates the State agency that

implements the Formula Grants program. Contact

information for each State’s administering agency for

Formula Grants and other grants can be found at

www.ojp.gov/state.htm. Although the awards go to

this agency, the JJDP Act requires that two-thirds

of all Formula Grant funds be passed through to

programs of units of general local government, local

private agencies, and Indian tribes that perform law

enforcement functions.

To participate in the Formula Grants program, a

State must address 25 State planning requirements

set forth in the JJDP Act and must comply with 4

core protections for juveniles involved in the justice

system:

✦ Deinstitutionalizing status offenders and 

nonoffenders (DSO).

FY 2000 17

Annual Report

Achieving Compliance in Nevada

Nevada did not begin participating in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act’s Formula

Grants program until 1987. In its early years of participation, the State had high violation rates for the deinstitutionalization of status offenders requirement. In 1988, the State reported 1,296 violations of the deinstitutionalization requirement, a rate of 434.9 per 100,000 juveniles in the population. However, the State demonstrated rapid progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the requirement in the time limit imposed

by Section 223(c)(2) of the JJDP Act. The State’s commitment to achieving compliance has continued. In its

1998 monitoring report, the State recorded only 25 violations of the deinstitutionalization requirement, a rate

of 5.42 per 100,000 juveniles in the population—well below the de minimis standard established by OJJDP.

Nevada has achieved this low rate through passage and enforcement of a State law that recognizes the value

of both preventing status offenders from being detained or confined and maintaining community sanctioning programs that hold offenders accountable for their actions while providing services that help to prevent

reoffending. 

Through the efforts of the State Juvenile Justice Specialist in the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services,

each adult jail and lockup and juvenile detention center in Nevada receives an annual onsite visit. Problems

with maintaining compliance are addressed quickly, often by using Formula Grant funds. For example, Clark

County uses Formula Grant funds to support a nonsecure emergency shelter for runaway youth and other status offenders. This shelter has enabled the urban area of Las Vegas to provide appropriate services for these

youth in a nonsecure setting.

Many rural areas in the State receive Formula Grant funds to prevent status offenders from being placed in

adult jail and lockup facilities and juvenile detention centers. Such offenders are often cited by police and returned to their homes; in cases where this is not possible, Formula Grant funds are used to provide temporary,

nonsecure supervision until an alternative placement is available.
✦ Separating adult and juvenile offenders in secure

institutions (separation).

✦ Eliminating the practice of detaining or confining

juveniles in adult jails and lockups (jail and lockup removal).

✦ Addressing the disproportionate confinement of

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

overrepresentation exists (DMC).

Under OJJDP’s leadership, States are making tremendous strides in achieving or maintaining compliance with these core protections. The vast majority

of the 54 States participating in the Formula Grants

program (South Dakota and Wyoming are not participating) are now in full compliance (or in full

compliance with de minimis exceptions) with the first

3 requirements and are making satisfactory progress

in meeting the DMC requirement, which was added

as a core protection when the JJDP Act was

amended in 1992. Most States have completed the

initial identification and assessment phases for this

provision and are implementing the intervention

phase. Twenty of these States have submitted updated DMC data, evidencing ongoing monitoring

efforts. Details of individual States’ compliance with

the core protections of the JJDP Act are presented

in the charts on pages 28–32. 

Interstate Compact on

Juveniles 

The Interstate Compact on Juveniles (ICJ) is a

multi-State agreement—a legal contract involving

all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin

Islands, and Guam—that provides a procedural

means to regulate the movement across State lines

of juveniles who are under court supervision. It is

estimated that ICJ handles the transfer and supervision across State lines of more than 40,000 juvenile offenders and nonoffenders annually. During

FY 2000, OJJDP, in cooperation with the National

Institute of Corrections, funded a survey of juvenile

justice professionals who are familiar with ICJ to

assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Compact.

Survey results identified common problems with

the Compact and provided recommendations for

improvements. OJJDP and the Council of State

Governments of Lexington, KY, organized an advisory group of representatives from juvenile justice,

probation and parole, victims advocacy, law enforcement, health and human services, and judiciary

organizations to assess and determine a future course

of action with regard to modifying ICJ to enhance

its effectiveness. The group’s recommendations are

expected in June 2001. A Fact Sheet, Interstate

Compact on Juveniles, is available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse.

Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grants

Program 

The Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

(JAIBG) program, first funded in FY 1998, is helping to strengthen the juvenile justice system by encouraging States and local jurisdictions to implement

accountability-based programs and services. Under

the program, OJJDP awards block grants to States,

which in turn pass through at least 75 percent of

the funds (absent a waiver) to local jurisdictions.

JAIBG also supports program-related research,

demonstration, evaluation, training, and technical

assistance activities. 

During FY 2000, 56 eligible jurisdictions (50 States,

5 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia—

hereinafter referred to as “States”) received JAIBG

awards. The awards can be used to fund programs

in 12 purpose areas, listed on page 19.

To help States and local jurisdictions implement

JAIBG programs, OJJDP provides training and

technical assistance through a grant to Development

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

Since 1998, DSG staff have filled more than 200

technical assistance requests; conducted 64 training

events, presentations, and workshops; and trained

more than 2,800 individuals across the Nation. During FY 2000, the training program featured six regional training conferences for State and local

18 FY 2000

Annual Report
JAIBG grantees. Each conference included a 3-day

program of 20 workshops and presentations customized to the needs of the region. From 100 to 125

participants attended each conference. DSG also

held focus group meetings to identify training needs

on the subjects of juvenile sex offenders and management information technology and also sponsored

two “train the trainers” programs. DSG is currently

implementing a JAIBG topical training program

based on the identified needs of communities. Topics

of this new training program include graduated

sanctions, law enforcement programs for schools,

information technology, risk assessment, court programs (such as youth, gun, and drug courts), and

the balanced and restorative justice approach.

During the past 2 years, DSG has produced more

than 50 surveys, reports, newsletters, and other information products. For example, at OJJDP’s request, DSG assessed training and technical assistance needs for the JAIBG program. In addition,

FY 2000 19

Annual Report

JAIBG Program Purpose Areas

Purpose Area 1: Building, expanding, renovating, or

operating temporary or permanent juvenile correction or detention facilities, including training of

personnel.

Purpose Area 2: Developing and administering

accountability-based sanctions for juvenile offenders.

Purpose Area 3: Hiring additional juvenile judges,

probation officers, and court-appointed defenders

and funding pretrial services for juveniles, to ensure

the smooth and expeditious administration of the

juvenile justice system.

Purpose Area 4: Hiring additional prosecutors so

that more cases involving violent juvenile offenders

can be prosecuted and backlogs reduced.

Purpose Area 5: Providing funding to enable prosecutors to address more effectively problems related

to drugs, gangs, and youth violence.

Purpose Area 6: Providing funding for technology,

equipment, and training to assist prosecutors in

identifying violent juvenile offenders and expediting

their prosecution.

Purpose Area 7: Providing funding to enable juvenile courts and juvenile probation offices to be

more effective and efficient in holding juvenile

offenders accountable and in reducing recidivism.

Purpose Area 8: Establishing court-based juvenile justice programs that target young firearms offenders through the creation of juvenile gun courts

for the adjudication and prosecution of these

offenders.

Purpose Area 9: Establishing drug court programs to

provide continuing judicial supervision over juvenile

offenders with substance abuse problems and to integrate administration of other sanctions and services.

Purpose Area 10: Establishing and maintaining interagency information-sharing programs that enable

the juvenile and criminal justice systems, schools,

and social services agencies to make more informed

decisions regarding the early identification, control,

supervision, and treatment of juveniles who repeatedly commit serious delinquent or criminal acts.

Purpose Area 11: Establishing and maintaining

accountability-based programs that work with juvenile offenders who are referred by law enforcement

agencies or programs that are designed (in cooperation with law enforcement officials) to protect

students and school personnel from problems related

to drugs, gangs, and youth violence.

Purpose Area 12: Implementing a policy of

controlled substance testing for appropriate categories of youth in the juvenile justice system.
DSG staff contacted all States and territories five

times during the past 2 years to take a “snapshot” of

their progress in implementing the JAIBG program.

DSG also provides information services to JAIBG

stakeholders through a quarterly newsletter, a

listserv, and a toll-free telephone number—

877–GO–JAIBG (877–465–2424). 

As part of its technical assistance responsibility,

DSG also coordinates the JAIBG National Training and Technical Assistance Alliance, a group of 18

OJJDP grantees that provide training and technical assistance to States and localities to help implement the JAIBG program. This streamlined approach provides a single point of contact for States

and local jurisdictions. Alliance members have conducted more than 300 training events, workshops,

presentations, and videoconferences, providing a

total of 148,000 hours of JAIBG-related training to

nearly 19,000 practitioners. Alliance members have

developed 179 products that address topics such as

drug courts, youth courts, training for newly assigned prosecutors and detention and corrections

facility staff, drug testing, model youth accountability programs, and balanced and restorative justice

strategies. One example of these broad-based training efforts is the American Prosecutors Research

Institute’s Jumpstart program, which is designed to

meet the training needs of prosecutors newly hired

with JAIBG funds, promoting an understanding of

their responsibilities in prosecuting juvenile cases

and offering information on practical skills and experiences to enhance prosecutorial effectiveness.

In addition to the training and technical assistance

provided by DSG, OJJDP and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics established the JAIBG Technical Support Center to

help States gather information needed to ensure

the proper allocation of JAIBG funds to local jurisdictions. Operated by the Justice Research and

Statistics Association of Washington, DC, the

Center provides States with the latest crime and

expenditure data needed to calculate JAIBG

allocations. 

OJJDP also continued to publish a series of JAIBG

Bulletins that present up-to-date information about

each of the JAIBG program purpose areas. During

FY 2000, the following Bulletins were published: 

✦ Construction, Operations, and Staff Training for Juvenile Confinement Facilities. 

✦ Enabling Prosecutors To Address Drug, Gang, and Youth

Violence. 

✦ Enhancing Prosecutors’ Ability To Combat and Prevent

Juvenile Crime in Their Jurisdictions. 

✦ Establishing and Maintaining Interagency Information

Sharing. 

✦ Ten Steps for Implementing a Program of Controlled

Substance Testing of Juveniles.

✦ Workload Measurement for Juvenile Justice System 

Personnel: Practices and Needs.

The Bulletins are available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.

Abt Associates Inc., of Cambridge, MA, began conducting a 48-month national process evaluation of

the JAIBG program in FY 2001. Researchers will

document how the program was administered, how

grants were used by State and local recipients, and

what types of programs were funded. They also will

document State and local programs’ access to and

use of training and technical assistance, practitioners’ and policymakers’ attitudes about the JAIBG

program, and States’ responses to JAIBG purpose

areas. Evaluators also will conduct mail surveys of

State and local practitioners and policymakers concerning their attitudes about the JAIBG program

and perceptions of how it was implemented in their

jurisdictions.

20 FY 2000

Annual Report
FY 2000 21

Annual Report

National Juvenile Corrections

and Detention Forum 

The American Correctional Association of Lanham,

MD, conducts an annual National Corrections and

Detention Forum under a grant from OJJDP. The

Forum allows juvenile justice leaders from across

the country to exchange information and network

with their peers. Each State director of juvenile corrections, along with a detention center director, is

invited to attend the Forum to learn about emerging

issues, best practices, changes in laws, and court

decisions affecting State and local departments of

juvenile corrections and detention. Each year, the

Forum agenda reflects current topical issues facing

the juvenile justice system. The theme of the 2000

Forum, held in May in Albuquerque, NM, was

Mental Health Issues in Juvenile Corrections.

Forum topics included methods of identifying and

screening mentally ill juveniles, risk assessments,

promising practices, and suicide prevention. More

than 150 individuals attended the Forum. The 2001

Forum was held in San Diego, CA, on May 5–8;

the theme was Correctional Education in the Juvenile Justice System.

National Training and

Technical Assistance Center 

Practitioners in the field of juvenile justice and

delinquency prevention face enormous challenges

in their efforts to change existing practices in ways

that will improve outcomes. Because quality training and technical assistance (T&TA) can facilitate

such efforts, OJJDP established the National

Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC)

in 1995. Operated by Caliber Associates of Fairfax,

VA, the Center coordinates the services of more

than 60 OJJDP T&TA providers. The Center also

identifies and assesses T&TA resources in the field,

collects and provides access to the best available

T&TA materials, develops new T&TA materials,

and disseminates model T&TA protocols and

guides. During FY 2000, NTTAC responded to

more than 427 T&TA requests, collected more than

1,300 resources about T&TA best practices, and

recorded more than 5,000 visits on its Web site

(www.nttac.org).

NTTAC also produces a number of products, including a bimonthly newsletter, Fact Sheets, and

Bulletins. During FY 2000, the Center updated and

published the OJJDP Training and Technical Assistance

Resource Catalog (2000 Edition), one of its major products. The catalog contains comprehensive information on some 100 OJJDP-sponsored T&TA projects,

including scope, services, and contact information.

A Fact Sheet, OJJDP National Training and Technical

Assistance Center, is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Information about NTTAC’s

products and services also is available by calling

800–830–4031 or visiting the Web site. 

Performance-based Standards

Project 

OJJDP launched the Performance-based Standards

(PbS) project in 1995 in response to findings from

its landmark 1994 study, Conditions of Confinement:

Juvenile Detention and Correction Facilities, which identified several factors related to high rates of injury

to staff and youth and high levels of staff turnover

in juvenile correctional facilities. These factors include high rates of suicidal behavior by youth in

residential placement, lack of timely and professionally conducted health screenings, and pervasive

overcrowding. Recognizing the need for national

performance standards to improve the quality and

conditions of such facilities, OJJDP awarded a

grant to the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators of South Easton, MA, to establish outcome measures and data elements for measuring

the impact of six PbS goals in the areas of security,

order, safety, programming, justice, and health/

mental health. 

Performance-based standards appear to be making

a difference in the quality of service. Since August

1998, 32 juvenile facilities have served as test sites

for the standards. These facilities have completed

four rounds of data collection and were continuing
to work on improvements prior to the next round,

which is scheduled to begin in spring 2001. Since

beginning implementation, facilities have reported

positive changes. These were measurable, tangible

improvements, such as reductions in youth injuries

and staff turnover. One facility, which had experienced a youth suicide and major criticism from the

media, policymakers, and the public, showed substantial improvement just 1 year after implementing

its PbS project. The facility’s data report showed

that all youth were now being screened at intake for

risk of suicide before being assigned housing and

that there had been no suicides during the year. The

evaluation also showed a reduction in the use of

mechanical restraints and indicated that no injuries

to youth had occurred when restraints were used.

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

and room confinement was cut in half, and fewer

injuries to youth and fewer escapes occurred. Each

of these areas had been the subject of public criticism and had been targeted for improvement.

Through an interagency agreement with the U.S.

Department of Commerce, OJJDP also is supporting an evaluation of the PbS project. The evaluation

is being conducted by the National Academy of

Public Administration of Washington, DC. Recent

survey results from the evaluation continue to be

positive, in terms of both the adoption of PbS and

improvements in facility outcomes. Even though

nearly one-third of facilities reported significant

difficulties with initial implementation, they felt

strongly that the standards would ultimately be accepted and benefit youth correction and detention

facilities. Researchers confirmed that PbS goals are

widely shared by facility administrators and staff. 

During FY 2000, 26 additional facilities volunteered

to participate in the PbS project and began an intensive orientation and training process. OJJDP

also expanded the scope of PbS by focusing on the

critical goal of facilitating effective reintegration of

youth back into their communities. The PbS project

team is working with OJJDP’s Intensive Aftercare

Program (IAP) team to integrate IAP concepts and

appropriate measures into the PbS project.

Planning of New Institutions

for Juveniles 

A few years ago, it became evident through studies

such as OJJDP’s Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile

Detention and Correction Facilities that because of widespread crowding and substandard conditions in juvenile facilities across the country, many facilities

had to be replaced or renovated. Recognizing the

need to help jurisdictions plan for the construction

or renovation of juvenile facilities, OJJDP and the

U.S. Department of Justice’s Corrections Program

Office (CPO) approached the National Institute of

Corrections (NIC) about developing workshops for

officials planning to build or renovate juvenile facilities. The resulting Planning of New Institutions for

Juvenile Facilities (Juvenile PONI) workshop program helps jurisdictions make well-informed planning decisions about building new secure juvenile

facilities or about renovating or expanding existing

facilities. OJJDP and CPO provide the funding for

this program and NIC oversees development and

presentation. The Juvenile PONI program, which is

funded in part through OJJDP’s JAIBG program

(see pages 18–20), represents an important commitment by the three sponsoring Federal agencies to

devote special attention to juvenile confinement

facilities. 

Participating jurisdictions select six-person teams to

attend PONI workshops. Each team must include

officials with statutory responsibility for funding,

operation, and administration of the facility to be

constructed or renovated. Other members might

include judges, program administrators, citizens,

financial officers, and/or architects and planners

under contract to the jurisdictions.

The 5-day Juvenile PONI curriculum is organized

into 16 modules. Several of the modules—including

a historical overview of juvenile justice management

and attitudes, an overview of the facility development process, and aspects of direct supervision—

use a conventional lecture-discussion format. Other

modules, such as clarifying team roles, framing a

vision statement, developing functional space

22 FY 2000

Annual Report
programs, and relating staffing plans to facility

plans, use break-out sessions that require hands-on

teamwork and result in an on-the-spot work product. The workshops also emphasize that secure facilities should be part of a system of graduated

sanctions to ensure swift treatment of juveniles that

is appropriate to the seriousness of their offenses.

The first Juvenile PONI workshop was conducted

in November 1998. Since then, the sponsoring

agencies have offered three workshops each year,

with five to six jurisdictions participating in each

session. An OJJDP Fact Sheet, Planning of New

Institutions: Workshops for Juvenile Facilities, describes

this program and is available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse.

Private Sector Options for

Juvenile Corrections 

Over the past several years, many State and local

jurisdictions have begun to study the feasibility of

contracting with the private sector to provide juvenile detention or corrections services. This trend

toward privatization has been a complex and, at

times, controversial one. Before a government director of juvenile corrections decides to initiate or

extend private sector contracting, many basic issues

need to be examined. 

Under a grant from OJJDP, the American Correctional Association (ACA) of Lanham, MD, developed educational materials and a training curriculum to address these issues. ACA uses the training

curriculum to conduct annual regional workshops

that address three key program areas of privatization: developing requests for proposals and the

proposal review process, writing private sector contracts, and developing contract monitoring procedures and monitoring plans. Teams of two or three

representatives from State juvenile justice agencies

that work with private sector contracts are invited

to attend the workshops. During the past year, ACA

held 3 workshops attended by close to 100 individuals. Response to the workshops has been enthusiastic, and participants have praised the relevance

and importance of the training materials. OJJDP

and ACA hope to expand the workshops to include

teams from local jurisdictions that have juvenile justice responsibilities.

State Challenge Activities 

OJJDP has administered the State Challenge Activities Program since 1992, when it was authorized

by Congress to encourage States participating in

the Formula Grants program to reform and improve

their juvenile justice systems by developing, adopting, or improving policies and programs in 1 or

more of 10 specific Challenge program areas (see

page 24). The 10 Challenge program areas address

basic juvenile justice system services, access to

counsel, community-based alternatives, facilities for

violent juvenile offenders, gender-specific policies

and programs, State ombudsman offices, deinstitutionalization of status offenders, alternatives to

school suspension and expulsion, aftercare services,

and State agency coordination/case review systems.

Only those States participating in the Formula

Grants program are eligible to receive State Challenge grants. In FY 2000, Congress allocated $10

million for the program, and 45 States, the District

of Columbia, and 5 territories received State Challenge awards (see chart on page 33 for a list of participating States). The Challenge activities most

often addressed were alternatives to suspension and

expulsion (21 States), gender bias policies and programs (20 States), aftercare services (18 States),

community-based alternatives (17 States), and basic

system services (14 States). The Challenge activities

least often addressed were violent juvenile offender

facilities (no States), State agency coordination/case

review and State ombudsman (three States for

each), and access to counsel (four States). Details

of State Challenge activities are presented in the

charts on page 33.

Many States have used the unique opportunities

presented by the State Challenge funds to bring

about far-reaching systemic changes in their State

juvenile justice systems. Over the past several

years, States generally have focused their systemic

change efforts on the following broad categories of

activities: 

FY 2000 23

Annual Report
✦ Using data to produce policy changes and legislative reforms. 

✦ Using research to guide reforms in service 

delivery. 

✦ Increasing public awareness and professional

competence through training conferences, publications, and technical assistance. 

✦ Developing curriculums on gender-specific issues

for juvenile justice personnel and service

providers. 

✦ Developing curriculums on gender-specific issues

for female offenders. 

24 FY 2000

Annual Report

State Challenge Activities

Challenge Activity A: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide basic health,

mental health, and educational services to youth

in the juvenile justice system.

Challenge Activity B: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide all juveniles in

the justice system access to counsel.

Challenge Activity C: Increasing community-based

alternatives to incarceration by establishing programs

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

criteria for the appropriate placement of juveniles in

detention and secure confinement.

Challenge Activity D: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide secure settings

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

secure settings that have capacities of no more than

50 youth and staff-youth ratios sufficient to permit

close supervision and effective treatment.

Challenge Activity E: Developing and adopting

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

ensure female youth access to the full range of

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

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

Challenge Activity F: Establishing and operating,

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

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

out-of-home care to children and youth. 

Challenge Activity G: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to remove status offenders

from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, when

appropriate.

Challenge Activity H: Developing and adopting

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

Challenge Activity I: Increasing aftercare services

by establishing programs and developing and

adopting policies to provide comprehensive

health, mental health, education, family, and

vocational services to youth upon their release

from the juvenile justice system.

Challenge Activity J: Developing and adopting

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

children with emotional or behavioral problems

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

and implement a statewide case review system.
FY 2000 25

Annual Report

✦ Drafting program regulations, policies, and/or

procedures for statewide use by drawing on

recent and specific program experience. 

✦ Developing screening instruments to guide

service planning. 

✦ Implementing demonstration programs at

additional sites. 

✦ Filling a significant service gap in a substantial

way. 

✦ Forming ongoing and sustained partnerships

to provide coordinated services. 

✦ Developing capacity in the private sector to increase the overall capacity of the service system.

These State activities have generated many publications and other useful products that can stimulate

and assist efforts across the Nation to improve juvenile justice systems. An FY 2000 OJJDP Bulletin,

System Change Through State Challenge Activities: Approaches and Products, defines characteristics of systems change, describes requirements of systems

change, and summarizes and discusses the categories

of States’ systems change approaches mentioned

above. The Bulletin is available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse. To further help States implement systemic change, OJJDP also developed

the State Challenge Activities Program Monitoring

Checklist to help State Juvenile Justice Specialists

focus on systems change as an essential goal of this

grants program. 

Youth Court Activities 

Youth courts (also known as teen courts), first established 20–25 years ago, are generally targeted at

younger juveniles (ages 10–15), juveniles with no

prior arrests, and juveniles charged with less serious law violations (e.g., shoplifting, vandalism, status offenses). These juveniles are typically offered

participation in youth court in lieu of the traditional

juvenile justice system. Although youth courts often

include many of the same steps used by the formal

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

charges, court hearing, and sentencing), they differ

from the formal court in that young people, rather

than adults, are in charge. Youth may act as prosecutors, defense counsel, and, often, judge (or as a

panel of judges) and also as jurors, court clerks, and

bailiffs. Adults also are involved in these courts as

administrators who provide oversight, planning,

and training. However, the key to all youth court

programs is the substantial role that youth play in

the deliberation of charges and, more often, the imposition of sanctions on young offenders.

Seven years ago, there were only 50 youth courts

operating in the United States. Today, there are

more than 800 operational youth courts and another 100 in development. Many of these programs

are “grassroots” community efforts. In addition,

17 States have passed legislation expressly sanctioning the establishment of youth courts. Recognizing

the effectiveness and growing popularity of youth

courts, OJJDP has expanded its funding for training and technical assistance and for conducting a

national evaluation. 

In response to the need for a central point of contact

for youth court programs, OJJDP established the

National Youth Court Center (NYCC) in 1999. The

Center is operated by the American Probation and

Parole Association of Lexington, KY, with funding

support from OJJDP, the U.S. Department of

Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education. The Center provides training,

technical assistance, and resource materials to existing and developing youth courts. It manages a clearinghouse, which provides information on operations

and practices of youth court programs in the United

States. It also maintains a searchable database of

information about active and developing youth

court programs; nearly 600 youth courts have submitted comprehensive information to this database.

The Center also maintains a youth court Web site

(www.youthcourt.net). A Fact Sheet, National Youth
Court Center, is available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.

NYCC also has developed and published National

Youth Court Guidelines (Guidelines) to help communities with existing or planned youth court programs.

Copies of the Guidelines are available free from the

Center. During FY 2001, NYCC will supplement

the Guidelines with seven regional training programs,

onsite technical assistance, and cross-site technical

assistance. NYCC also presented the first federally

supported National Youth Court Conference, held

in Albuquerque, NM, on October 22–24, 2000. The

conference was attended by more than 600 individuals and featured more than 40 workshops.

To document the characteristics and effectiveness 

of youth courts, OJJDP awarded a grant to The

Urban Institute of Washington, DC, in 1998 to conduct a national evaluation of youth courts. More

than 300 programs responded to an initial survey.

Survey responses documented the range of youth

court programs used by jurisdictions across the country, characteristics of the courts’ clients, sanctions

imposed, courtroom models used, extent of community support, and challenges faced. The findings

suggest that most youth courts are relatively small,

handle 100 or fewer cases annually, and were established very recently. The findings also suggest that

the most securely established youth court programs

(i.e., programs reporting longstanding operations

and/or little financial uncertainty) may be those that

are housed within or closely affiliated with the

traditional juvenile justice system. Survey findings

also indicate that youth courts enjoy broad community support, apparently stemming from the high

levels of satisfaction reported by youth volunteers,

parents, and local juvenile justice officials. Survey

findings are discussed in further detail in an

OJJDP Bulletin, Teen Courts: A Focus on Research,

which is available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.

On the Horizon 

In FY 2000, OJJDP also solicited competitive applications for several new programs designed to

help strengthen the juvenile justice system, including the following: 

✦ Improving Juvenile Sanctioning: An Intensive

Training and Technical Assistance Delivery

Program. Under this program, OJJDP will

select an organization to provide intensive training and technical assistance to assist at least 10

selected jurisdictions in developing or enhancing

a continuum of community-based graduated

sanctions. OJJDP anticipates making an award

in FY 2001.

✦ Information Sharing To Prevent Juvenile

Delinquency: A Training and Technical

Assistance Approach. OJJDP designed this

program to help juvenile justice, education,

health, child welfare, and other youth-serving

systems or organizations share information to

foster multidisciplinary, multiagency solutions

to the problem of at-risk and delinquent youth.

The Office awarded funds to the Center for

Network Development of Denver, CO, to develop a national program of training and technical assistance.

✦ Juvenile Sex Offender Training and Technical

Assistance Initiative. OJJDP designed this program to provide States, territories, and the District of Columbia with training and technical

assistance support to increase the accuracy of information about the nature, extent, and impact of

juvenile sex offending. OJJDP hopes to improve

the responses of elected public officials, public

and private agencies and organizations, private

citizens, and parents to juvenile sex offending.

OJJDP will award a cooperative agreement in

FY 2001.

✦ Understanding and Monitoring the “Whys”

Behind Juvenile Violent Crime Trends. This

5-year research project will identify and examine

26 FY 2000

Annual Report
the principal reasons behind the trends in juvenile crime and violence. The lessons to be

learned from this inquiry should yield a number

of tools that Federal, State, and local policymakers and planners can use to anticipate,

monitor, and explain future trends and to plan

effective prevention and intervention strategies.

OJJDP awarded a grant to the University of

Pennsylvania’s Jerry Lee Center of Criminology

of Philadelphia, PA. 

FY 2000 27

Annual Report
28 FY 2000

Annual Report

Number of Jurisdictions

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)

Full compliance—zero violations 9

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 39

Not in compliance 4

Funds withheld pending additional compliance data 2

Not participating 2

Separation of Juvenile and Adult Offenders

Full compliance—zero violations 41

Full compliance—exception provision 11

Funds withheld pending additional compliance data 2

Not participating 2

Jail and Lockup Removal

Full compliance—zero violations 11

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 38

Not in compliance 3

Funds withheld pending additional compliance data 2

Not participating 2

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)

Completed identification and assessment, 21

implementing intervention and monitoring

Completed identification and assessment, implementing intervention 15

Completed identification and assessment/updating

data and revising intervention plan 2

Completed identification/implementing intervention/

conducting formal assessment 3

Conducting identification phase 1

Exempt from DMC requirement 7

DMC status under review 5

Not participating 2

Core Protections Compliance Summary Totals*

(as of September 30, 2000)

* States’ eligibility to receive FY 2000 formula grants was initially determined on the basis of 1998 monitoring reports for compliance with JJDP Act

core protections regarding DSO, separation, and jail and lockup removal and on the basis of information in FY 2000 Formula Grants program

comprehensive plans for compliance with the DMC core protection.
FY 2000 29

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2000)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotab

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingb

Amer. Samoa

Guam

N. Mariana Is.

Puerto Rico

Virgin Is.

TOTALS

Full compliance—

de minimis exceptionsa ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Not in compliance

Funds withheld pending 

additional compliance data

State Compliance Based on 1998 Reports: Deinstitutionalization of 

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

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2000)

Full compliance—

de minimis exceptionsa

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Not in compliance

Funds withheld pending 

additional compliance data

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

9 39 4 2

a

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

b

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2000 Formula Grants program.
30 FY 2000

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2000)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotab

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingb

Amer. Samoa

Guam

N. Mariana Is.

Puerto Rico

Virgin Is.

TOTALS

Full compliance—

exception provisiona ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Funds withheld pending 

additional compliance data

State Compliance Based on 1998 Reports: Separation of 

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

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2000)

Full compliance—

exception provisiona

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Funds withheld pending 

additional compliance data

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

41 11 2

a

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

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

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

b

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2000 Formula Grants program.

✦

✦
FY 2000 31

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2000)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotab

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingb

Amer. Samoa

Guam

N. Mariana Is.

Puerto Rico

Virgin Is.

TOTALS

Full compliance—

de minimis exceptionsa

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Not in compliance

Funds withheld pending 

additional compliance data

State Compliance Based on 1998 Reports: Jail and 

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

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2000)

Full compliance—

de minimis exceptionsa

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Not in compliance

Funds withheld pending 

additional compliance data

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

11 38 3 2

a

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

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

b

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2000 Formula Grants program.
32 FY 2000

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2000)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indianaa

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maineb

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotac

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermontb

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingc

Amer. Samoad

Guamd

N. Mariana Is.d

Puerto Ricoe

Virgin Is.d

TOTALS

Completed identification and 

assessment/implementing 

intervention

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

21 15 2 3 1 7 5

Completed identification

and assessment/implementing

intervention and monitoring

Completed identification and 

assessment/updating data and

revising intervention plan

Completed identification/

implementing intervention/

conducting formal assessment

Conducting identification phase

Exempt from DMC requirement

Completed identification and 

assessment/implementing 

intervention

Completed identification

and assessment/implementing

intervention and monitoring

Completed identification and 

assessment/updating data and

revising intervention plan

Completed identification/

implementing intervention/

DMC status under review

conducting formal assessment

Conducting identification phase

Exempt from DMC requirement

DMC status under review

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2000)

a

Indiana has plans to update DMC identification and assessment data.

b

Maine and Vermont are exempt from the DMC requirement because their minority juvenile population does not exceed 1 percent of the total State juvenile population.

c

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2000 Formula Grants program.

d

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

e

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

State Compliance Based on FY 2000 Formula Grants Program Comprehensive Plan:

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC), Sec. 223(a)(23)
FY 2000 33

Annual Report

FY 2000 Challenge Activities by State

A Basic System Services

B Access to Counsel

C Community-Based Alternatives

D Violent Juvenile Offender

Facilities

Note: Kentucky, Ohio, and Oregon—did not apply. South Dakota and Wyoming—ineligible because States are not participating in

Formula Grants program.

Alabama H,I

Alaska E,I

Arizona G,H,I

Arkansas H,I

California C,E,G,H,I

Colorado B,H

Connecticut F

Delaware B,G

District of Columbia A,E

Florida E,H

Georgia E,F

Hawaii E,G,H

Idaho A,E,G

Illinois A,C,H

Indiana A,H

Iowa E,J

Kansas G,I

Kentucky —

Louisiana A

Maine C,H

Maryland A,C,I

Massachusetts C,J

Michigan C,E

Minnesota E,I

Mississippi I

Missouri C,G

Montana C,H

Nebraska A,C

Nevada E,I

New Hampshire E,H

New Jersey E,H,I

New Mexico C,E

New York A,H,I

North Carolina E,H

North Dakota H,I

Ohio —

Oklahoma C,H,I

Oregon —

STATE ACTIVITIES STATE ACTIVITIES STATE ACTIVITIES

Pennsylvania A,E

Rhode Island E,H

South Carolina C,H

South Dakota —

Tennessee B,F

Texas A,H

Utah A,I

Vermont A,C

Virginia A,J

Washington E,G

West Virginia C,I

Wisconsin C,E,I

Wyoming —

American Samoa A,C

Guam C,I

N. Mariana Islands E,H

Puerto Rico B,G

Virgin Islands G

E Gender Bias Policies and

Programs

F State Ombudsman

G Deinstitutionalization of Status

Offenders and Nonoffenders

H Alternatives to Suspension and

Expulsion

I Aftercare Services

J State Agency Coordination/Case

Review System

FY 2000 Challenge Activity Summary

Number of States selecting each activity

0 5 15 20 25

14

4

17

0

20 

3 

10 

21 

18 

3 

A: Basic System Services

B: Access to Counsel

C: Community-Based Alternatives

D: Violent Juvenile Offender Facilities

E: Gender Bias Policies and Programs

F: State Ombudsman

G: Deinstitutionalization of Status 

 Offenders and Nonoffenders

H: Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion

I: Aftercare Services

J: State Agency Coordination/Case Review 

 System

10
FY 2000 35

Annual Report

The rate of juvenile arrests for violent offenses (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault)

in 1999 was at its lowest level since 1988. Nevertheless, protecting the public from serious, violent juvenile offenders and helping improve law enforcement

agencies’ responses to both offenders and crime victims remained priorities at OJJDP in FY 2000.

For example, the Office continues to be especially

concerned about juvenile gun violence and is helping three communities develop effective comprehensive partnerships to reduce gun violence. Through

an intensive training and technical assistance program, OJJDP also is helping law enforcement agencies develop and implement strategies to respond to

serious youth crime. Youth gang violence is of special concern to OJJDP, and the Office has designed

a multifaceted, comprehensive approach that involves several programs, which are discussed in

chapter 7. Underage drinking is a national problem,

and OJJDP continues to help communities and law

enforcement agencies across the country enforce underage drinking laws. School safety also remains a

serious concern in the Nation’s communities, and a

new OJJDP program is training school resource

officers to address this concern.

Responding to child victims of crime, including child

abuse and neglect, is just as important as protecting

citizens from serious juvenile crime, and OJJDP

supports a number of initiatives that are helping

law enforcement agencies in this area. One of these

initiatives is examining the effect of transferring

child protective investigations from social service

agencies to law enforcement agencies. Another is

helping to mitigate the impact that witnessing violence has on children and families. OJJDP also

supports a comprehensive program of training 

and technical assistance that helps law enforcement agencies improve their responses to missing,

exploited, and abducted children; this program is

described on page 50.

This chapter highlights programs designed to help

protect the public from serious juvenile crime and

improve law enforcement efforts. These programs,

combined with delinquency prevention and intervention strategies, represent the continuum of programs

and services needed to enhance public safety and

help communities and law enforcement respond more

effectively to juvenile delinquency and violence.

Child DevelopmentCommunity Policing 

The Child Development-Community Policing

(CD–CP) program is an innovative partnership between the New Haven (CT) Department of Police

Services and the Child Study Center at the Yale

University School of Medicine. The program addresses the psychological burdens that witnessing

violence imposes on children and families. OJJDP

is working with the Yale Child Study Center to

replicate the program in several new communities.

In FY 2000, CD–CP staff worked with police and

mental health representatives in five sites—

Bridgeport, CT; Gainesville, GA; Nassau County,

NY; San Diego, CA; and Topeka, KS—to replicate

the program. The Yale Child Study Center also

continued to work with nine communities with existing CD–CP programs to develop plans to sustain

the programs after Federal funding ends in FY

2001. The grantee also provided training on developmental stages of youth to staff at Connecticut’s

three juvenile detention centers and interdisciplinary training for New Haven police officers,

mental health clinicians, and probation officers.

Chapter 4

Enhancing Public Safety and Law Enforcement
36 FY 2000

Annual Report

Enforcing the Underage

Drinking Laws Program 

Since 1998, OJJDP has been working with States

to address the problem of underage drinking through

a multifaceted effort that includes block grants, discretionary programs, training and technical assistance, and a national evaluation. The Enforcing the

Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) Program is helping the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the

territories to develop comprehensive and coordinated initiatives to enforce laws that prohibit the sale

of alcoholic beverages to minors (individuals under

21 years of age) and to prevent the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors. OJJDP

awarded FY 2000 block grants of $360,000 each to

all States and the District of Columbia. Recipients

are using these funds to support activities in one or

more of the three areas outlined in the EUDL legislation: enforcement, public education activities, and

innovative programs. 

Whereas the EUDL block grant program is designed

to enhance State-level responses to underage drinking, the discretionary grant program is designed to

foster State-local partnerships to address this problem. Since 1998, OJJDP has competitively awarded a total of 28 discretionary grants to 22 States to

implement the EUDL Program at the local level.

These States have provided subgrants to approximately 160 local jurisdictions, which are using

EUDL funds to implement a variety of programs in

concert with State agencies responding to underage

drinking. Communities are using the funds to support EUDL coordinators; develop community coalitions; encourage youth leadership and participation

in program activities; design needs assessments and

strategic plans; increase enforcement efforts; review

and improve policies, regulations, and laws; increase prevention and awareness efforts; and document accomplishments and processes. OJJDP also

has awarded discretionary funds to support the

demonstration of the EUDL Program in Puerto

Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Indian and

Alaska Native communities, including the Central

Council Tlingit and Haida Tribe of Alaska, Juneau,

AK; the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Assiniboine

and Sioux tribes, Poplar, MT; the Pawnee Nation of

Oklahoma, Pawnee, OK; the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Ponca City, OK; the Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni,

NM; the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians,

Redlake, MN; the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska,

Niobrara, NB; and the Southern Ute Tribe, Ignacio,

CO.

As part of the FY 2000 discretionary grant program,

OJJDP required States submitting applications for

both block and discretionary funding to document

the progress of their EUDL programs over the past

2 years and to describe gaps in their programs and

enhancements needed to strengthen the programs

and increase their effectiveness. OJJDP selected

11 States and 1 territory to receive FY 2000 discretionary grants based on each applicant’s progress

and achievements in establishing its EUDL program

and the applicant’s plan for building and sustaining

that work. FY 2000 discretionary grants were

awarded to Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine,

Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin.

OJJDP also funds a comprehensive training and

technical assistance program designed for State

EUDL coordinators and representatives from alcoholic beverage control, law enforcement, traffic

safety, health and human services, education, and

other State and local agencies. The training and

technical assistance services are provided by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE)

of Calverton, MD. PIRE has involved a range of

partners in its training program, including American Indian Development Associates of Albuquerque, NM; Mothers Against Drunk Driving

(MADD) of Dallas, TX; the National Crime Prevention Council of Washington, DC; the National

Liquor Law Enforcement Association of Raleigh,

NC; and the Police Executive Research Forum of

Washington, DC.

During FY 2000, PIRE provided training and technical assistance to more than 4,060 individuals

through a variety of activities. PIRE conducted

nearly 20 regional and local EUDL training events

and conducted 10 onsite technical assistance
FY 2000 37

Annual Report

workshops at the request of coordinators and State

and local communities seeking to develop or enhance underage drinking prevention and enforcement initiatives. PIRE also developed 12 monthly

audio-teleconferences, in which a total of 1,265 individuals participated. In October 2000, PIRE also

held the second annual National Leadership Conference in Reno, NV. The Conference was attended by

more than 400 State coordinators, youth, high-level

enforcement representatives, and other participants. 

PIRE also operates the Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center (www.udetc.org), which

helps States receiving EUDL funds to focus their

efforts on prevention, intervention, and enforcement issues. In FY 2000, to further help States and

local jurisdictions, PIRE developed the following

nine new documents, which are available on the

Center’s Web site: 

✦ Costs of Underage Drinking, Updated Edition.

✦ Environmental Strategies To Prevent Alcohol Problems

on College Campuses.

✦ A Guide for Enforcing Impaired Driving Laws for Youth.

✦ A Guide to Zero Tolerance and Graduated Licensing:

Two Strategies That Work.

✦ How To Use Local Regulatory and Land Use Powers 

To Prevent Underage Drinking.

✦ A Practical Guide to Preventing and Dispersing

Underage Drinking Parties.

✦ Reducing Alcohol Sales to Underage Purchasers:

A Practical Guide to Compliance Investigations.

✦ Regulatory Strategies for Preventing Youth Access

to Alcohol: Best Practices. 

✦ Strategies for Reducing Third-Party Transactions 

of Alcohol to Underage Youth.

Recognizing the need to know how well the EUDL

Program works, OJJDP awarded a grant to Wake

Forest University School of Medicine in WinstonSalem, NC, to evaluate how States and local

communities are using their EUDL block and

discretionary grants and to evaluate the impact of

the program in a sample of communities. OJJDP

awarded a supplement to the grant in FY 2000 to

identify promising practices as part of the national

evaluation.

The evaluation design includes 4 major components: a telephone survey of key actors in the initiative in all 50 States and the District of Columbia,

indepth case studies of program implementation in

6 States, a telephone survey of police and sheriff’s

offices in a sample of grant recipient States, and

telephone surveys of a sample of youth (ages 16–20)

in the same States. Early findings from these surveys indicate that the EUDL Program is bringing

together groups that have not previously worked

together—particularly law enforcement and substance abuse and treatment agencies. Some States

appear to be facing challenges in program implementation, especially among agencies that have limited experience in working together (such as Alcohol Beverage Control agencies, which are reported

to be highly involved in EUDL programs in 66 percent of States). The surveys also found that citizens’

groups, such as MADD, are significantly involved

in only 28 States.

Data from the youth survey underscore the magnitude of the underage drinking problem. About half

(46 percent) of the sample of youth reported current

alcohol use (within the past 30 days), 27 percent reported alcohol use over the past 7 days, and 21 percent reported binge drinking (having five or more

drinks in a row on at least one occasion during a 2-

week period). Moreover, substantial numbers of

youth reported engaging in risky behaviors associated with alcohol use, such as driving while under the

influence of alcohol and riding with a driver who had

been drinking. Negative consequences of drinking

reported by current drinkers included experiencing

headaches and hangovers, being unable to remember

what happened after a drinking incident, passing out,

getting into a fight, having sex without birth control,

breaking or damaging property, missing school,

and being the victim of a forced sex attempt. An

OJJDP Bulletin summarizing the evaluation’s first

year of findings will be published in 2001. 
38 FY 2000

Annual Report

Law Enforcement Training

and Technical Assistance

Program 

OJJDP provides instructional training and specialized assistance to State, local, and tribal law enforcement professionals through a grant to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria,

VA. The program aims to reduce juvenile delinquency and violence by facilitating effective techniques and programs for planning and delivering

law enforcement services. It encourages the use of

local collaborations to increase juvenile accountability for delinquent and criminal behavior and reduce

juvenile violence. It also promotes a more positive

approach to the Nation’s youth.

The program examines core issues related to youth

violence, using methods that are consistent with effective police practices. It provides leaders throughout the juvenile justice system—in law enforcement,

prosecution, the courts, corrections, probation, and

other agencies—with strategic information, materials, and training and technical assistance aimed at

solving managerial issues that hinder implementation of effective youth crime prevention strategies. 

The program covers a range of youth violence issues,

including youth firearm possession and use; school

violence and safety; youth-oriented community policing; gang and drug involvement; serious, violent,

and habitual juvenile offenders; multidisciplinary

youth violence strategies; police management of

youth programs; tribal juvenile crime; and chief

executive officers’ responses to delinquency and

violence.

In FY 2000, 18 pilot workshop sessions were conducted, with nearly 2,000 participants. The pilot

workshops included the Chief Executive Officer

Forum, Managing Juvenile Operations, School Administrators for Effective Police Operations Leading

to Improved Children and Youth Services, Serious

Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program,

and Youth Gang, Gun, and Drug Policy. Revisions

to the training designs are based on feedback from

law enforcement advisory groups and workshop

participants. A new workshop—Tribal Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance—is in the

design phase.

Partnerships To Reduce

Juvenile Gun Violence 

According to the OJJDP Bulletin Fighting Juvenile

Gun Violence, a teenager today is more likely to die

of a gunshot wound than of disease or other natural

causes. Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause

of death for juveniles in the United States. For every

fatal shooting of a juvenile, there are about three

nonfatal shootings. Suicides and unintentional gunshot injuries claim the lives of even more juveniles

than gun-related homicides. The national increase

in homicides of juveniles in the late 1980s and early

1990s—and the recent declines—were almost entirely related to the use of firearms by juveniles and

young adults. Clearly, any comprehensive effort to

reduce juvenile crime and delinquency must target

gun violence. Recognizing the severity of the problem, OJJDP is helping selected local jurisdictions

develop comprehensive partnerships to reduce juvenile gun violence. These efforts are based on community assessments of local needs and include suppression, intervention, and prevention components.

In FY 1997, OJJDP initiated a 3-year gun violence

reduction partnership effort in four sites: Baton

Rouge and Shreveport, LA; Oakland, CA; and Syracuse, NY. Shreveport withdrew from the program,

but the remaining three communities each developed

a comprehensive plan that integrates suppression,

intervention, and prevention strategies and facilitates

changes in the policies and procedures of participating public and private agencies. From this planning

process, OJJDP and the grantees have learned

four principal lessons: 

✦ A comprehensive and accurate needs assessment

is critical to strategic planning. 

✦ Partnerships should use a logic model process to

develop a comprehensive strategic plan (i.e., they

should succinctly and logically link problem
FY 2000 39

Annual Report

identification statements with methods to address

the problems and with expected results). 

✦ As partnerships refine their gun violence strategies, they can use performance data to keep program planners and task force members informed. 

✦ Key stakeholders need to make a commitment to

the program and be active participants in the

partnerships.

The three demonstration communities are experiencing positive results. For example, homicides in

Baton Rouge decreased from 71 in 1996 to 48 in

1999. In the partnership’s high-crime target area,

the decrease was even more dramatic. Gun-related

homicides in the target area declined from 19 in

1996 to 9 in 1999. In addition, 110 gun cases were

referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1999; 70 of

these have resulted in convictions to date. In Oakland, the police department recovered 2,255 firearms between October 1998 and June 1999, and

the Syracuse police department recovered 1,238

firearms between January 1997 and July 1999. 

OJJDP also is funding an evaluation of this program by COSMOS Corporation of Bethesda, MD.

Researchers are documenting and evaluating the

process of community mobilization, planning, and

collaboration needed to develop the comprehensive,

collaborative approach to reducing gun violence

among juveniles that OJJDP envisioned. Evaluators are examining the demonstration sites’ logic

models to identify relevant process and impact

measures and also are assessing the sites’ capacitybuilding efforts and achievement of short-term and

long-term outcomes. Evaluators also have developed a training and technical assistance protocol

package, which will be offered to selected communities that are focused on reducing gun violence

through a collaborative planning process. 

The OJJDP Bulletin Fighting Juvenile Gun Violence

describes this program. The Bulletin is available

from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

School Resource Officers 

Data from OJJDP’s Juvenile Offenders and Victims:

1999 National Report indicate that children are safer

at school than away from school. Nevertheless, families, school administrators, and communities continue to be concerned about school safety. In response to this concern, many police departments

and schools are hiring school resource officers

(SROs)—career law enforcement officers assigned

to work with school and community-based 

organizations—to help prevent and respond to

school crime. An SRO’s role as law enforcement

officer, counselor, teacher, and liaison between law

enforcement, school, community, and family requires training beyond that received at a police

academy. 

Fox Valley Technical College (FVTC) of Appleton,

WI, in partnership with OJJDP’s National Center

for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) of

Alexandria, VA, has developed a training program

to help schools, communities, and juvenile justice

agencies implement and sustain effective SRO programs. The training program, which is funded

through the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS),

includes three components: 

✦ The Chief Executive Officer Safe School Forum,

designed for superintendents, police chiefs, chief

probation officers, social services administrators,

and chief prosecutors, discusses critical roles and

responsibilities, information sharing, and policy

issues related to school safety and juvenile justice. 

✦ The School Resource Officer Leadership Program discusses standards of excellence and best

practices and is designed for police officers designated to be SROs, their supervisors, school district and university police officers, and other

school staff. 

✦ The third component, Safe Schools Interagency

Team Planning, brings together chief executives of

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

sharing, cooperation, and coordination efforts.
40 FY 2000

Annual Report

A technical assistance component, designed to sustain and support program development, also is available to eligible teams and participants who have

completed training and have begun to implement an

SRO program. An OJJDP Fact Sheet, School Resource Officer Training Program, is available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Transfer of the Responsibility

for Child Protective

Investigations to Law

Enforcement Agencies 

In response to concerns about increasing demands

on public child welfare agencies, the safety of children, and the capacity of law enforcement and social

service agencies to deliver critical services, the State

of Florida passed legislation in 1998 that allows 

jurisdictions to transfer the entire responsibility for

child protective investigations to a law enforcement

agency. OJJDP, through an interagency agreement

with the National Institute of Justice, is funding an

evaluation of this activity. Evaluators are comparing

child protection-related outcomes in three Florida

counties where responsibility for investigation is

being transferred to sheriff’s offices with outcomes

in three counties where social service agencies retain

responsibility. The project is concerned primarily

with whether children are safer when law enforcement agencies assume responsibility for child protective investigations, whether perpetrators of severe

child abuse are more likely to face criminal sanctions, and whether there are impacts on other parts

of the child welfare system. Also, a thorough process

evaluation will be conducted to describe and compare the implementation process across the three

counties. The evaluation is being conducted by the

School of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA.
FY 2000 41

Annual Report

In recent years, America’s communities have made

significant progress in reducing juvenile crime

and victimization. This progress is attributable, in

part, to strong efforts to develop comprehensive,

community-based strategies, which combine prevention and early intervention programs with

graduated sanctions that hold young offenders accountable in the juvenile justice system. OJJDP

believes that community partnerships are necessary to ensure the continued decline of juvenile

delinquency and violent crime. That is why the

Office has supported the demonstration and evaluation of a number of community-based programs

over the past several years. 

Hundreds of communities across the Nation are

developing community-based responses to juvenile

delinquency and crime through OJJDP grants

under the Title V Community Prevention Grants

program. Communities in eight States are implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, which has

been the cornerstone of OJJDP’s programming for

the past several years. Another six sites are implementing the SafeFutures program (based on the

Comprehensive Strategy), which emphasizes the

importance of providing a continuum of care at

all developmental stages for at-risk and delinquent

youth. In addition to these programs, which are

highlighted in this chapter, OJJDP is helping

communities across the Nation develop comprehensive approaches to reduce and prevent youth

substance abuse (see page 9), truancy (page 12),

gang violence (page 51), and juvenile gun violence

(page 38) and to enforce underage drinking laws

(page 36). These programs all illustrate the types

of comprehensive responses OJJDP believes are

necessary to reduce delinquency and increase

public safety.

Community Prevention Grants

Program 

The Title V Community Prevention Grants program

(Title V) provides incentives to communities to use a

comprehensive strategic approach to developing and

implementing community-based, data-driven plans

that address the prevention of juvenile delinquency.

Enacted by Congress in 1992, Title V is the only

Federal assistance funding source dedicated solely to

delinquency prevention. Congress appropriated

$42.5 million for this program in FY 2000. 

OJJDP awards Title V discretionary grants to

States based on the relative size of their population

subject to original juvenile court jurisdiction. The

States, in turn, award the funds to qualified units of

local government (i.e., a city, county, town, borough,

parish, village, or Indian tribe that performs law enforcement functions) to implement delinquency prevention plans that meet their local needs. 

Because a State or local government is required to

provide a 50-percent cash or in-kind match for each

grant, the level of community ownership of and investment in these programs is significant and has

contributed to the overall success of the Title V program. Further, many States and communities have

provided more than the required match and have

incorporated the Title V program model into other

grant programs. 

From 1994 to 2000, 1,100 communities in 49 States,

Washington, DC, and 5 territories (referred to collectively herein as “States”) have received Title V

subgrants. Title V helps these communities focus on

making systemwide changes rather than simply establishing new programs. The grantees have created

communitywide systems change by involving a wide

Chapter 5

Comprehensive Community-Based Initiatives
variety of individuals and groups in prevention activities. They also have promoted broader community perspectives, increased communication among

key community agencies and systems, reduced gaps

and duplication in services, shared resources, and

leveraged additional resources. The communities

have created programs—such as afterschool recreation, tutoring, conflict resolution, and family

strengthening—that have provided youth with opportunities to develop the social and academic skills

they need to avoid problem behaviors and experience success. 

OJJDP enhanced its administration of the Title V

program in FY 2000 by conducting training sessions

for OJJDP staff to increase their understanding of

program requirements and guidelines and by developing a Title V program monitoring checklist to help

OJJDP staff monitor Title V activities more closely.

OJJDP expanded training for State Juvenile Justice Specialists and Title V coordinators. The Office

also awarded funds to a new Title V training and

technical assistance contractor, Development Services Group, Inc. (DSG) of Bethesda, MD. DSG

established a listserv for Title V coordinators and

developed a Title V newsletter for States and local

subgrantees. To facilitate information exchange and

dissemination, DSG completed drafts of Title V

training modules and began field testing and delivering a new training curriculum. (The curriculum is a

work-in-progress, intended to be refined with input

from the field on an ongoing basis.) OJJDP also introduced an updated Title V Community Self-Evaluation

Workbook, an important step toward making evaluation an integral part of delinquency prevention plan

development and implementation. 

In FY 1998, OJJDP began funding an impact

evaluation of the Title V program in 6 States—

Hawaii, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia—and 11 subgrantee sites in

these States. Caliber Associates of Fairfax, VA, is

conducting the evaluation. To further strengthen

the Title V program, OJJDP encouraged collaboration between DSG (the training and technical assistance contractor) and Caliber. Together with

OJJDP, DSG and Caliber have jointly conducted

Title V training at regional conferences and at

OJJDP’s national conference and have contributed to the new Title V newsletter.

The structure and support OJJDP has provided to

Title V grantees have contributed significantly to the

progress made in many communities. Across the Nation, thousands of citizens have learned the value of

comprehensive delinquency prevention planning that

focuses on protecting the community and meeting

the needs of at-risk youth. As communities have become more proficient in implementing this approach,

they have begun to experience significant improvements in juvenile problem behaviors and risk factor

reduction and in other areas, including collaboration

among community agencies and organizations, coordination of program services, and access to funds. In

addition, recognizing the accomplishments that have

taken place at the local level, many State agencies

are now using the Title V principles to improve

State-level planning and guide the administration of

other grant programs. 

Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders 

OJJDP published the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders in 1993

and the Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders in

1995 to help States and local communities reduce

juvenile delinquency, improve their juvenile justice

systems, and deal with the relatively small number

of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders

by developing and implementing a comprehensive

strategic planning process. The Comprehensive

Strategy calls for establishing a framework that

provides a comprehensive continuum of services for

youth and families from prenatal care to correctional aftercare programs. The Comprehensive Strategy

is data driven, research based, and outcome focused;

each program and practice developed by this approach is designed to reduce the risk factors that

contribute to juvenile delinquency and/or build

42 FY 2000

Annual Report
FY 2000 43

Annual Report

protective factors that buffer children from the impact of risk factors. It includes a variety of delinquency prevention services and graduated sanctions

to reduce risk factors and build protective factors.

This community-based juvenile justice planning

framework has demonstrated the capacity to bring

about systemic change in the way that States and

local communities identify, prioritize, and address

juvenile delinquency and associated family and

community issues. The Comprehensive Strategy is

an inclusive process that requires commitment,

leadership, and energy. 

OJJDP has provided intensive training and technical assistance to eight States—Florida, Iowa,

Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and

Wisconsin. Within these States, 42 local communities have completed and are implementing 5-year

Comprehensive Strategy plans. The training and

technical assistance are based on the development

of the Title V strategic planning process and results

of pilot testing in three county jurisdictions. Communities in the eight States have embraced the comprehensive strategic planning framework and have

demonstrated improved effectiveness in identifying

risk factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency.

Many of the communities report that the Comprehensive Strategy planning process has enhanced coordination among agencies and service providers,

thereby reducing duplication of services. Communities also have used the momentum gained during

the planning process to reallocate resources in a

way that supports effective programs and encourages greater accountability for agencies providing

services to children and families. Additionally, several communities have successfully accessed additional local, State, and Federal funds to support activities that were identified in their strategic plans. 

In FY 2000, OJJDP began an evaluation of the

Comprehensive Strategy, including the planning

process used by the eight States; finalized a Comprehensive Strategy training curriculum that was

developed and field tested within the States; developed a Comprehensive Strategy workbook to provide States and communities with a format for

creating an effective and dynamic written plan; and

allocated funds to support implementation of the

Comprehensive Strategy in Ohio, Oregon, and

Wisconsin. In October 2000, OJJDP also adopted

a revised approach and protocol for delivering

Comprehensive Strategy training and technical assistance. This revision permits OJJDP to respond

to requests for information from States and sites

throughout the Nation by using the lessons learned

from the experiences in the original pilot sites and

eight States to further develop an effective strategic

planning framework. 

SafeFutures

OJJDP has supported the SafeFutures: Partnerships To Reduce Youth Violence and Delinquency

program since 1995. SafeFutures emphasizes the

importance of providing a continuum of care at all

developmental stages for youth who are delinquent

or are at risk of becoming delinquent. Since 1995,

OJJDP has awarded annual grants of up to $1.41

million to Boston, MA; Contra Costa County, CA;

Fort Belknap Indian Community, MT; Imperial

County, CA; St. Louis, MO; and Seattle, WA. These

sites have been developing comprehensive plans

that provide appropriate prevention, intervention,

and treatment services and graduated sanctions for

at-risk and delinquent youth.

During FY 2000, the sites focused on refining this

continuum-of-care approach through better integration and coordination of services. For example, Imperial County established an interagency care coordination team to deliver and broker services for

youth at risk of out-of-home placement. Fort Belknap established a care coordination system that

features assessment, care planning, and advocacy

and helps families navigate the multiple tribal,

State, and Federal programs in Indian Country. 

Grantees also have given specific attention to systems change and program sustainment. Seattle is

completing a study of the feasibility of reallocating

resources from detention and placement to prevention and early intervention. Imperial County is

blending funds across agencies and funding categories. Boston has leveraged additional funds for
44 FY 2000

Annual Report

enhanced afterschool programs and for programs to

serve youth who have been injured through violence. 

During FY 2000, sites also increased their focus on

providing services to high-risk youth and delivered

these services—through street outreach, home visits, and other activities—at times and places convenient for youth and families. For example, Contra

Costa County used data to identify youth most at

risk for perpetrating or being victimized by gang

violence and St. Louis refined a screening process

to identify individual high-risk youth.

OJJDP also is funding a national evaluation to 

determine the success of the SafeFutures initiative

and to track lessons learned at each of the six sites.

The Urban Institute of Washington, DC, is conducting the evaluation, which is examining the implementation process, stakeholders’ perceptions of

systems change, community indicators of change,

client and family experiences with the SafeFutures

program, and case outcomes. The evaluators also

are helping sites fully implement the Client Indicator Data Base (CIDB), which captures specific

client outcome measures for youth in the areas of

education and delinquent and other antisocial or

self-damaging behavior. CIDB also measures service delivery and networking among agencies that

serve youth who are at high risk of delinquency and

who may be in need of multiple services offered either by SafeFutures or by other existing community

programs. 

In November 2000, OJJDP published Comprehensive Responses to Youth At Risk: Interim Findings From

the SafeFutures Initiative. This publication draws on

information obtained through multiple visits to each

SafeFutures community during the first 3 years of

the initiative, followup discussions with selected

participants to clarify aspects of program implementation, and analyses of secondary documents. The

publication is available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.
FY 2000 45

Annual Report

Protecting children from violent crime, child abuse

and neglect, and other forms of victimization is one

of OJJDP’s primary goals. The Office funds a

number of programs to help keep children safe.

One of its accomplishments in FY 2000 was to establish a Child Protection Division, which will help

the Office consolidate and more efficiently manage

its many activities related to child protection issues.

An OJJDP Bulletin, Keeping Children Safe: OJJDP’s

Child Protection Division, describes this new division

and is available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.

Several of the activities OJJDP supports to help

keep children safe address child abuse and neglect.

These activities include programs that provide advocates for abused and neglected children at dependency court hearings and train teams to work on

child abuse cases, including sexual abuse and child

fatalities. Other programs offer training to law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and social service

agencies on effective approaches for addressing

child abuse. Another initiative, Safe Start, is helping

nine communities respond to and protect children

who have been exposed to violence in their families

and communities. OJJDP also is funding several

programs to respond to the newest area of child victimization, online sexual exploitation, brought about

by the rapid growth of the Internet. Since 1984,

OJJDP has funded the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to serve as a

national resource center and clearinghouse providing assistance to family members, law enforcement

personnel, prosecutors, and the general public in recovering missing and exploited children. 

This chapter highlights these and other aspects of

OJJDP’s efforts to help reduce the victimization of

children. The activities discussed illustrate OJJDP’s

commitment to providing services for children and

parents, educators, prosecutors, law enforcement

personnel, and other professionals and interested

persons working on child safety issues. 

Children Exposed to Violence

Initiative 

In 1999, the U.S. Departments of Justice and

Health and Human Services convened a National

Summit on Children Exposed to Violence. The

Summit brought together 150 professionals from

law enforcement agencies, the courts, child and

family services and mental health agencies, and

Federal, State, and local governments. Summit participants developed a framework for understanding

and addressing children’s exposure to violence. This

framework became the basis of Safe From the Start:

Taking Action on Children Exposed to Violence, a blueprint for Federal, State, and local action to help

children who have been exposed to violence. Published by OJJDP in 2000, Safe From the Start offers

both general principles and specific suggestions for

meeting the needs of children who have been victims of or witnesses to violence. It also provides examples of effective programs and lists of available

resources. The document is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. 

Children’s Advocacy Centers 

Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) are childfocused, child-friendly programs that bring together

teams of investigators, prosecutors, medical personnel, and social service and mental health professionals to work on child abuse cases. During FY 2000,

OJJDP continued to fund the National Children’s

Alliance (NCA) of Washington, DC, and four Regional Children’s Advocacy Centers (RCACs),

which encourage and help other communities to establish centers. The Regional Centers are Midwest

Chapter 6

Reducing the Victimization of Children 
46 FY 2000

Annual Report

RCAC (St. Paul, MN), Northeast RCAC (Philadelphia, PA), South RCAC (Huntsville, AL), and

West RCAC (Pueblo, CO). For information on the

regional centers, phone NCA at 800–239–9950 or

visit NCA’s Web site (www.nca-online.org). 

During FY 2000, NCA produced a number of publications, including Best Practices (Third Edition) and

Putting Standards Into Practice, that guide communities

in establishing and strengthening CACs. NCA also

provided onsite training and technical assistance to

some 20 CACs across the country, received an average of 456 calls per month requesting information

about the CAC model, and approved 16 CACs for

full membership in the alliance. NCA also worked

with the RCACs on a number of activities, including

identifying culturally competent practices, implementing telemedicine pilot projects, and developing

CACs in underserved areas and tribal communities.

Court Appointed Special

Advocate Program 

Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs help ensure that abused and neglected children receive timely and effective representation in

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

interests of abused or neglected children. During

FY 2000, OJJDP continued to fund the National

Court Appointed Special Advocate Association

(NCASAA) of Seattle, WA. The association provides specialized training, technical assistance, information, and resources to States and local jurisdictions to support the development of new CASA

programs and strengthen and expand existing ones.

NCASAA is focusing efforts on communities where

representation rates are low, numbers of abused and

neglected children are high, and service systems are

not meeting the needs of families and children. In

FY 2000, more than 900 CASA programs in 49

States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands served more than 200,000 children.

NCASAA provided onsite monitoring and technical

assistance to local CASA grantees and held an annual national conference. NCASAA produces a

number of publications, which are available through

its Web site (www.nationalcasa.org).

Crimes against Children

Research Center 

OJJDP has supported the Crimes against Children

Research Center (CCRC) at the University of New

Hampshire in Durham, NH, since 1998. The Center

supports research and undertakes surveys and statistical analyses to help the public, policymakers, law

enforcement personnel, and child welfare practitioners combat crimes against children. CCRC focuses on research about the nature and impact of crimes

such as child abduction, homicide, rape, assault, and

physical and sexual abuse. CCRC researchers have

also conducted a survey on youth Internet safety,

which is described on pages 47 and 48.

OJJDP created a new Bulletin series—Crimes

Against Children—that presents the latest information about child victimization, including analyses of

victimization statistics, studies of child victims and

their special needs, and descriptions of programs

and approaches that address these needs. The Bulletins summarize data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Incident-Based

Reporting System (NIBRS). To date, OJJDP has

published the following Bulletins in the series: Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles, Juvenile Victims of

Property Crimes, Kidnaping of Juveniles: Patterns From

NIBRS, and The Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases.

The Bulletins are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Internet Crimes Initiatives 

OJJDP’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task

Force (ICAC Task Force) program is helping communities protect children from online victimization.

This initiative encourages States and local law enforcement agencies to develop and implement regional multijurisdictional, multiagency task forces

to prevent and respond to online crimes against

children. Since this program was developed in

1998, task force agencies have arrested 420
offenders, identified hundreds of investigative targets, seized 825 computers, provided training to

10,000 prosecutors and law enforcement officers,

and reached thousands of children, parents, and educators with information about safe online practices

for children and teenagers. 

With the addition of 20 new regional task forces in

FY 2000, the ICAC program is now providing

forensic, investigative, and prevention services in 31

States. The following law enforcement agencies received FY 2000 grants: Alabama Department of

Public Safety; Connecticut State Police; Cuyahoga

County (OH) Office of the Prosecuting Attorney;

Delaware County (PA) Office of the Prosecuting

Attorney; Hawaii Office of the Attorney General;

Knoxville (TN) Police Department; Las Vegas

Metropolitan Police Department, Clark County,

NV; Maryland State Police; Massachusetts Department of Public Safety; Michigan State Police; Nebraska State Patrol; North Carolina Division of

Criminal Investigation; Oklahoma State Bureau of

Investigation; Phoenix (AZ) Police Department;

Saint Paul (MN) Police Department; San Diego

(CA) Police Department; Seattle (WA) Police Department; Sedgewick County (KS) Sheriff’s Department; Utah Office of the Attorney General; and

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation.

Other ICAC program activities in FY 2000 included

directing SEARCH Group, Inc., of Sacramento,

CA, the ICAC technical assistance and training

provider, to develop and deliver a hands-on investigative course and a national 3-day training workshop that focused on emerging technology and its

relevance to criminal activities and ICAC investigative efforts. OJJDP also introduced the Investigative Satellite Initiative (ISI), which broadens the impact of the ICAC Task Force program by building

the forensic and investigative capacities of smaller

State and local law enforcement agencies. Under the

ISI program, agencies lacking the resources to commit to full-time regional task forces may still acquire

OJJDP funds to train and equip local officers to

respond to cases of child pornography and enticement through the Internet. 

The National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children (NCMEC) continued to play a role in

making cyberspace a safer place for children. The

Center’s CyberTipline (www.cybertipline.com) has

now received more than 20,000 reports of suspicious

online activity and plays an increasingly important

role in ensuring that reports from children, parents,

and other sources are routed to appropriate law 

enforcement agencies. At the request of OJJDP,

NCMEC hosted a national investigative planning

session and provided two weeklong policy orientation seminars for the new ICAC Task Forces. 

NCMEC, in cooperation with Fox Valley Technical

College of Appleton, WI, also sponsors a series of

Protecting Children Online training courses to help

law enforcement investigators, commanders of law

enforcement units, and prosecutors focus on Internet crimes against children. The course for prosecutors is new—it was pilot tested in FY 2000 and will

be offered for the first time in FY 2001. 

Internet Safety Survey 

Commissioned by NCMEC and supported by

OJJDP, the Youth Internet Safety Survey collected

information about incidents of possible online victimization of youth. The survey, which was conducted in FY 2000 by researchers from the Crimes

against Children Research Center, included telephone interviews with a national sample of 1,501

youth ages 10–17 who used the Internet regularly

(at least once a month for the past 6 months). The

survey addressed three main issues: sexual solicitations and approaches, unwanted exposure to sexual

material, and harassment. Major survey findings

include the following:

✦ Many youth are victims of online sexual solicitations. Almost one in five (19 percent) of the young

Internet users surveyed said they had received an

unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year. 

✦ Many youth are exposed to sexually explicit pictures on the Internet without seeking or expecting them. Twenty-five percent of the surveyed

youth reported unwanted exposures to sexual

material. 

FY 2000 47

Annual Report
48 FY 2000

Annual Report

✦ Some youth are victims of online harassment.

Six percent of the survey respondents reported

harassment incidents (threats, rumors, or other

offensive behavior) during the past year.

✦ Overall, few of the solicitations, exposures, and

harassments were reported to authorities (police,

hotlines, Internet service providers, or teachers). Only 18 percent of even the most serious

incidents—aggressive solicitations—were reported. When reports were made, they were

usually directed to Internet service providers.

Complete results from the survey are available in

Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation’s Youth,

which was published in June 2000 and can be

downloaded at www.missingkids.com (select the

links “Education & Resources,” “Library of

Resources,” and “Internet”). An OJJDP Fact

Sheet, Highlights of the Youth Internet Safety Survey, is

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

National Center for Missing

and Exploited Children 

NCMEC is a national resource center and clearinghouse dedicated to serving missing and exploited children and their families. Located in Alexandria, VA, the Center operates a toll-free hotline

(800–843–5678) where citizens can report investigative leads and parents and other interested individuals can receive information about missing

children. During FY 2000, NCMEC’s hotline received approximately 103,000 calls, ranging from

citizens reporting information about missing children to parents and law enforcement personnel requesting information and publications. NCMEC

also produced a number of publications, which are

available on its Web site (www.missingkids.com).

During FY 2000, NCMEC assisted in the recovery

of hundreds of children and disseminated millions

of photographs of missing children. The Center also

sponsored a national training workshop for State

missing children clearinghouses and missing children nonprofit organizations. 

NCMEC also assists the State Department in enhancing effective compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child

Abduction, a treaty designed to deter international

child abduction. Through an interagency agreement,

the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office for Victims

of Crime transferred funds to OJJDP for NCMEC

to provide assistance in cases of international parental abduction, including emergency transportation

for American parents, crisis intervention services,

assistance in participating in criminal justice proceedings, and payment for forensic medical examinations of victims. In FY 2000, NCMEC handled

48 such cases that involved 66 children.

NCMEC also operates the Jimmy Ryce Law

Enforcement Training Center (JRLETC), which

offers two law enforcement training programs designed to improve investigative responses to missing children cases. The Chief Executive Officer

seminar approaches missing children cases from a

management perspective and offers police chiefs

and sheriffs information about coordination and

communication issues, resource assessment, legal

concerns, and policy development. The Responding to Missing and Abducted Children course

focuses on investigative techniques for all aspects

of missing children cases. In FY 2000, 424 police

chiefs and sheriffs and 409 investigators participated in these training programs.

National Center for

Prosecution of Child Abuse 

The National Center for Prosecution of Child

Abuse (NCPCA), operated by the American Prosecutors Research Institute of Alexandria, VA, offers

training and technical assistance to help improve

the investigation and prosecution of child abuse

cases. During FY 2000, NCPCA staff conducted

dozens of training sessions attended by hundreds of

prosecutors and investigators. The Center also provided individual consultation services, maintained

an extensive library of resources for prosecutors,

and published a monthly newsletter and a series

of State statutes, training materials, conference
FY 2000 49

Annual Report

reports, and other written resources. NCPCA assistance benefited law enforcement officials, social

workers, therapists, and other personnel involved in

the investigation of child abuse cases. More information about NCPCA is available on its Web site

(www.ndaa.org/apri/NCPCA/Index.html). 

Parents Anonymous®

Parents Anonymous®, Inc., of Claremont, CA, is

a national child abuse prevention organization.

Since 1994, OJJDP has been helping Parents

Anonymous® replicate its self-help model, which is

designed to strengthen families and reduce child maltreatment. In FY 2000, this organization continued

to expand the number of local groups and the number of parents attending meetings, the diversity of

populations served, training and technical assistance,

and curriculum and other resource materials. Parents

Anonymous® also developed a national database. In

the past year, newly accredited organizations were

added in the District of Columbia, Kentucky, New

York, and North Carolina. Parents Anonymous® also

conducted intensive training for local executive directors, staff members, and volunteers regarding its

new Children’s Program, which is designed to give

children a structured opportunity to deal with issues

of self-esteem and development while their parents

attend group meetings. Initially tested in 4 locations,

the Children’s Program added more than 50 new locations across the country as a result of training efforts by Parents Anonymous®. More information

about Parents Anonymous® is available on its Web

site (www.parentsanonymous.org).

In FY 2000, OJJDP began funding a national

evaluation of Parents Anonymous® through the

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

(NCCD) of Oakland, CA. NCCD researchers are

conducting a process evaluation that will examine

the nature of the Parents Anonymous® program, its

implementation, and its participants. The researchers also are conducting an outcome evaluation to

examine the effects of the program on participants,

compare the parenting performance of participants

and nonparticipants, and measure the effects of the

program on both risk and protective factors related

to child abuse. 

Safe Start Initiative 

Preliminary research findings show that children

who have witnessed domestic violence experience

higher levels of childhood behavioral, social, and

emotional problems than children who have not

witnessed such violence and that viewing or hearing

violent acts may often have the same lasting emotional effects on children as being a direct victim

of violence. In light of these findings, OJJDP initiated a new program during FY 1999 to help communities intervene early in the lives of children

exposed to violence in order to protect them from

further violence and provide them with the treatment they need to recover. The Safe Start Initiative

strives to prevent and reduce the impact of family

and community violence on young children (primarily from birth to age 6) by creating more comprehensive service delivery systems. Currently, nine

communities are participating in the Initiative:

Baltimore, MD; Bridgeport, CT; Chatham County,

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

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

Washington County, ME. Each community is

working to expand partnerships among service

providers in key areas such as early childhood education and development, health, mental health, domestic violence, substance abuse prevention and

treatment, crisis intervention, child welfare, law enforcement, and the courts.

During FY 2000, the nine communities reviewed

existing services, policies, and funding streams; collected data; and identified strengths, needs, and

gaps. Based on its comprehensive assessment, each

community is now developing a 5-year strategic

plan that will identify a vision for the project and

outline a comprehensive response to children exposed to violence. The National Center for Children

Exposed to Violence of New Haven, CT, is coordinating training and technical assistance for Safe

Start communities. A national evaluation team is

conducting an intensive assessment of Safe Start
50 FY 2000

Annual Report

activities in the nine communities. The team, which

is working in collaboration with local evaluators in

the communities, includes researchers from the 

Association for the Study and Development of

Community of Gaithersburg, MD; Caliber Associates, Inc., of Fairfax, VA; Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle, NC; and Roper Starch

Worldwide of Princeton, NJ.

In addition to these nine communities, OJJDP is

helping three other cities—Miami, FL; New Orleans,

LA; and Newark, NJ—develop and implement improvements to services for children exposed to violence. The national evaluation team also is assessing

activities in these cities. 

An OJJDP Fact Sheet, Children’s Exposure to Violence: The Safe Start Initiative, summarizes Safe Start

activities. The Fact Sheet is available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Training and Technical

Assistance 

Addressing issues associated with missing, exploited, and abused children can be complex, cumbersome, and often frustrating for those responsible for

protecting children. To help ensure that juvenile

justice professionals have the skills and information

they need to address the myriad issues that surround these types of cases, OJJDP, through Fox

Valley Technical College (FVTC) of Appleton, WI,

offers a comprehensive program of training and

technical assistance for law enforcement, prosecutors, and health and family services professionals.

Training focuses on investigative techniques, interview strategies, comprehensive response planning,

media relations, lead and case management, and

other topics related to missing and exploited children cases. During FY 2000, FVTC provided training or technical assistance to more than 6,000 individuals. FVTC also provided specialized technical

assistance to State and local practitioners and juvenile justice agencies on Internet crimes against children, information sharing, response planning, child

protection legislation, and multidisciplinary team

development. 

FVTC offers five courses related to missing and exploited children: Child Abuse and Exploitation Investigative Techniques; Team Investigative Process

for Missing, Abused, and Exploited Children; Child

Sexual Exploitation Investigations; Investigating

Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect; and Responding to

Missing and Abducted Children. FVTC also developed a new course to help law enforcement investigate child fatalities. 
FY 2000 51

Annual Report

According to OJJDP’s 1999 National Youth Gang

Survey (the latest survey from which data are available), youth gangs continue to be widespread across

the United States. Nearly half of the law enforcement agencies that responded to the survey reported gang activity in their jurisdictions in 1999. Although the estimated number of gangs decreased

from 1998, the estimated number of gang members

increased, and estimates of both gangs (more than

26,000) and gang members (more than 840,500) 

remained high in 1999. 

For the past several years, OJJDP has supported

the development and implementation of a comprehensive gang prevention, intervention, and suppression program that includes helping communities develop comprehensive responses to youth gangs,

funding research and evaluation activities, providing training and technical assistance, and disseminating information and data about gangs. Just as

important, the Office has used findings from the

National Youth Gang Surveys and feedback from

its grantees to develop new initiatives to address

youth gangs. For example, the surveys have shown

that although the prevalence of youth gangs is decreasing nationwide, it is increasing in rural communities. In response to this finding, OJJDP is

helping four rural communities assess their gang

problems. The Office also has developed a new

demonstration program to help schools address

youth gang problems.

OJJDP funds the National Youth Gang Center—

a one-stop shop for up-to-date information and 

data about gangs and effective responses to them.

OJJDP also produces and distributes information

to help juvenile justice practitioners respond to

youth gangs. 

This chapter highlights these and other OJJDP

research, evaluation, training and technical assistance, and dissemination activities related to youth

gangs. These activities reflect OJJDP’s commitment to helping communities respond to gangs and

the violence associated with them. 

Comprehensive CommunityWide Approach to Gang

Prevention, Intervention,

and Suppression Program 

In FY 1995, OJJDP awarded funds to five jurisdictions (Bloomington, IL; Mesa, AZ; Riverside, CA;

San Antonio, TX; and Tucson, AZ) to help them

reduce gang violence by implementing OJJDP’s

Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to

Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression

Program (OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model).

The Model includes five key strategies: mobilizing

communities, providing youth opportunities, suppressing gang violence, providing social intervention

(services) and street outreach, and facilitating organizational change and development in community

agencies. After funding the five original sites for 4

years, OJJDP provided continuation funding in FY

1999 to further support two of the sites. Although all

five cities served as promising demonstration sites,

OJJDP awarded additional funding to Mesa and

Riverside, based on their strong prospects for sustaining the comprehensive approach, program performance, preliminary evaluation data, and evidence

that they were continuing to develop promising

strategies. By the end of FY 2000, preliminary findings documented success in both Mesa and Riverside (including reduction in gang offending among

almost 300 targeted youth), and the two communities received local support to continue their programs beyond the fifth year of Federal funding. In

2000, the Maricopa County (AZ) Association of

Governments recognized the achievements of the

Chapter 7

Gang Initiatives 
Mesa Gang Intervention Project with a “Desert

Peaks Award” for its strong public-private collaborations in addressing youth gang violence.

OJJDP also is funding an evaluation of the program by the School of Social Service Administration

at the University of Chicago in Chicago, IL. Evaluators helped each of the five original sites establish

realistic and measurable objectives, document

program implementation, and measure the impact of

this comprehensive approach. They also provided

interim feedback to the program implementors and

trained the local site interviewers. During FY 2000,

the evaluation team continued to gather and analyze

data, monitor and oversee the quality control of

data, assist with interviews, and provide feedback to

project sites. Full evaluation results for three of the

five program sites are expected in spring 2002. Results for the other sites and cross-site findings will

follow.

Gang Prevention Through

Targeted Outreach With

Boys & Girls Clubs 

OJJDP provides funds to the national Boys &

Girls Clubs of America organization of Atlanta,

GA, to help local affiliate clubs prevent youth from

entering gangs, intervene with gang members in the

early stages of gang involvement, and divert youth

from gangs into more constructive activities. This

program reflects a long-term collaboration between

OJJDP and Boys & Girls Clubs to reduce problems of juvenile gangs, delinquency, and violence.

The national organization provides training and

technical assistance to local gang prevention and

intervention sites and to other clubs and organizations through regional training sessions and national conferences. During FY 2000, Boys & Girls

Clubs added 30 new gang prevention sites, 5 new

gang intervention sites, and 3 new “targeted reintegration” sites (where clubs provide services to

youth returning to the community from juvenile

correctional facilities, with the goal of preventing

them from returning to gangs and violence). The

targeted reintegration component of this initiative has been of great interest to many local clubs

and communities. As of FY 2000, 75 local Boys &

Girls Clubs were receiving direct funding support

through the targeted outreach program. Also in

FY 2000, Boys & Girls Clubs of America hosted its

Sixth Annual Youth Gang Symposium in Atlanta,

GA. The Symposium, which was attended by

hundreds of Boys & Girls Club professionals and

52 FY 2000

Annual Report

Mesa Gang Intervention Project

In FY 1995, OJJDP selected the City of Mesa (AZ)

to be one of five communities to implement and

test the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. Since

that time, the Mesa Gang Intervention Project

(MGIP) has become an exciting and promising

gang intervention program. The program targets

youth in Mesa who are gang involved and youth

who are at high risk for gang involvement. It provides a range of services, including job skill development, counseling, drug and alcohol treatment

and prevention, tattoo removal services, and outreach activities. It monitors gang-involved youth,

holding them accountable for negative behaviors.

The program has developed into a partnership

with many agencies in Mesa, including police,

adult and juvenile probation, United Way, local

Boys & Girls Clubs, other youth-serving agencies,

and private businesses/corporations. Preliminary

evaluation information from MGIP indicates that

the program looks very promising in reducing

youth gang crime among targeted youth. Additionally, the program has been well received locally,

and most program components and staff have

been sustained with local funds. Because of these

promising results, OJJDP has designated the Mesa

program to function as a “host” site for future

OJJDP training on the Comprehensive Gang

Model and will provide Mesa with limited funds

to assist in supporting this activity.
FY 2000 53

Annual Report

interested community agency representatives, featured promising approaches to gang-related prevention, intervention, and reintegration that have been

implemented by local clubs across the country.

OJJDP is funding an evaluation of the Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach Program by

Public/Private Ventures of Philadelphia, PA. A report detailing the effectiveness of the program

across multiple sites is expected in FY 2001.

National Youth Gang Center 

OJJDP established the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) at the Institute for Intergovernmental

Research of Tallahassee, FL, in 1994, to expand and

maintain the body of critical knowledge about youth

gangs and effective responses to them. One of

NYGC’s major activities is to conduct an annual survey of police and sheriff’s departments to determine

the extent of the Nation’s gang problem. As noted

earlier in this chapter, results from the 1999 National

Youth Gang Survey (the latest survey from which

data are available) suggest that the youth gang problem continues to be widespread and substantial

across the United States. Detailed results from the

1998 survey are discussed in an OJJDP Summary,

1998 National Youth Gang Survey, and key findings

from the 1999 survey are summarized in an OJJDP

Fact Sheet, Highlights of the 1999 National Youth Gang

Survey; both publications are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

NYGC has developed a new Indian Country component for the annual National Youth Gang Survey,

to be implemented in FY 2001. The new component

is assessing the prevalence, composition, and activities of youth gangs in federally recognized tribes

that are not traditionally included in the national

survey of law enforcement officials. 

NYGC also has played a major role in the GangFree Schools and Communities Initiative, launched

by OJJDP in FY 2000. The two components

of this Initiative are described on page 54. The

Center helped OJJDP develop the Initiative and

promote it in communities that reported youth gang

problems in NYGC’s annual survey.

NYGC also provides technical support to the National Youth Gang Consortium, which is convened

by OJJDP three times a year to bring together all

Federal departments and agencies engaged in antigang activities. The consortium builds partnerships

and coordinates Federal resources to help communities develop local comprehensive approaches to

gang prevention, intervention, and suppression. 

NYGC also maintains a Web site (www.iir.com/

nygc/) that is a comprehensive resource for information about gang programs, research, and legislation, including full-text publications, bibliographies

of publications relating to gang research, and lists

of gang legislation broken down by State and subject. NYGC also maintains GANGINFO, an electronic mailing list with some 850 subscribers, which

provides a forum for professionals to exchange information about youth gangs. 

Publications 

In addition to the National Youth Gang Survey

publications discussed above, OJJDP also published two gang-related Bulletins in its Youth Gang

Series in FY 2000. Using the results of the 1996

National Youth Gang Survey, Youth Gang Drug Trafficking analyzes the participation of youth gang members in drug sales and the role of gangs in drug distribution. Youth Gangs in Schools analyzes findings

from the School Crime Supplements to the National

Crime Victim Survey, describes characteristics of

gangs in schools, and discusses factors that contribute to gang prevalence in schools. OJJDP also

published a gang-related Fact Sheet, Vietnamese

Youth Gang Involvement, which discusses a study by

the city of Westminister in Orange County, CA,

that examined factors related to gang involvement

by Vietnamese American youth. An FY 2001 Bulletin, Female Gangs: A Focus on Research, summarizes

both past and current research on female gangs and

draws attention to programmatic and research

needs. These publications are available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. 
54 FY 2000

Annual Report

Research Activities 

In addition to the evaluations of the gang programs

discussed above and NYGC’s research activities,

OJJDP also funds several other gang-related research activities. Two studies are focusing on youth

gangs in Indian Country, including the Navajo Nation (see page 62). Another is examining how youth

are socialized into gangs in a city with an emerging

gang problem. Other studies are investigating girls

and gangs, youth gangs in Europe, and gangs in juvenile detention and corrections facilities. Another

is surveying school-based gang prevention and intervention programs.

Rural Gang Initiative 

Recognizing that rural areas also face youth gang

issues, OJJDP awarded grants in 1999 to four rural

communities—Elk City, OK; Glenn County, CA;

Longview, WA; and Mount Vernon, IL—to conduct

comprehensive assessments of their local youth gang

problems and to determine the feasibility of implementing OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model,

described on pages 51 and 52. During FY 2000,

each site (with assistance from NYGC) collected

data from multiple sources, including police, schools,

courts, and community residents. The data collection effort included community surveys and focus

groups; topics included gang crime, the presence of

risk factors for gang membership, and community

demographics. Each site used this information to determine the nature and scope of its youth gang problems. A steering committee of community representatives then developed a response to the problems.

In two communities, Longview and Elk City, it was

determined that an intensive gang intervention effort

such as OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model was

not necessary. Instead, these communities will use

their data to develop gang prevention services and to

implement a less intensive intervention for delinquent

and gang-involved youth. In Mount Vernon and

Glenn County, it was determined that a more intensive intervention effort was required. They began implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model in

accordance with a locally developed, data-driven

strategic plan that incorporates prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies. NYGC will continue

to provide training and technical assistance to assist

these communities in implementing the Model.

In FY 2000, OJJDP awarded a grant to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) of

Oakland, CA, to evaluate the rural gang initiative.

NCCD has conducted case studies to document and

analyze the 1-year community assessment and program planning efforts across the four sites. These

case studies will be used to develop a model approach to assessing community gang problems in

rural areas.

On the Horizon 

During FY 2000, OJJDP expanded its comprehensive approach to youth gangs by launching two new

initiatives to help communities and schools address

gangs and gang violence. The initiatives were developed in collaboration with the U.S. Departments of

Education, Health and Human Services, Labor, and

the Treasury. Competitive applications were solicited

in late summer, and OJJDP will make grant awards

in 2001. The two initiatives are as follows:

✦ The Comprehensive Gang Model: An Enhanced

School/Community Approach to Reducing

Youth Gang Crime. This initiative will provide

grants to four demonstration sites to implement

school-focused enhancements to the OJJDP

Comprehensive Gang Model. The enhancements

will build on the Model’s original framework and

on current efforts to prevent youth violence in

general and violence in schools. NYGC will provide training and technical assistance to the grantees. OJJDP also will fund a national evaluation

of the sites’ efforts. 

✦ The Gang-Free Communities Program. This

initiative will offer seed funding to as many as

12 communities to replicate the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. NYGC will provide

training and technical assistance to the grantees.
FY 2000 55

Annual Report

FBI statistics show that between 1994 and 1998,

arrests of female juveniles either increased more or

decreased less than arrests of male juveniles in most

offense categories. In 1980, females represented

only 11 percent of all juvenile arrests for violent offenses. By 1998 (the most recent year for which this

analysis is available), that proportion had increased

to 17 percent. The increase in arrests of female juveniles affects several levels of the juvenile justice

system, from probation services to residential programs and aftercare. Between 1988 and 1997, the

number of delinquency cases involving males increased 39 percent and cases involving females increased 83 percent. Although the relative change in

delinquency case rates was greater for females than

for males in all major offense categories, the proportion of females in the juvenile justice system remains relatively small; thus, females continue to be

an easily overlooked minority in the system.

OJJDP is helping the Nation address this issue by

funding several research and demonstration activities designed to help improve the response of the

juvenile justice system to court-involved girls. The

Office also developed two major new programs that

will help provide the solid research and information

needed to prevent and reduce girls’ involvement in

delinquency and violence. The programs described

in this chapter illustrate OJJDP’s commitment to

developing and funding programs that meet the

ever-changing needs of the juvenile justice field. 

Collaborative Effort for 

Court-Involved Girls 

OJJDP is funding a collaborative effort between

the State of Connecticut and Cook County (Chicago), IL, to meet the needs of court-involved girls.

The collaboration began in 1997. The primary goal

of the effort is to create for the juvenile justice system a replicable, systemwide model of change in the

way the system deals with female juvenile offenders,

including girls who are pregnant and/or young

mothers. OJJDP and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance initiated the project, which grew out of Cook County’s Girls Link

Juvenile Female Offender Project and the Court

Involved Girls Project of the Connecticut Judicial

Branch Court Support Services Division. 

The grantees have conducted comprehensive studies of the Connecticut female juvenile offender population, convened statewide conferences about gender issues, provided training to juvenile justice staff

on responding to the needs of court-involved girls,

and developed both a case management system for

girls and an instrument for assessing risk and needs.

The project also has begun to implement a pilot

program and test gender-specific services. 

Conduct Disorder in Girls 

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh are examining the development of conduct disorder in a

sample of 2,500 inner-city girls who were ages 6–8 in

1998, when the study began. The study is following

the girls annually for 5 years and will provide information that is critical to understanding the etiology,

comorbidity, and prognosis of conduct disorder in

girls. This research is important because, as noted

earlier, delinquency in girls has been steadily increasing over the past decade, and a better understanding

of developmental processes in girls will help in identifying effective means of preventing and responding

to delinquency in girls. The research is being funded

under an interagency agreement between OJJDP

and the National Institute of Mental Health. 

Chapter 8

Gender Initiatives
Field-Initiated Gender

Research 

OJJDP’s Field-Initiated Research Program allows

the Office to seek out and competitively fund innovative research and evaluation on topics suggested by

the field. In FY 1999, OJJDP solicited applications

for evaluations of projects that focused on at-risk and

delinquent girls and selected several for funding; the

grantees continued their projects during FY 2000.

Researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann

Arbor, MI, are examining three community-based

models of treatment developed in Wayne County,

MI (which includes the city of Detroit), to reduce

the number of institutional placements for adjudicated female offenders. The three treatment models

are as follows: a new program that incorporates

gender-specific programming, home-based intervention, and community involvement (e.g., services for

pregnant/parenting adolescents); an intensive probation program that includes limited gender-specific

programming; and a secure, female-only residential

program that provides limited gender-specific treatment but no specialized programs to address the

needs of pregnant/parenting offenders. Initial findings are expected in 2002.

Researchers at the University of Georgia in Athens,

GA, are studying two interventions used by the

GIRLS (Gaining Insight into Relationships for

Lifelong Success) Project of the Athens Clarke

County Court System. The first intervention is a

counseling group that deals with girls’ relationships

to self, family, peers, and teachers. The second intervention involves court service workers in local

juvenile justice systems and focuses on individual

consultation, educational workshops, and local juvenile justice system policies and procedures. Initial

findings are expected in 2002. 

Researchers at Illinois State University in Normal,

IL, are studying gang-involved girls in Little Chicago, a Champaign, IL, neighborhood that has chronic gang problems. The research is exploring how

young women maintain “social capital” through

membership in gangs and how gangs offer female

members social supports in neighborhoods plagued

by chronic economic deprivation.

Gender Issue of OJJDP’s

Journal 

To help expand knowledge and understanding of

the risk factors that contribute to female juvenile

offending and the protective factors that guard

against it, OJJDP devoted an issue of its journal,

Juvenile Justice, to gender-related topics. The issue

includes articles about girls entering the juvenile

justice system and the need for the system to invest

in girls; the Female Intervention Team, a genderspecific probation program developed by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice; and the National Girls’ Caucus, an advocacy group that is

increasing attention on the special needs of females

in the juvenile justice system. Copies of Juvenile Justice (Volume VI, Number 1) are available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Interagency Working Group

on Gender Issues 

The Interagency Working Group on Gender Issues

provides a forum for Federal agencies to share information about gender-specific research, programs,

and training and technical assistance. The working group encourages the creation of partnerships

among Federal, State, and local agencies and is

providing guidance for three OJJDP gender initiatives: the National Girls Institute and the Girls

Study Group (described below) and a National

Girls Symposium (planned for FY 2001). The

group also will prepare a report for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, including an overview of Federal activities and recommendations for additional research,

programming, and training and technical assistance

focusing on gender issues.

56 FY 2000

Annual Report
FY 2000 57

Annual Report

Training and Technical

Assistance 

OJJDP also funded a national training and technical assistance program to promote gender-specific

programming for female juvenile offenders and atrisk girls through Greene, Peters, and Associates

(GPA) of Nashville, TN. Between 1996 and 2000,

the grantee provided gender-specific programming

to decisionmakers, administrators, and program staff

in corrections, human services, and other settings

that serve young delinquent or at-risk girls. This

initiative had three purposes: to enhance the skills

needed to plan and implement effective genderspecific services for girls in corrections and community settings; to revise, pilot test, and produce

research-based curriculums related to those skills;

and to design and conduct “train the trainers” sessions for individuals who are responsible for the professional development of staffs that work with girls.

The grantee established a Web site (www.

girlspecificprogram.org) that provides links to 

services, information, research, best practices, conferences, and other topics relevant to girl-specific

programming. During FY 2000, GPA, with assistance from the Northwest Regional Educational

Laboratory (NWREL) of Portland, OR, updated

Guiding Principles for Promising Female Programming:

An Inventory of Best Practices, which has been used

extensively in the field since 1998. The update includes a synopsis of promising new programs, innovative practices, data, and approaches to systemic

reform that fosters efficiency and effectiveness

among agencies and organizations serving girls. 

In collaboration with NWREL, the grantee also 

designed and pilot tested a training series, Beyond

Gender Barriers: Programming Specifically for Girls.

Curriculum I, a 1-day session, focuses on building

support at the State and local levels for young female offenders and at-risk girls. Curriculum II is a

2-day session for staff members who work directly

with at-risk or adjudicated girls in juvenile justice,

human services, or other settings. The “train the

trainers” session is a 5-day workshop that builds

trainer skills and provides guidance on effective

delivery of Curriculums I and II.

On the Horizon 

In FY 2000, OJJDP solicited competitive applications for two major new programs designed to

address the needs of girls in the juvenile justice

system: 

✦ Girls Study Group. This group will be established to build a sound theoretical and empirical

foundation to guide future development, testing,

and dissemination of strategies that effectively prevent and reduce girls’ involvement in delinquency

and violence and minimize the negative consequences of such involvement. The Girls Study

Group will collaborate with OJJDP’s new National Girls Institute (described below) to develop

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

practitioners, and researchers. OJJDP will announce an award for this initiative in FY 2001.

✦ National Girls Institute. To help raise public

awareness of the underlying factors that place

girls at risk of involvement in the juvenile justice

system, OJJDP will establish the National Girls

Institute (NGI). The Institute will advance the

understanding and application of promising prevention, intervention, treatment, education, detention, and aftercare programs and services for

delinquent and at-risk girls. NGI also will promote integrated and innovative programs that

employ a comprehensive service delivery system

appropriate to the unique developmental and culturally specific needs of girls and their families.

OJJDP will award a grant in FY 2001.
FY 2000 59

Annual Report

Although the violent crime arrest rate for American

Indian juveniles fell 20 percent between 1995 and

1998, the 1998 rate was still nearly 20 percent

above the average rate of the 1980s. Of particular

concern to American Indian tribes and OJJDP is

the increasing number of violent crimes being committed by juveniles in many tribal communities. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the number of American Indian youth in the Bureau’s

custody has increased 50 percent since 1994, and

American Indians represent more than 70 percent

of the approximately 270 youth in the Bureau’s

custody on any given day.

OJJDP is supporting initiatives in five broad program areas designed specifically to help American

Indian and Alaska Native jurisdictions1 address juvenile crime in their communities. The first of these,

the Tribal Youth Program (TYP), provides funds

directly to tribal communities to develop programs

to prevent and control juvenile delinquency, reduce

violent crime, and improve tribal juvenile justice

systems. (TYP is part of the Indian Country Law

Enforcement Initiative, a joint activity of the U.S.

Departments of Justice and the Interior to improve

the administration of criminal and juvenile justice

among federally recognized tribes with high rates of

delinquency and child abuse and neglect.) OJJDP

also provides training and technical assistance to

TYP grantees and other tribal communities to help

them improve responses to youth crime, violence,

and victimization. In addition, the Office funds a

number of research and evaluation activities that

will yield a better understanding of the uniqueness

and context of the juvenile justice problems that

currently face American Indian tribes. OJJDP also

is supporting a new mental health program to help

tribal communities provide diagnostic and treatment services to youth involved with tribal juvenile

justice systems. The fifth program area is the Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and

Law Enforcement (CIRCLE) Project. This Federal

initiative is helping tribal communities address local

crime, violence, and substance abuse problems by

developing comprehensive community programs.

In addition to these five specific program areas, tribal communities were active participants in a number

of other OJJDP programs in FY 2000. Tribal communities were among the grant recipients in three

major OJJDP initiatives: Juvenile Mentoring (see

page 10), Safe Schools/Healthy Students (see page

11), and Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws

(see page 36). OJJDP also is developing training

support for tribal law enforcement officers (see

page 38) and adding a new component to the annual National Youth Gang Survey (see page 53) to

learn more about juvenile gangs in Indian Country.

OJJDP also addressed the subject of preventing

and combating delinquency among American Indian

youth in an issue of its journal, Juvenile Justice. This

journal issue includes an interview with Senator Ben

Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, summarizes

OJJDP’s Tribal Youth Program, and discusses the

importance of cultural practices in delinquency prevention programs. Copies of Juvenile Justice (Volume

VII, Number 2) are available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse. 

This chapter highlights activities in the five program areas specifically designed to address the

needs of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal

Chapter 9

Tribal Youth Initiatives

1 Federally recognized Indian tribes include Alaska Native tribal

governments. Under current Federal law, the terms “Indian

tribes,” “tribal,” or “tribe(s)” mean “any Indian tribe, band, nation

or other organized group or community, including Alaska Native

village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act . . .,

which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their

status as Indians” (Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000).
60 FY 2000

Annual Report

communities. OJJDP is confident that the programs and activities noted in the previous paragraphs will help these communities and their juvenile justice systems address the many challenges

facing American Indian and Alaska Native youth

today.

Tribal Youth Program 

In FY 2000, OJJDP awarded TYP grants totaling

$8 million to 38 American Indian and Alaska Native tribal communities to develop programs for

the prevention and control of youth violence and

substance abuse. Awards ranged from $73,352 to

$498,475 and were based on the size of the juvenile

population served. A broad spectrum of tribal communities responded to the TYP solicitation—an indication that OJJDP is achieving its goal of working with tribal communities of various population

sizes and geographic locations. The marked increases in the number of applications from Alaska and in

the number of first-time applicants for TYP funds

were another indication that the Office’s outreach

efforts are succeeding.

Grant recipients are required to use their TYP funds

for one or more of the following purposes: (1) to reduce, control, and prevent crime and delinquency

both by and against tribal youth; (2) to provide interventions for court-involved youth; (3) to improve

tribal juvenile justice systems; and (4) to provide

prevention programs focusing on alcohol and drugs.

As illustrated in the following paragraphs, grantees

have developed a variety of activities under TYP. 

The Burns Paiute Indian Reservation in Harney

County, a rural area of eastern Oregon, is addressing alcohol and marijuana abuse, juvenile crime,

and school failure. The tribe will improve tribal

youth service delivery systems and increase the

availability and accessibility of community-based

wraparound services for high-risk youth. The tribe

also will work with volunteer parents and other

tribal members to develop and implement a comprehensive 3-year plan to combat early onset of alcohol

and drug use, reduce the incidence of violent and

other criminal offenses, and prevent youth from

dropping out of school.

The Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, which is uniquely located in an urban setting near El Paso, TX, is providing interventions for court-involved tribal youth and

improving its tribal juvenile justice system. The

Pueblo is introducing a home detention system to

reduce the need for detaining youth away from their

families. The Pueblo also will expand its community

service program to include traditional restitution,

involve police in mentoring activities, increase diversion by applying auxiliary community policing concepts, increase supervision of youth on probation,

and add activities to deter further crime among

court-involved youth.

The Knik Tribal Council, based in MatanuskaSusitna Valley near Wasilla, AK, is providing delinquency prevention and court-ordered youth services to Alaska Native and American Indian youth

ages 12–18. The Council is working with State,

school, and community agencies to reinforce traditional values essential for the well-being and future

of native youth.

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe, based in La Plata

County, CO (near Ignacio), is implementing three

levels of activity to reduce, control, and prevent

crime and delinquency in children up to age 18.

Level one involves adolescents in an established

teen court program. Level two is a family preservation program that provides family therapy in times

of crisis, mediates conflicts, identifies appropriate

family behaviors, and provides required services for

adolescents and preadolescents who are returning

home from out-of-home placements or from alcohol/

substance abuse treatment. Level three uses a behavior coach to redirect destructive and dangerous

behavior patterns of adolescents and preadolescents

who are involved in the family service division of

the Southern Ute Tribal Court.

The White Earth Reservation in northwestern Minnesota is using a three-pronged approach to curb

tobacco, alcohol, and drug use and reduce the incidence of violence, truancy, and dropping out of

school among youth ages 12–18. The grantee is developing and adopting a fair, equitable, and culturally appropriate juvenile justice code; establishing 

a Juvenile Tribal Court Advocate to provide 
FY 2000 61

Annual Report

probation and counseling services to juveniles; and

developing “sentencing circles” (a method of peer

group sentencing that combines aspects of tribal

traditions and formal court processes) in schools to

deal with youth in a culturally appropriate manner.

The Gila River Indian community is located southeast of the Phoenix, AZ, metropolitan area; part of

the community is on a reservation. The community

is developing a teen court program that involves a

youth council and youth acting as prosecutors and

judicial staff. The program, which will incorporate

Pima and Maricopa cultural values and history, will

target juvenile offenders ages 12–17 who admit to

committing the offenses of which they are accused.

The program will educate these youth about the judicial system and encourage them to be active in

community problem solving. The program will hold

juvenile offenders and their parents accountable for

the juveniles’ actions and will compel juvenile offenders to complete constructive dispositions imposed

on them by their peers.

Training and Technical

Assistance 

OJJDP also supports a two-pronged training and

technical assistance program to help TYP grantees

implement their programs and to help other American Indian and Alaska Native tribal communities

develop or enhance their juvenile justice systems.

The training and technical assistance are provided

by American Indian Development Associates

(AIDA) of Albuquerque, NM.

For TYP grantees, AIDA works with the grantees

to determine the type of technical assistance or

training to be provided by reviewing a community’s

history and needs. In some cases, it may be necessary to provide training about concepts before

changes in tribal juvenile justice systems can take

place. For example, Indian nations that rely on customary laws and traditions may need to learn about

American-style justice systems before they are

ready to develop written policies and procedures. In

other cases, nations that do not have jurisdiction

over their youth may need help in developing intergovernmental agreements to influence prosecution,

adjudication, or disposition alternatives.

As noted above, AIDA also provides training and

technical assistance to tribal communities that are

not TYP grantees. AIDA helps these communities

improve their juvenile justice systems and address

issues of youth and wellness, community development, and planning and development. Between

1997 and 2000, AIDA received 135 requests for

training and technical assistance.

Research and Evaluation 

OJJDP supports a number of research and evaluation activities with TYP funds. Based on suggestions

and feedback from both meetings and focus groups

with American Indian practitioners and researchers,

OJJDP established three principles to guide tribal

youth research and evaluation activities: First, the research should provide practical results that are useful

to the parties who are the focus of the research; second, the projects should include local community

members in the decisionmaking and implementation

activities of the projects; and third, researchers must

acknowledge and respect native customs, traditions,

values, and history. 

OJJDP’s tribal youth research and evaluation activities are designed to provide empirical evidence

about juvenile justice and delinquency prevention

policies and practice and their impact on American

Indian and Alaska Native youth. These activities

include the following:

✦ The Michigan Public Health Institute in Okemos,

MI, in partnership with the Native American 

Institute at Michigan State University, is helping

five tribes evaluate the programs they are developing with their TYP grants.

✦ The College of Menominee Nation in Keshena,

WI, is working with Menominee organizations to

develop, demonstrate, and evaluate a culturally

appropriate, community-based, family-centered,

integrated approach to the prevention of delinquency among American Indian youth ages 11–18.
62 FY 2000

Annual Report

✦ New Mexico State University in Las Cruces is

examining delinquency and the legal processing

of juveniles over the past 11 years, taking into

account changes in tribal resources (such as casino openings on reservations). 

✦ The Navajo Nation Judicial Branch in Window

Rock, AZ, is conducting a comprehensive assessment of gang activity (the first such study to be

undertaken by a tribal government) to identify

approaches that can be adopted by other tribes

in dealing with gangs.

✦ California State University in Sacramento, building on the Navajo gang study, will use ethnographic observation, community surveys, and

gang member interviews to document and profile

the youth gang experience in up to six sites, including reservations and metropolitan areas with

large Indian populations. 

Tribal Youth Mental Health

Initiative 

OJJDP is supporting a new mental health program

to provide diagnostic and treatment services to tribal

youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system. The objectives of this program are the same as

the TYP objectives discussed above, except that

each objective must have a specific mental health

and juvenile justice focus. OJJDP awarded FY

2000 grants under this program to six American Indian and Alaska Native tribal communities. The

grants totaled nearly $1 million, ranging from

$75,000 to $300,000.

The Hannahville Indian Community (Potawatomi

Band) of Wilson, MI, received a grant to expand

education, vocational skills, and employment opportunities for the community. The community will restructure tribal programs and services and identify

the fundamental needs of tribal youth. As part of

the initiative, Hannahville’s Behavioral Health

Department will procure psychological evaluations

for at-risk and adjudicated youth ages 9–17. The

community will use a grassroots, collaborative,

problem-solving approach to mental health and

treatment services. 

The Chugachmiut of the Chugach Region, Anchorage, AK, will provide interventions for courtinvolved youth. The tribe will improve interagency

coordination and collaboration efforts to prevent

juvenile delinquency and intervene with predelinquent native youth and their families. It also will

increase the delivery of direct clinical mental health

services to individual juvenile offenders, at-risk 

juveniles, and their families.

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Nixon, NV, will

provide mental health services for juveniles ages

12–17 and address delinquency, substance abuse,

and court-mandated services. The tribe also will

provide services to juveniles younger than 12, focusing on services related to crimes committed against

these children, including treatment for sexual assault,

anger, and attention deficit disorders. The project

will coordinate services with the Tribe’s Juvenile

Drug Court Program, providing family counseling

and intervention for nonviolent drug and alcohol offenders. All of these activities will be based on the

traditions and customs of the Pyramid Lake Paiute

people.

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians of

Philadelphia, MS, will develop a system of youthcentered, family-focused, culturally competent mental health services for court-involved Choctaw

youth. The project, which will emphasize capacity

building, fits into an ongoing plan of integrated

human service development initiated by the tribal

Department of Family and Community Services.

The plan was a result of extensive research and is

part of an overall effort to improve the lives of the

Choctaw people.

The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of

Poplar, MT, will provide mental health diagnostic

and treatment services for at-risk juvenile offenders.

The project’s psychologist will combine standard

diagnostic and treatment options with adaptations

and innovations that reflect Assiniboine and Sioux

culture and values. The goal of the project is to provide alternatives to incarceration and to provide
FY 2000 63

Annual Report

juvenile offenders with needed followup program

support.

The South Central Foundation of Anchorage, AK,

will use a treatment, intervention, and prevention

approach to reduce criminal behavior, substance

abuse, and educational failure among Native American youth ages 13–18 who live in Anchorage, AK.

The program will address incarceration, alcoholism,

drug abuse, suicide, and school dropout rates. The

grantee will collaborate with schools, juvenile detention facilities, and the court system to provide

early intervention and prevention programs for

youth at high risk for delinquency, criminal behavior, and serious emotional problems. The program

also will use the “Young Warrior Program”—a selfhelp support group based on Alaska Native and

American Indian spirituality and traditional healing

practices—to instill traditional values.

Comprehensive Indian

Resources for Community and

Law Enforcement (CIRCLE)

Project 

The CIRCLE project is designed to help tribal

communities (with the assistance of Federal, State,

and private partners) develop comprehensive planning and funding infrastructures so that they can

more effectively fight crime, violence, and substance

abuse in their communities. CIRCLE emphasizes

two primary principles: 

✦ Local leadership in developing and implementing

crime control initiatives. 

✦ A comprehensive approach that incorporates

coordinated, multidisciplinary efforts. 

OJJDP—in conjunction with the U.S. Department

of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Office of Tribal Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, U.S. Attorneys, and Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of

the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs—is funding

and providing technical assistance to tribes in three

pilot sites (Northern Cheyenne in Lame Deer, MT;

Oglala Sioux in Pine Ridge, SD; and Zuni Pueblo

in Zuni, NM). The CIRCLE project complements

and is supported by the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. Participating tribes receive

special consideration for technical assistance and

training related to strategy development and implementation. They also are eligible to apply for funding for law enforcement, tribal courts, detention

facilities, and youth programs. 

DOJ’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is overseeing an evaluation of the CIRCLE project. In FY

2000, NIJ, with funds transferred from OJJDP,

awarded a grant to the Harvard Project on American Indian Development at Harvard University’s

John F. Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, MA, to evaluate the CIRCLE project.

On the Horizon

OJJDP has developed two new research programs

to assist American Indian and Alaska Native communities in developing and implementing programs

to prevent delinquency and enhance the quality of

their tribal juvenile justice systems. These programs

are as follows:

✦ Tribal Youth Field-Initiated Research and

Evaluation Program. This program will support

projects that focus on tribal youth and address

child abuse and neglect, substance abuse, or indigenous approaches to juvenile justice. OJJDP

will announce grant recipients in FY 2001.

✦ Longitudinal Study of Tribal Youth Risk and

Resiliency. The Office has developed a longitudinal study of tribal youth to learn more about

the factors that influence their delinquency and

resiliency. Researchers will study risk and protective factors within the unique cultural and historical context of tribal youth. OJJDP will competitively select a grantee in FY 2001. 
FY 2000 65

Annual Report

To prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency, it is

necessary to address not only the offenses that

bring youth to the attention of the juvenile justice

system but also the underlying problems these

youth face, including mental health problems. Such

problems affect many of the approximately 1.8 million youth who enter the juvenile justice system

each year, yet very little is known about the mental

health needs of these youth. OJJDP recognizes the

critical importance of mental health problems in the

lives of youth involved in the juvenile justice system

and has been working for several years on a number of projects to increase knowledge and improve

services in this area.

During FY 2000, the Office supported research

projects examining alcohol, drug, and mental disorders among juvenile offenders and the relationship of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder

in children to delinquency. The Office is expanding

a longitudinal study to investigate the development

of antisocial behavior across three generations.

OJJDP also developed and solicited competitive

applications for two new programs: one will lead

to the development of a comprehensive model program to address the mental health needs of youth

at every point in the juvenile justice system, and

the other (discussed on pages 62 and 63) will help

American Indian and Alaska Native communities

address the mental health needs of native youth.

This chapter highlights these and other OJJDP

activities undertaken to promote better understanding of the mental health problems and needs

of juveniles and to help communities meet those

needs.

Assessing Alcohol, Drug, and

Mental Disorders Among

Juvenile Detainees 

Researchers at Northwestern University Medical

School in Chicago, IL, have been studying alcohol,

drug, and mental disorders among juvenile detainees

in the Cook County Detention Center in Chicago

since November 1995. The investigators have conducted psychiatric interviews with male and female

youth in detention and have collected extensive

archival data. With funding from OJJDP, other

Federal agencies, and private foundations, a longitudinal component was added to this study in November 1998. 

This project is unique because the sample is so large:

it includes 1,830 Chicago youth who were arrested

and interviewed between 1995 and 1998. The sample is stratified by gender, race-ethnicity (African

American, Hispanic, non-Hispanic white), and age.

Initial interviews have been completed, and extensive data have been collected on each youth, including information on arrest and incarceration history,

health and mental health treatment, and other

records. The investigators have tracked the youth

and are now conducting the first set of followup interviews. Several deaths, virtually all of them linked

to violence (e.g., gunshot wounds), have already

occurred. Because of their extensive and thorough

tracking procedures, the investigators will be able to

reinterview members of the original sample, regardless of whether they have returned to the community, remain incarcerated, or have left the immediate

area. The large sample size also will provide sufficient statistical power to study rarer disorders

(including co-occurring conditions), patterns of

drug use, and risky, life-threatening behaviors.

Chapter 10

Mental Health Initiatives
66 FY 2000

Annual Report

The longitudinal study is allowing researchers to assess the developmental course of substance abuse

and mental disorders among juvenile detainees; examine service availability, service use, and barriers to

service access among juvenile detainees; and identify

patterns of risky behavior in the areas of violence,

substance use, and HIV/AIDS. An OJJDP Fact

Sheet, Assessing Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Disorders in

Juvenile Detainees, describes this research project and

is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. 

Intergenerational

Transmission of 

Antisocial Behavior 

Researchers at the University at Albany, State University of New York, are examining the development

of childhood antisocial behavior in a three-generation

prospective panel study. The focus of this study is

on the children of current participants in OJJDP’s

Rochester (NY) Youth Development Study, a longitudinal study of 1,000 Rochester youth (who were in

the seventh grade when the study began in 1987–88)

and their parents. By the time they reached age 21,

40 percent of the original Rochester youth participants were parents. The intergenerational study will

combine data obtained from the original study of the

Rochester participants and their parents with new

data on the children of the original participants. This

approach provides a unique opportunity to examine

and track the development of delinquent behavior

in a particularly high-risk sample across three generations. Such an opportunity is rare in social science research. The results of the study should provide very useful findings with policy implications

for prevention programs. OJJDP is funding the

program under an interagency agreement with the

National Institute of Mental Health.

Mental Health Issue of OJJDP’s

Journal 

Recognizing the need to address the mental health

problems that face so many youth in the juvenile

justice system, OJJDP devoted an issue of its journal, Juvenile Justice, to this subject in FY 2000.

Journal articles discuss youth with mental health

disorders and emerging responses to them; Wraparound Milwaukee, a program that has successfully

integrated a broad array of services to better meet

the mental health needs of youth who have been adjudicated delinquent; and suicide prevention in juvenile facilities. Copies of Juvenile Justice (Volume

VII, Number 1) are available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse.

Multisite, Multimodal

Treatment Study of Children

With Attention Deficit/

Hyperactivity Disorder 

In 1992, the National Institute of Mental Health

began a study of the long-term efficacy of stimulant

medication and intensive behavioral and educational treatment for children with attention deficit/

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Although ADHD

is classified as a childhood disorder, up to 70 percent

of affected children continue to experience symptoms

in adolescence and adulthood. The treatment phase

of the project has been completed, and researchers

are now following the children who received treatment to determine the long-term impacts of the different treatment strategies. OJJDP’s participation,

which began in FY 1998, is helping fund continued

investigations into the children’s delinquent behavior and contact with the legal system, including arrests and court referrals. During FY 2000, OJJDP

staff helped researchers significantly revise one 

of their data collection instruments to capture 

information that would be of interest to juvenile justice researchers and practitioners. Some of the
FY 2000 67

Annual Report

children involved in the study, who currently range

in age from 9 to 13, have already begun coming into

contact with the juvenile justice system for behaviors such as truancy, fighting, and stealing. 

Pathways to Desistance:

A Prospective Study of Serious

Adolescent Offenders 

OJJDP awarded a research grant in FY 2000 to

the University of Pittsburgh to follow 1,200 serious

adolescent offenders from Phoenix, AZ, and Philadelphia, PA, for 3 years following their involvement

with the juvenile justice system. At system intake,

disposition, and release points, researchers will recruit youth with substantial offending histories and

serious offenses. Researchers will then interview

each youth twice annually for a minimum of 3 years.

Once each year, researchers also will interview an

individual who knows the youth. Official records

(e.g., arrest records, institutional records, treatment

summaries) also will be reviewed. The study also

will document background characteristics (e.g.,

service and sanction histories), mediating factors

(e.g., vocational opportunities), changes in functioning (e.g., antisocial/prosocial behavior), and involvement with interventions and sanctions during

the followup period. Data analysis will focus on

identifying subgroups of offenders and evaluating

the impact of life events, treatment interventions,

and sanctions on patterns of antisocial and prosocial

behavior, mental health, psychological development,

and social functioning. Researchers pilot tested

their data collection procedures in FY 2000 and will

begin the study in 2001. 

On the Horizon 

To help improve knowledge about and responses to

mental health issues among juvenile offenders,

OJJDP developed and solicited applications for

the following two new programs in FY 2000:

✦ Mental Health and Juvenile Justice: Building

a Model for Effective Service Delivery. This

program is a multiyear research initiative designed to substantially improve knowledge about

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

among youth in the juvenile justice system. Researchers will review what is known about theory and best practices, examine prevalence in a

sample of youth, document available services,

and incorporate existing theory and best practices in a model to provide comprehensive mental

health services to youth in the juvenile justice

system. The model will subsequently be replicated and evaluated at several sites. OJJDP will

make an award in FY 2001. 

✦ Tribal Youth Program Mental Health Initiative.

This initiative is providing funds to six American

Indian and Alaska Native tribal communities to

improve mental health services for tribal at-risk

youth and juvenile offenders. The initiative is described in greater detail in chapter 9. 
FY 2000 69

Annual Report

Information on the number of juveniles taken into

custody reveals much about how the Nation responds to the issue of juvenile offending. In many

respects, juvenile detention and corrections facilities

are a vital part of the juvenile justice system. It is in

these residential facilities that juvenile justice agencies attempt to change patterns of behavior in youth

so they can become responsible members of society.

At the same time, these facilities must maintain a

secure environment to protect both the residents

and the community at large.

OJJDP has collected information for nearly 30

years on the number of juveniles held in detention

and other facilities. Until 1997, these data were

gathered through the biennial Census of Public and

Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, better known as the Children in Custody (CIC) Census. After consulting a variety of

experts and determining that CIC was not meeting

the needs of the field, OJJDP, with the help of the

U.S. Bureau of the Census and a technical advisory

board, developed a new survey. This chapter summarizes information from the new biennial Census

of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), first

conducted in 1997 and most recently conducted in

October 1999. It also includes information about

other corrections-related OJJDP activities. CJRP

is described in more detail in the Fact Sheet Census

of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook, which is

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Juvenile Arrests in 1999 

Data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting

Program show that in 1999 (the most recent year

for which complete data are available), law enforcement agencies made an estimated 2.5 million arrests

of persons younger than 18, a 9-percent drop from

1995. Juvenile arrests for violent crimes in 1999

were at their lowest level since 1988. In 1999, there

were an estimated 103,900 arrests of persons

younger than 18 for Violent Crime Index offenses

(including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter,

forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault). Between 1995 and 1999, juvenile arrests for Violent

Crime Index offenses dropped 23 percent, while

adult arrests for these offenses dropped 12 percent.

Over this period, juvenile arrests declined 56 percent for murder, 27 percent for weapons law violations, and 39 percent for robbery. An estimated

one-third of 1 percent of juveniles ages 10–17 were

arrested for a violent crime in 1999. 

While juvenile violent crime arrests were falling,

juvenile arrests for certain other types of offenses

also declined. Between 1995 and 1999, juvenile arrests dropped 24 percent for all property offenses,

35 percent for motor vehicle theft, and 23 percent

for burglary. In some categories, however, juvenile

arrests increased: driving under the influence (36

percent), liquor law violations (31 percent), and

curfew violations (9 percent). Therefore, while serious juvenile crime dropped substantially in the mid1990s, more youth had contact with the juvenile

justice system for alcohol and other public order

crimes. These findings are described in greater detail in the Juvenile Justice Bulletin Juvenile Arrests

1999, which is available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.

In considering data on arrests and custody, it is important to distinguish between persons younger

than 18 and persons legally considered juveniles.

The former refers solely to the age of a person at a

given time; arrest data from law enforcement agencies provide information in this manner. Depending

on the law in the State in which an offense was

committed, a youth may or may not be legally considered a juvenile subject to the original jurisdiction

of the juvenile court. Original juvenile court jurisdiction for delinquent offenses ends at age 17 in 10

Chapter 11

Juveniles Taken Into Custody 
70 FY 2000

Annual Report

States and at age 16 in 3 States. Further, many

States have enacted mandatory waiver or transfer

legislation that removes particular types of offenses

from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and places

them in the criminal court. Thus, some young offenders may be of juvenile age but face criminal

court trial and “adult” sanctions.

Census of Juveniles in

Residential Placement 

As noted above, OJJDP conducted the Census of

Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) in 1997

and 1999. The census covers all facilities, secure or

nonsecure, that hold juvenile offenders. For the

purposes of CJRP, a juvenile offender is defined as

a person under 21 years of age who is held in a residential setting because of an offense and as a result

of some contact with the justice system. The census,

then, encompasses both status offenders and delinquent offenders, whether detained or committed

for an offense. In 1997, more than 94 percent of

surveyed facilities responded. In 1999, all surveyed

facilities provided at least some information.

The 1997 census reported 105,790 juvenile offenders in residential placement. In 1999, that number

was 108,964, a 3-percent increase from 1997. In

1997, juvenile offenders were held in 3,431 residential facilities—1,121 public and 2,310 private facilities. In 1999, juveniles were held in 3,711 residential facilities—1,182 public and 2,529 private

facilities. Detention centers were the most common

type of facility: in 1999, 519 public and 168 private

detention centers responded to the census. Public

facilities held 71 percent of juvenile offenders in

residential placement in 1999; private facilities held

the remaining 29 percent.

The table on this page presents an offense profile for

juveniles in residential placement in 1999. Of all juveniles in custody, 25 percent were held for serious

personal offenses (e.g., aggravated assault, robbery,

and sexual assault), and 10 percent were held for

less serious person offenses (e.g., simple assault).

Serious property offenses (auto theft, arson, and

burglary) accounted for 18 percent of all juveniles in

custody, and other property offenses (e.g., property

damage) accounted for 11 percent. Of all juveniles

in custody in 1999, 13 percent were held for probation or parole violations. (In interpreting these

statistics, it is important to note that although juveniles in custody often have been adjudicated for

multiple offenses, CJRP records only the most

Offense Profile of Juveniles in Residential 

Placement, 1999

Offense Number Percent

Personal crimes 38,015 34.9

Assault, aggravated 9,984 9.2

Assault, simple 7,452 6.8

Kidnaping 322 0.3

Murder, manslaughter 1,514 1.4

Robbery 8,215 7.5

Violent sexual assault 7,513 6.9

Other person offenses 3,015 2.8

Property crimes 31,824 29.2

Arson 1,126 1.0

Auto theft 6,227 5.7

Burglary 12,222 11.2

Property damage 1,896 1.7

Theft 6,947 6.4

Other property 3,406 3.1

Drug crimes 9,886 9.1

Drug possession 6,021 5.5

Drug trafficking 3,108 2.9

Other drug offenses 757 0.7

Public order offenses 10,390 9.5

Driving under the influence 328 0.3

Nonviolent sex offense 1,765 1.6

Obstruction of justice 1,572 1.4

Weapons-related offense 4,023 3.7

Other public order offenses 2,702 2.5

Probation or parole violations 14,050 12.9

Other delinquency offenses 101 0.1

Status offenses 4,699 4.3

Curfew violation 105 0.1

Incorrigibility 1,847 1.7

Running away 1,083 1.0

Truancy 914 0.8

Underage alcohol possession 

 or consumption 378 0.3

Other status offenses 372 0.3

Total 108,965 99.9

Note: The percentages do not total 100 percent because 

of rounding.
serious offense for which each juvenile is currently

held.)

Males accounted for the vast majority of juveniles

in residential placement in 1999 (87 percent), as in

1997 (86 percent). Of all juveniles in residential

placement in 1999, minorities accounted for 62 percent and whites for 38 percent; blacks were by far

the largest minority group, accounting for 39 percent of all juveniles in residential placement. The

racial/ethnic composition of juveniles in custody

was similar in 1997: 62 percent minority (including

40 percent black) and 38 percent white.

In 1999, 24 percent of all juveniles in residential

placement were age 16, 22 percent were 17, only 13

percent were 18 or older, and only 4 percent were

12 or younger. The tapering off in custodial population share after age 16 is attributable in part to State

variations in the upper age limit for juvenile court

jurisdiction. Although 17 is the upper age limit in

most States, 15 is the upper limit in Connecticut,

New York, and North Carolina. Another factor is

the introduction of State provisions for transferring

youth from juvenile court jurisdiction to criminal

court jurisdiction. Because these provisions, which

were enacted in all States over the last decade,

mainly affect older youth, the number of 17-yearolds in the juvenile justice system has decreased.

CJRP also collects data on the legal status of juveniles in custody. In 1999, most juveniles (70 percent)

were held in the facilities in which they were placed

following adjudication. Of the remaining 30 percent,

12 percent were detained while awaiting adjudication and the remaining 18 percent were held for

other reasons (diverted from court and awaiting

disposition, adjudicated and awaiting placement,

or undergoing proceedings in criminal court).

Over the past year, OJJDP has made the information gathered through CJRP more available

to interested parties. The Census of Juveniles

in Residential Placement (CJRP) Databook

(www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp) is currently

available on the World Wide Web for use by those

who want to learn more about youth in custody.

Juvenile Residential Facility

Census 

With the end of the CIC Census, there was no longer a mechanism for collecting detailed data on juvenile residential facility operations. CJRP, described

above, was designed solely to collect indepth information on the juvenile population in custody as of

the census date; the only facility-level information

collected by CJRP is the total population and some

description of the facility type. To fill the resulting

gap in information, OJJDP developed the new Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC).

JRFC will routinely collect information on how facilities operate. The census includes detailed questions on facility security, crowding, deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. It also

asks about specific services for mental and physical

health care, substance abuse, and education. JRFC

was first conducted on October 25, 2000, and was

to be completed by approximately 3,500 facilities.

Results will be available in late 2001. 

OJJDP will administer JRFC every 2 years. CJRP

and JRFC, which will be administered in alternating

years, will complement each other: CJRP will provide detailed information on the juveniles in the facilities and JRFC will provide detailed information on

the facilities themselves. JRFC is described in more

detail in the Fact Sheet Innovative Information on Juvenile Residential Facilities, which is available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. 

Deaths in Custody 

The death of a juvenile in custody is relatively rare.

In 1994 (the last year for which CIC data on deaths

in custody are available), 45 juveniles died while in

the legal custody of a juvenile facility. In 1992, 40

juveniles died while in custody. The majority of

deaths in both years resulted from suicide.

OJJDP realizes these data on deaths in custody

are outdated and has inserted several questions

about deaths of juveniles in custody into the new

JRFC, described above. The data on deaths in

FY 2000 71

Annual Report
72 FY 2000

Annual Report

custody collected in 2000 by JRFC will be comparable to data collected previously in the CIC Census, allowing OJJDP to provide trend data in future annual reports.

OJJDP also is supporting a field-initiated research

project that is examining juvenile suicide in confinement by surveying residential facilities nationwide.

Funded in FY 1999, the research is being conducted by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives of Alexandria, VA.

Upcoming Surveys 

OJJDP has designed a statistical system that will

enable local, State, and Federal policymakers and

practitioners to monitor juvenile detention and corrections populations and practices. In addition to

the important information being collected through

CJRP and JRFC, OJJDP also recognizes the

value of interviewing youth in juvenile justice system facilities. Such interviews can provide a wealth

of information on past offending behavior, pathways to delinquency, family and social environments, and experiences in custody. Using Juvenile

Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG)

funds, OJJDP awarded a cooperative agreement in

1998 to Westat, Inc., of Rockville, MD, to develop

a new Survey of Youth in Residential Placement

(SYRP).

The new SYRP will complement other OJJDP research concerning delinquent careers and offending

behavior and also will monitor the range of residential placements used for juvenile offenders. SYRP

supports the goals of the JAIBG program, which

include holding juveniles accountable for their delinquent acts. SYRP will provide data for monitoring such placements by tracking the number and

types of offenses committed by juveniles in placement and the types of sanctions they received for

previous offenses. The first SYRP will be conducted in 2002.

Beyond routine data collection, OJJDP has a

strong interest in and responsibility to research specific policy-related aspects of juvenile detention and

corrections. For example, in FY 1998, OJJDP

funded the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Juvenile Justice Programs. This initiative is examining in detail

the costs associated with juvenile corrections and

probation and will compare the costs with the benefits (both tangible and intangible) of each sanction.

Data from this study will enable OJJDP to compare the cost-benefit structure of custody with that

of probation. Although the study will not provide

national information, it will provide significant insight into how such analyses can be accomplished

in other jurisdictions. The University of Texas at

Dallas and the Dallas County Juvenile Department

are conducting the analysis.

To help determine the number of juveniles under

some form of community supervision, OJJDP is

funding the Survey of Juvenile Probation, which

will estimate the number of juveniles on probation

nationally at a specific time, the nature of their offenses, and the conditions of their probation. In a

certain sense, the numbers and types of juveniles in

residential placement depend on the availability of

alternative sanctions. Although some juveniles

clearly need residential placement to ensure their

own safety and/or the safety of the community, others can be handled more appropriately within the

community. This survey will routinely gather sufficient information about juveniles on probation to

permit comparisons between these youth and juveniles in custody. OJJDP expects to field test the

survey in 2001.
FY 2000 73

Annual Report

For many years, sharing information—about research, statistics, and programs that work—with

practitioners, policymakers, and the public has been

a priority at OJJDP. Fiscal year 2000 was no different. OJJDP used many vehicles to get information out to the field, including print publications,

electronic products (such as CD–ROMs, listservs,

and Web sites), and satellite videoconferences. The

Office’s dissemination efforts addressed a number of

key national issues, including the transfer of juveniles to criminal court, juveniles and guns, and minorities in the juvenile justice system, and also observed the completion of the juvenile court’s first

century. The activities described in this chapter illustrate OJJDP’s commitment to keeping the juvenile

justice field informed about research findings, juvenile justice statistics, and promising programs.

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse 

The Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), operated by Aspen Systems Corporation of Rockville,

MD, has filled the information needs of the juvenile

justice field since 1979, when it was established by

OJJDP. JJC is a one-stop shop that provides tollfree telephone and online access to a wealth of information on all aspects of juvenile justice, delinquency

prevention, and child protection. The Clearinghouse

offers policymakers, practitioners, researchers, parents, youth, members of the media, and representatives of community organizations easy access to a

comprehensive collection of up-to-date research and

statistics, program descriptions, publications, practical guides and manuals, information on grants and

funding opportunities, and other useful resources—

all prepared by the Nation’s foremost experts in juvenile justice and related fields. An OJJDP Bulletin, Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse: Your Information

Resource, provides an overview of JJC services and

resources. The Bulletin is available from JJC. The

box on page viii explains how to access information

from JJC via telephone, fax, e-mail, and the

Internet. 

The Clearinghouse produces many of OJJDP’s

publications, including research and statistical reports and training and technical assistance manuals.

During 2000, JJC distributed close to 5 million

documents (a 41-percent increase from 1999). JJC

also maintains a toll-free number (800–638–8736).

During 2000, JJC responded to 70,836 telephone,

fax, and e-mail requests (an 18-percent increase

from 1999). JJC also continued to respond to calls

related to an antiviolence campaign that OJJDP

developed in partnership with MTV during 1999.

The campaign included an interactive CD–ROM,

Fight for Your Rights: Take a Stand Against Violence;

during 2000, JJC fielded 79,435 calls requesting

copies of the CD–ROM.

To make it easier to order OJJDP publications,

JJC also initiated a new online ordering service

(www.puborder.ncjrs.org). The Online Order

Store, which began in September 2000 as a 3-

month test program, allows users to order juvenile

justice publications, videos, and other materials 24

hours a day, 7 days a week. During the test period,

the service was made available to a trial clientele,

who were encouraged to evaluate the service by

placing orders online and providing feedback and

comments. The service was launched in December

2000. Orders were received for 1,353 publications

in December 2000 and 1,668 in January 2001.

The Clearinghouse also oversees JUVJUST,

OJJDP’s popular electronic mailing list that provides timely information about OJJDP and other

youth-service-related publications, events, and

funding opportunities. JUVJUST subscribers are

primarily professionals working in juvenile justice

and related youth service fields. The number of

Chapter 12

Getting the Word Out
subscribers grew from 5,000 to 6,500 between 

December 1999 and December 2000—an increase

of nearly one-third. Archived JUVJUSTs and instructions for subscribing to JUVJUST are available on the OJJDP Web site at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.

org/about/juvjust.html.

JJC also maintains a comprehensive library of

more than 400,000 titles devoted to juvenile justice,

delinquency prevention, and child protection. During 2000, the library added some 1,300 documents

to the collection.

National Report CD–ROM 

In addition to producing and distributing printed

publications, OJJDP disseminates information

through a variety of electronic products, including

CD–ROMs. In FY 2000, OJJDP issued one of its

signature reports, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999

National Report, on CD–ROM. The National Report,

which was released in September 1999, contains a

wealth of information, offers insights into juvenile

crime and victimization, and provides data on the

operation of juvenile justice systems across the

country. The CD–ROM allows users to view the

230-page National Report in a portable document format (PDF) and contains an “educator’s kit” that includes statistical information in presentation format,

data from graphs, more than 40 source documents,

and links to government Web sites for additional

information. The CD–ROM is available from JJC.

OJJDP National Conference 

Since 1996, OJJDP has sponsored three biennial

national conferences to explore strategic and programmatic approaches to address the changing nature and patterns of juvenile delinquency. The conference drew approximately 1,500 participants in

2000. The theme of the 2000 conference was Justice for Children: A Vision for the 21st Century.

Through 15 preconference sessions, 7 plenary sessions, and 49 workshops, participants learned about

responding to juvenile crime and today’s offenders,

implementing promising practices and strategies,

improving juvenile courts, and protecting children

from online victimization, lead poisoning, and maltreatment. OJJDP also reached out to include

youth in the conference by inviting them to submit

their artwork for an auction, make choral and instrumental musical presentations, and participate in

a panel forum with the Attorney General. To make

it easier for participants to carry information from

the conference back home with them, OJJDP 

developed a CD–ROM containing publications,

PowerPoint presentations, and Web site links related to and expanding on conference topics. The

CD–ROM was extremely well received.

Conference participants included personnel from

State juvenile justice agencies, leading researchers,

judges, State and local policymakers, practitioners,

members of public interest groups, and program administrators and directors. All three conferences

have encouraged communication among Federal,

State, and local policymakers and professionals who

are implementing juvenile justice programs.

OJJDP Web Sites 

JJC designs and maintains OJJDP’s active and

up-to-date Web site (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org), which

consists of 6,000 pages and 16 separate dedicated

sites devoted to OJJDP-sponsored programs. During 2000, the site’s home page had close to 4 million

hits (a 209-percent increase over the previous year),

and the overall site had more than 19.7 million hits

(a 431-percent increase over 1999). The Web site

announces new publications, allows users to download nearly all OJJDP-produced publications, lists

information about current and past funding opportunities, includes a calendar of events on upcoming

OJJDP-sponsored conferences, and provides access to speeches given by the OJJDP Administrator and senior staff.

The site also features a “JJ Facts and Figures” section that provides information on juvenile justice,

delinquency prevention, and violence and victimization. This section offers a diagram of how cases

proceed through the juvenile justice system; a 

“Statistical Briefing Book” with statistics, charts,

74 FY 2000

Annual Report
FY 2000 75

Annual Report

and tables that answer frequently asked questions;

and data sets on juvenile arrests, court processing,

and supplemental homicide statistics. The section

also includes statistics-focused publications and offers links to agencies’ and organizations’ Web sites

that focus on statistics. Users can ask their own 

statistics-related questions through “askncjrs.org,”

an e-mail response service.

At the request of the Attorney General, OJJDP

and the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention also developed two

new Web sites in 2000. The Children With Disabilities Web site (www.childrenwithdisabilities.ncjrs.

org) addresses a broad array of developmental, physical, and emotional disabilities and offers families,

service providers, and other interested individuals

information about advocacy, education, employment,

health, housing, recreation, technical assistance, and

transportation. Launched in February 2000, the site

has recorded more than 419,000 hits. The Parenting

Resources for the 21st Century Web site (www.

parentingresources.ncjrs.org) covers a broad range

of topics, from caring for a newborn to finding information about college scholarships. It catalogs parenting resources that are available through the Internet and provides links to Federal agencies, private

foundations, and other organizations that offer information about child and youth development, child

care and education, family concerns, family dynamics, health and safety, and out-of-school activities.

Launched in June 2000, this Web site has already

registered more than 134,000 hits.

OJJDP also developed Web sites for the Juvenile

Court Centennial Initiative and for the 2000 national conference. (The Centennial Initiative, which

was designed to help inaugurate the juvenile court’s

second century, included a summit meeting held in

June 2000 that highlighted successful juvenile court

“graduates” and model juvenile justice programs.)

OJJDP also maintains sites for many of the programs it funds, including the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders; Drug-Free Communities Support Program;

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program;

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

program; and Juvenile Mentoring Program.

Publications 

During FY 2000, OJJDP produced more than 80

Fact Sheets, Bulletins, and Reports that informed

the juvenile justice field about Office activities and

promising approaches to juvenile delinquency. The

Office markets and disseminates its publications

extensively to ensure that they reach a wide audience, including policymakers, practitioners, members of the media, and many others. OJJDP has

access to mailing addresses for more than 90,000

individuals, nearly 60,000 of whom have registered

for the Office’s mailing list. Most OJJDP publications are available online through the Web site, and

many are available via fax-on-demand, a popular

automated service that can be used to order short

publications such as Fact Sheets and Bulletins.

(The fax-on-demand number is 800–638–8736.)

The publications highlighted below and those discussed throughout this Report are only a sample

of the documents OJJDP produced in FY 2000.

All are available from JJC. A complete list of

OJJDP publications released in FY 2000 appears

in the appendix.

OJJDP’s Journal

OJJDP publishes Juvenile Justice, a journal that explores a range of topics about juvenile delinquency

prevention, control, and system improvement programs. In addition to the issues addressing gender

(page 56), mental health (page 66), and tribal youth

programs (page 59), OJJDP published a special

issue (Volume VI, Number 2) in FY 2000 that focuses on the 100th anniversary of the juvenile court.

Articles in this issue discuss reasons to celebrate the

court’s first century and reflect on the court’s future.

In December 2000, OJJDP published a special

issue (Volume VII, Number 3) that focuses on

parent-child relationships and includes articles on

the May 2000 White House Conference on Teenagers, programs for improving parenting practices,
and Team H.O.P.E. efforts to assist families of missing children. Upcoming issues of the journal will address school violence and OJJDP’s Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders.

Juvenile Transfers to Adult Courts 

In recent years, a growing number of States have

modified their laws to facilitate the waiver or transfer

of certain categories of juveniles from the jurisdiction

of juvenile courts to the jurisdiction of adult criminal

courts. OJJDP published several documents in FY

2000 that deal with this issue. The Fact Sheet Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1988–1997 presents estimates of the number of cases transferred

from juvenile court to criminal court through the judicial waiver mechanism. Juvenile Transfers to Criminal

Court in the 1990’s: Lessons Learned From Four Studies is

a Summary that describes studies of juvenile transfers in Pennsylvania (two studies), South Carolina,

and Utah. The Report Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three States That Changed the Rules examines the

actual implementation of distinctive approaches to

juvenile justice reform in three States and summarizes the lessons learned from these case studies and

from the authors’ analysis of State legislative activity.

The Office also has two upcoming Fact Sheets that

describe an OJJDP-funded study of juvenile transfers to criminal courts in Florida.

National Report Bulletins 

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report

(National Report), which was released by OJJDP in

September 1999, contains comprehensive information about juvenile crime and victimization. To

make this information more accessible and usable,

OJJDP developed a Bulletin series that provides

readers with a quick, focused look at some of the

most critical findings. Each Bulletin highlights topics of interest to juvenile justice policymakers and

extracts relevant National Report sections (including

selected graphs and tables) to present the data.

During FY 2000, OJJDP published the following

Bulletins in the series:

✦ Challenging the Myths examines juvenile crime statistics and demonstrates that the predicted emergence of a new kind of violent youth is not supported by the most recent data in the National

Report. 

✦ Children as Victims documents the impact of crime

on society’s most vulnerable victims. The Bulletin

includes statistics on the number of children murdered, sexually assaulted, neglected, and missing.

✦ Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change provides a

thorough, easily understood description of the

development of the juvenile justice system in the

United States. It also uses the most current data

available to examine the recent trend of transferring certain juvenile cases to adult criminal court.

✦ Kids and Guns provides an overview of national

statistics that indicate the devastating impact that

easy access to guns has had on the lives and wellbeing of American youth.

✦ Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System presents national statistics on the racial and ethnic makeup

of juvenile offenders, including data on arrests,

court processing, and confinement.

✦ Violence After School presents data indicating that

students are safer at school than away from

school and commit fewer crimes during school

hours than after school hours. 

Satellite Videoconferencing 

OJJDP has successfully used satellite telecommunications for several years to provide information

and training programs more readily to juvenile justice professionals. This cost-effective medium allows

practitioners, policymakers, and researchers from

across the country to keep abreast of developments

in the field without having to travel far from home.

OJJDP has sponsored satellite videoconferences

since 1995 through its grantee, Eastern Kentucky

University (EKU) of Richmond, KY. A typical

videoconference can reach some 500 sites and approximately 15,000 persons at downlink sites and

personal computers. During the 2000 calendar year,

76 FY 2000

Annual Report
FY 2000 77

Annual Report

EKU produced six “live” satellite videoconferences

and experimented with cybercasting “live” satellite

videoconferences on the Internet.

A videoconference for the 54 grantees in the Safe

Schools/Healthy Students Initiative (see page 11)

was held on January 20, 2000, to provide the

grantees with information about grant administration and assist them as new recipients of Federal

funds. This videoconference also was Webcast live

on the Internet. 

The “Model Court Practices in Abuse and Neglect

Cases” videoconference, held February 10, 2000,

highlighted the National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) Model Courts

Program, which helps courts improve their handling

of child abuse and neglect cases. The broadcast focused on the experiences of model courts in El Paso,

TX; Louisville, KY; and Newark, NJ. OJJDP

hosted the telecast, which had 664 registered downlink sites, in cooperation with NCJFCJ and the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

“Crowding in Juvenile Detention: A Problem 

Solving Approach,” held April 27, 2000, addressed

approaches to solving crowding in juvenile detention facilities. Noted practitioners from juvenile justice and detention services around the country participated in the videoconference, which was telecast

to 153 registered downlink sites. This videoconference, sponsored with support from the National Juvenile Detention Association, also was Webcast live

on the Internet.

“How Shall We Respond to the Dreams of Youth?

A National Juvenile Justice Summit” aired on June

7, 2000, and brought together delegates from more

than 100 national organizations that help neglected,

abused, and delinquent youth. The videoconference

was telecast to 164 registered downlink sites and

included prerecorded interviews with successful

“graduates” of the juvenile justice system, footage of

the juvenile justice system at work, and highlights of

the OJJDP-sponsored summit. This videoconference also was Webcast live on the Internet.

“Combating Underage Drinking,” held on September 10, 2000, was telecast to 720 downlink sites. It

was designed for local, State, and Federal policymakers; community leaders; law enforcement personnel; juvenile court judges; school administrators;

youth service providers; retailers; and other concerned citizens. The videoconference also reviewed

OJJDP’s Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws

Program (see page 36). This videoconference also

was Webcast live on the Internet, with more than

1,000 individual viewers. 

“Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention” was presented November 14, 2000, from

the American Society of Criminology’s annual meeting in San Francisco, CA. Members of OJJDP’s

Study Group on Very Young Offenders (see page

13) presented key findings from their research on

the nature of child delinquency, its developmental

course, key risk and protective factors, and effective

intervention and prevention strategies. The videoconference was telecast to 302 downlink sites.

All of these broadcasts (except the Safe Schools/

Healthy Students videoconference) may be viewed

free of charge at www.juvenilenet.org and also are

available for purchase from JJC. 

OJJDP also introduced Internet streaming, which

simultaneously allows individuals to observe and

hear satellite videoconferences from desktop

personal computers. EKU and OJJDP also initiated plans to produce an instructional CD–ROM

program based on topics addressed in previous

videoconferences.
FY 2000 79

Annual Report

The following publications are available through

OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC).

Brief Strategic Family Therapy (Family Strengthening

Series Bulletin), NCJ 179285

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook

(Fact Sheet), FS–200008

Challenging the Myths (1999 National Report Series

Bulletin), NCJ 178993

Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles (Crimes

Against Children Series Bulletin), NCJ 179034

Child Welfare National Data Analysis System (Fact

Sheet), FS–99120

Children as Victims (1999 National Report Series

Bulletin), NCJ 180753

The Community Assessment Center Concept (Bulletin),

NCJ 178942

A Compendium of Programs That Work for Youth (Fact

Sheet), FS–99121

Competency Training—The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14 (Family Strengthening Series Bulletin), NCJ 182208

The Comprehensive Strategy: Lessons Learned From the

Pilot Sites (Bulletin), NCJ 178258

Construction, Operations, and Staff Training for Juvenile Confinement Facilities (JAIBG Bulletin),

NCJ 178928

Cuando su Niño Desaparece: Una Guía Para la Supervivencia de la Familia (Report), NCJ 178902 (Spanish translation of When Your Child Is Missing: A

Family Survival Guide)

Curriculum for Training Educators of Youth in Confinement (Fact Sheet), FS–200005

Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 1997 (Fact Sheet),

FS–200004

Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1988–1997

(Fact Sheet), FS–200002

Developing a Policy for Controlled Substance Testing of

Juveniles (JAIBG Bulletin), NCJ 178896

Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders

(Bulletin), NCJ 181201

Enabling Prosecutors To Address Drug, Gang, and Youth

Violence (JAIBG Bulletin), NCJ 178917

Enhancing Prosecutors’ Ability To Combat and Prevent

Juvenile Crime in Their Jurisdictions (JAIBG

Bulletin), NCJ 178916

Establishing and Maintaining Interagency Information

Sharing (JAIBG Bulletin), NCJ 178281

Families and Schools Together: Building Relationships

(Family Strengthening Series Bulletin),

NCJ 173423

Family Skills Training for Parents and Children (Family

Strengthening Series Bulletin), NCJ 180140

Fighting Juvenile Gun Violence (Bulletin), NCJ 182679

From the Courthouse to the Schoolhouse: Making Successful Transitions (Youth Out of the Education Mainstream Series Bulletin), NCJ 178900

Highlights of the 1998 National Youth Gang Survey (Fact

Sheet), FS–99123

Implementation of the Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Program (Bulletin), NCJ 181464

Appendix

OJJDP Publications Produced in FY 2000
The Incredible Years Training Series (Family Strengthening Series Bulletin), NCJ 173422

Initiatives To Improve Child Welfare Outcomes (Fact

Sheet), FS–99119

Innovative Information on Juvenile Residential Facilities

(Fact Sheet), FS–200011

Interstate Compact on Juveniles (Fact Sheet),

FS–200012

Juvenile Arrests 1998 (Bulletin), NCJ 179064

Juvenile Court Statistics 1997 (Report), NCJ 180864

Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change (1999 National

Report Series Bulletin), NCJ 178995

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse: Your Information Resource

(Bulletin), NCJ 180863

Juvenile Mentoring Program: A Progress Review

(Bulletin), NCJ 182209

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990’s:

Lessons Learned From Four Studies (Summary),

NCJ 181301

Juvenile Vandalism, 1997 (Fact Sheet), FS–200010

Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three States That

Changed the Rules (Report), NCJ 181203

Kidnaping of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS (Crimes

Against Children Series Bulletin), NCJ 181161

Kids and Guns (1999 National Report Series

Bulletin), NCJ 178994

Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System (1999 National

Report Series Bulletin), NCJ 179007

National Youth Court Center (Fact Sheet), FS–200007

1997 National Youth Gang Survey (Summary),

NCJ 178891

OJJDP Formula Grants Program (Fact Sheet),

FS–99122

OJJDP National Training and Technical Assistance 

Center (Fact Sheet), FS–200013

An Overview of the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Fact Sheet), FS–200009

Overview of the Portable Guides to Investigating Child

Abuse: Update 2000 (Bulletin), NCJ 178893

Person Offense Cases in Juvenile Court, 1988–1997 (Fact

Sheet), FS–200006

Predictors of Youth Violence (Bulletin), NCJ 179065

Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement (Youth Gang

Series Bulletin), NCJ 182210

Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending 

(Bulletin), NCJ 178898

Race, Ethnicity, and Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending (Bulletin), NCJ 181202

Reporting Crimes Against Juveniles (Crimes Against

Children Series Bulletin) NCJ 178887

Seattle’s Effective Strategy for Prosecuting Juvenile

Firearm Offenders (Bulletin), NCJ 178901

Second Chances: Giving Kids a Chance To Make a Better

Choice (Bulletin), NCJ 181680

Second Comprehensive Study of Missing Children

(Bulletin), NCJ 179085

Self-Reported Delinquency by 12-Year-Olds, 1997 (Fact

Sheet), FS–200003

Special Education and the Juvenile Justice System

(Bulletin), NCJ 179359

System Change Through State Challenge Activities:

Approaches and Products (Bulletin), NCJ 177625

Teen Courts in the United States: A Profile of Current

Programs (Fact Sheet), FS–99118

Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior (Youth

Development Series Bulletin), NCJ 178899

80 FY 2000

Annual Report
FY 2000 81

Annual Report

Ten Steps for Implementing a Program of Controlled

Substance Testing of Juveniles (JAIBG Bulletin),

NCJ 178897

Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs: 1999 Report to Congress (Report),

NCJ 182677

Vietnamese Youth Gang Involvement (Fact Sheet),

FS–200001

Violence After School (1999 National Report Series

Bulletin), NCJ 178992

Violent Neighborhoods, Violent Kids (Bulletin),

NCJ 178248

Workload Measurement for Juvenile Justice System

Personnel: Practices and Needs (JAIBG Bulletin),

NCJ 178895

Youth Gang Drug Trafficking (Youth Gang Series

Bulletin) NCJ 178282

Youth Gang Programs and Strategies (Summary),

NCJ 171154

Youth Gangs in Schools (Youth Gang Series Bulletin),

NCJ 183015

Juvenile Justice Journals

Volume VI, Number 1, October 1999: Investing in

Girls: A 21st Century Strategy, NCJ 178254

Volume VI, Number 2, December 1999: 100th

Anniversary of the Juvenile Court, 1899–1999,

NCJ 178255

Volume VII, Number 1, April 2000: Youth With

Mental Health Disorders: Issues and Emerging

Responses, NCJ 178256

Youth in Action Publications

Arts and Performances for Prevention (Bulletin),

NCJ 178927

Creating Publications: Write To Fight Crime (Bulletin),

NCJ 179000 

Does Your Youth Program Work? (Bulletin),

NCJ 179001

Making the Most of Your Presentation (Bulletin),

NCJ 178997

Raising Awareness and Educating the Public (Bulletin),

NCJ 178926

Teens, Crime, and the Community (Fact Sheet),

YFS 9904

Want To Resolve a Dispute? Try Mediation (Bulletin),

NCJ 178999

Working With the Media (Bulletin), NCJ 178998
Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a wide variety of materials,

including Bulletins, Fact Sheets, Reports, Summaries, videotapes, CD–ROMs, and the Juvenile Justice journal. These materials and other

resources are available through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), as described

at the end of this list.

The following list of publications highlights the

latest and most popular information published

by OJJDP, grouped by topical areas:

Corrections and Detention

Construction, Operations, and Staff Training

for Juvenile Confinement Facilities. 2000,

NCJ 178928 (28 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997

Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.).

Implementation of the Intensive CommunityBased Aftercare Program. 2000, NCJ 181464

(20 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 1999. 2000, NCJ 185236

(12 pp.).

Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare. 1999, NCJ 175715 (24 pp.).

State Custody Rates, 1997. 2000, NCJ 183108

(4 pp.).

Courts

Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth. 2000, NCJ 182787 (112 pp.).

Focus on Accountability: Best Practices 

for Juvenile Court and Probation. 1999,

NCJ 177611 (12 pp.).

From the Courthouse to the Schoolhouse:

Making Successful Transitions. 2000,

NCJ 178900 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1997. 2000,

NCJ 180864 (120 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (Juvenile Court Issue), Volume

VI, Number 2. 1999, NCJ 178255 (40 pp.).

Juveniles and the Death Penalty. 2000,

NCJ 184748 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the

1990’s: Lessons Learned From Four Studies.

2000, NCJ 181301 (68 pp.).

Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three

States That Changed the Rules. 2000,

NCJ 181203 (66 pp.).

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1997. 2000,

NCJ 181204 (16 pp.).

Teen Courts: A Focus on Research. 2000,

NCJ 183472 (16 pp.).

Delinquency Prevention

1999 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention

Programs. 2000, NCJ 182677 (60 pp.).

Competency Training—The Strengthening

Families Program: For Parents and Youth

10–14. 2000, NCJ 182208 (12 pp.).

Comprehensive Responses to Youth at Risk:

Interim Findings From the SafeFutures Initiative. 2000, NCJ 183841 (96 pp.).

Co-occurrence of Delinquency and Other Problem Behaviors. 2000, NCJ 182211 (8 pp.).

High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. 2000,

NCJ 181725 (8 pp.).

The Incredible Years Training Series. 2000,

NCJ 173422 (24 pp.).

Juvenile Mentoring Program: A Progress

Review. 2000, NCJ 182209 (8 pp.).

Law Enforcement Referral of At-Risk Youth:

The SHIELD Program. 2000, NCJ 184579

(8 pp.).

The Nurturing Parenting Programs. 2000,

NCJ 172848 (12 pp.).

Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offending. 2000, NCJ 178898 (16 pp.).

Gangs

1998 National Youth Gang Survey. 2000,

NCJ 183109 (92 pp.).

Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement.

2000, NCJ 182210 (12 pp.).

Youth Gang Programs and Strategies. 2000,

NCJ 171154 (96 pp.).

The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence

Connection. 1999, NCJ 171152 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs in Schools. 2000, NCJ 183015

(8 pp.).

General Juvenile Justice

The Community Assessment Center Concept.

2000, NCJ 178942 (12 pp.).

Increasing School Safety Through Juvenile

Accountability Programs. 2000, NCJ 179283

(16 pp.).

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

Strategic Planning Guide. 1999, NCJ 172846

(62 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (Mental Health Issue), Volume

VII, Number 1. 2000, NCJ 178256 (40 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (American Indian Issue), Volume VII, Number 2. 2000, NCJ 184747 (40 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National

Report. 1999, NCJ 178257 (232 pp.). Also

available on CD–ROM. 2000, NCJ 178991.

OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for

Juveniles. 1999, NCJ 177602 (52 pp.).

Special Education and the Juvenile Justice

System. 2000, NCJ 179359 (16 pp.).

Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior.

2000, NCJ 178899 (8 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Kidnaping of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS.

2000, NCJ 181161 (8 pp.).

Overview of the Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse: Update 2000. 2000,

NCJ 178893 (12 pp.).

Parents AnonymousSM : Strengthening America’s

Families. 1999, NCJ 171120 (12 pp.).

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.). Also available in Spanish. 2000, NCJ 178902.

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998,

NCJ 173393 (20 pp.).

Developing a Policy for Controlled Substance

Testing of Juveniles. 2000, NCJ 178896 (12 pp.).

Family Skills Training for Parents and Children.

2000, NCJ 180140 (12 pp.).

Violence and Victimization

Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles.

2000, NCJ 179034 (12 pp.).

Children as Victims. 2000, NCJ 180753 (24 pp.).

The Comprehensive Strategy: Lessons Learned

From the Pilot Sites. 2000, NCJ 178258 (12 pp.).

Fighting Juvenile Gun Violence. 2000,

NCJ 182679 (12 pp.).

Kids and Guns. 2000, NCJ 178994 (12 pp.).

Predictors of Youth Violence. 2000, NCJ 179065

(12 pp.).

Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence.

1999, NCJ 173950 (276 pp.).

Race, Ethnicity, and Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending. 2000, NCJ 181202 (8 pp.).

Safe From the Start: Taking Action on Children

Exposed to Violence. 2000, NCJ 182789

(76 pp.).

The materials listed on this page and many

other OJJDP publications and resources can

be accessed through the following methods:

Online:

To view or download materials, visit 

OJJDP’s home page: ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

To order materials online, visit JJC’s 24-

hour online store: puborder.ncjrs.org.

To ask questions about materials, e-mail

JJC: askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

To subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic mailing list, e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org,

leave the subject line blank, and type subscribe juvjust your name.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET)

Fax:

410–792–4358 (to order publications)

301–519–5600 (to ask questions)

800–638–8736 (fax-on-demand, Fact 

Sheets and Bulletins only)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS,

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

JJC, through the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service (NCJRS), is the repository for tens of thousands of criminal

and juvenile justice publications and resources from around the world. An abstract for each publication or resource is

placed in a database that you can search

online: www.ncjrs.org/database.htm.

Revised 06/12/2001
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 188419

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Report