DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

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

August 1998
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

how delinquency develops and the best methods for

its prevention, intervention, and treatment; 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 replicate tested approaches to

delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in

such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders,

community-based sanctions, and the disproportionate representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system.

State Relations and Assistance Division supports

collaborative efforts by States to carry out the mandates of the JJDP Act by providing formula grant

funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to

States, local governments, and private agencies; and

monitoring State compliance with the JJDP Act.

Information Dissemination Unit informs individuals and organizations of OJJDP initiatives; disseminates information on juvenile justice, delinquency

prevention, and missing children; and coordinates

program planning efforts within OJJDP. The unit’s

activities include publishing research and statistical

reports, bulletins, and other documents, as well as

overseeing the operations of the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.

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.

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program seeks

to promote effective policies and procedures for

addressing the problem of missing and exploited

children. Established by the Missing Children’s

Assistance Act of 1984, the program provides funds

for a variety of activities to support and coordinate

a network of resources such as the National Center

for Missing and Exploited Children; training and

technical assistance to a network of 47 State clearinghouses, nonprofit organizations, law enforcement

personnel, and attorneys; and research and demonstration programs.

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 juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice

system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual 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 juvenile

victimization and respond appropriately to juvenile delinquency. This is accomplished through developing and

implementing prevention programs and a juvenile justice system that protects the public safety, holds juvenile

offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services based on the needs of each individual

juvenile.
OJJDP Annual Report

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

August 1998

This report covers activities undertaken by the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention during Fiscal

Years 1996 and 1997.
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

Janet Reno

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
FY 1996/FY 1997 iii

Annual Report

Foreword

Although the juvenile crime rate is dropping, episodes of youth violence continue to

appear on the nightly news all too often. While the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) does not claim to have a magical solution to end

the violence, we have developed a comprehensive strategy that is helping many

communities make a difference in the fight to prevent juvenile delinquency. The

concept behind the strategy is very similar to the “broken windows” strategy that

cities are using to respond to street crime. Just as police in many communities now

react aggressively to the first signs of deterioration, such as broken windows in a

neighborhood, communities need to react aggressively to the warning signals many

juveniles are sending out. Rather than ignoring these signals, we at OJJDP advocate

having a plan in place to address the symptoms of trouble—a comprehensive plan

that runs the gamut from prevention to intervention and treatment activities.

That is why OJJDP built much of its programming the past 2 years around the

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

Comprehensive Strategy, described more fully elsewhere in this Report, provides

the Nation with a promising way, based on research, to tackle juvenile delinquency

and crime. It holds offenders accountable for their actions and provides them with

opportunities for rehabilitation. It also provides approaches for dealing with the small

percentage of juvenile offenders who account for the most serious and violent crimes.

Finally, it offers strategies for working with juveniles at risk of committing delinquent

acts before they become involved with the juvenile justice system. But most important,

it shows communities how to develop the coordinated, comprehensive approaches

that are so necessary to help them deal with juvenile crime. “Coordinated” and

“comprehensive” are the key words here. We know from past experience that piecemeal approaches will not get the job done.

To illustrate our commitment to the Comprehensive Strategy, we funded several

programs in fiscal years (FY)1996 and 1997 to help communities implement it.

Because we know from our research that children who are abused or neglected often

resort to delinquent or violent behavior later in life, we also funded a communitybased initiative to break this cycle before it begins. We are especially excited that

many of the communities participating in the Community Prevention Grants Program

funded under Title V have centered their programs around the Comprehensive

Strategy.

While the Comprehensive Strategy was the cornerstone of our programs in FY 1996

and 1997, we addressed many other issues as well. We worked diligently to disseminate

information about programs that work to a wide variety of audiences. Our dissemination

activities included a highly successful national conference, well-received publications,

and numerous satellite videoconferences. We also funded programs to help communities
iv FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

address juvenile gangs, youth gun violence, and juvenile sex offenders. Our Missing

and Exploited Children’s Program had many accomplishments as well, including a

major new training center for law enforcement personnel, several highly acclaimed

publications, and the release of findings from a major missing child homicide study.

Finally, our Formula Grants Program, working closely with the States, continued

to make significant improvements in the way these jurisdictions deal with juvenile

offenders.

Although we are proud of our many accomplishments, much work remains. We must

continue to help communities coordinate programs and resources and provide a

continuum of care for their young people. Everyone—individuals, community leaders,

law enforcement, social services agencies, parents, educators—must work together to

protect our children from victimization and our Nation from delinquent and violent

juvenile offenders.

This Report highlights only a selected sample of OJJDP activities. All the programs

funded in 1996 and 1997 are described in greater detail in the Comprehensive Program

Plan for Fiscal Year 1996 (OJJDP Program Objectives) and in the proposed 1998 Program

Plan published in the Federal Register on February 6, 1998.

Even though there are no quick fixes, I believe the programs OJJDP funded are a

step in the right direction and have the potential to make a tremendous impact. I hope

you will find the information in this Report useful, and that you will join OJJDP in

our efforts to rescue at-risk children from delinquent behavior and violent futures,

and to keep our communities safe.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
FY 1996/FY 1997 v

Annual Report

Table of Contents

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

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

Chapter 1: Major Accomplishments in 1996 and 1997.............................................................................. 3

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders ....................................... 3

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention .................................................. 4

SafeFutures Program ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Safe Kids/Safe Streets Program .................................................................................................................... 6

Juvenile Mentoring Program ........................................................................................................................ 7

Family Strengthening Program ..................................................................................................................... 7

Model Courts Program .................................................................................................................................. 7

Hate Crime Prevention .................................................................................................................................. 8

Teens, Crime, and the Community ................................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 2: Sharing Information Is an OJJDP Priority .......................................................................... 9

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse .................................................................................................................... 9

CD-ROM ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

Satellite Videoconferencing ......................................................................................................................... 10

National Conference .................................................................................................................................... 10

Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ......................................................................... 11

Guide to Conflict Resolution Education ..................................................................................................... 11

Report on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders ................................................................................... 11

Causes and Correlates Research Program .................................................................................................. 12

Boot Camp Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 13

Chapter 3: 1996 and 1997 Program Plans ............................................................................................... 15

New Programs.............................................................................................................................................. 16

Continuation Programs ................................................................................................................................ 18

Chapter 4: Missing and Exploited Children’s Program .......................................................................... 21

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ........................................................................ 21

Major New Publications .............................................................................................................................. 22

New Research Findings About Child Homicides....................................................................................... 24

Training and Technical Assistance .............................................................................................................. 24

New Initiative ............................................................................................................................................... 24

Continuation Programs ................................................................................................................................ 24

Chapter 5: State and Local Assistance Grants Programs ....................................................................... 27

Formula Grants Program ............................................................................................................................ 27

Community Prevention Grant Program ..................................................................................................... 28

State Challenge Activities ............................................................................................................................ 39

Chapter 6: Juveniles Taken Into Custody ............................................................................................... 43

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix: OJJDP Publications Released in 1996 and 1997 ................................................................. 47
FY 1996/FY 1997 1

Annual Report

An Introduction to the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) was created by Congress

in 1974 to help communities and States prevent

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 problem of missing and exploited children,

which Congress added to OJJDP’s legislative

mandate in 1984.

Although the nature and extent of delinquency

and abuse have changed over the past 23 years,

OJJDP has remained a steadying influence,

providing national leadership, coordination, and

resources to help States and local communities

meet the new challenges they are facing in their

juvenile justice systems. These challenges include

a multitude of problems: intolerably high rates of

juvenile violence and delinquency, victimization,

school dropout, teen pregnancy, and illegal drug

use, and increasing child abuse and neglect cases.

In addition, many juvenile justice and dependency

court systems, already overburdened, are being

forced to address the human fallout resulting from

unstable families that lack parenting skills, communities with inadequate health and mental health

support networks, fragmented social service delivery systems, a shortage of constructive activities for

young people, and easy access to guns and drugs.

To help juvenile justice and social service professionals meet these challenges, OJJDP funds critical

research and demonstration programs, provides

technical assistance and training, produces and

distributes publications containing the most up-todate juvenile justice related information available,

oversees the Missing and Exploited Children’s

Program, and administers formula and discretionary grants programs.

This annual report describes OJJDP’s major

accomplishments in these areas during 1996 and

1997, discusses the philosophy that guided program plans, and summarizes the most recent data

available on juveniles taken into custody. These

activities reflect OJJDP’s continuing commitment

to address the crisis of youth violence and delinquency in this country and to help its citizens

respond more effectively.
FY 1996/FY 1997 3

Annual Report

Chapter 1

Major Accomplishments in 1996 and 1997

This is a critical time for juvenile justice—a time

of both opportunity and challenge. In 1996, for the

second year in a row, the total number of juvenile

arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses (murder,

forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault)

declined. The number of violent juvenile arrests

dropped 3 percent in 1995 and 6 percent in 1996.

More specifically, juvenile arrest rates for murder

declined 14 percent between 1995 and 1996. While

juvenile arrests for murder in 1996 were at their

lowest level in the 1990’s, the decrease must be

kept in perspective since the total for 1997 was

still 50 percent above the number of juvenile

arrests for murder in 1987. The Nation continues

to face unacceptably high rates of juvenile crime,

with juveniles accounting for 18 percent, or 2.7

million, of all arrests. In addition, serious and

violent juvenile offenders, although relatively few

in number, remain a troubling concern.

Although the decline in the arrest rate signals hope

for the future, there is still much work to be done.

The accomplishments highlighted in this chapter

illustrate OJJDP’s commitment to provide national leadership to help States and communities

develop policies and programs that will ensure a

continuing decline in the juvenile crime rate.

The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,

and Chronic Juvenile Offenders was at the center

of the Office’s many accomplishments during the

past 2 years. It reflects OJJDP’s commitment to

programs that have the greatest potential for

reducing juvenile delinquency and improving the

juvenile justice system. The Comprehensive

Strategy and several of the other activities described in this chapter create the partnerships that

OJJDP believes are necessary to turn the tide of

juvenile delinquency.

In addition to implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy, the Office also worked diligently during

the past 2 years to provide mentors for troubled

youth, help strengthen families, improve how

courts respond to abused and neglected children,

and eliminate hate crimes. Sharing information

with practitioners in the field was also a priority

during 1996 and 1997; dissemination activities are

highlighted in chapter 2.

Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders

The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993)

has been the foundation of OJJDP’s program plans

since it was published. The Comprehensive Strategy provides this country with a systematic way to

address unacceptably high levels of juvenile crime

and build upon the reductions seen during the past

2 years.

The Comprehensive Strategy is based on decades

of research, program evaluations, and statistics

about criminal and juvenile justice, public health,

and youth development. It provides the juvenile

justice field with a blueprint, based on a sound set

of principles, for establishing a continuum of care

to meet the needs of the Nation’s children and

protect the public from juvenile crime.

The Comprehensive Strategy advocates the use

of local planning teams to assess the factors and

influences that put youth at risk of delinquency,

determine available resources, and establish

prevention programs to either reduce risk factors

or provide protective factors that buffer juveniles

from the impact of risk factors.
4 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

To encourage more communities to use the Comprehensive Strategy, OJJDP published the Guide

for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders in 1995. The

Guide offers a foundation and framework for

communities’ individualized strategies and provides

a powerful tool for States, cities, counties, and

neighborhoods that are mobilizing to address

juvenile violence and delinquency.

In 1996, OJJDP began providing intensive training

and technical assistance to help five States—Florida,

Iowa, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Texas—

implement the Comprehensive Strategy in up to

six local jurisdictions each. OJJDP also is helping

six communities that are participating in the

SafeFutures program (see page 5) and San Diego

County implement the Comprehensive Strategy.

The Office continued its training efforts during

1997, sponsoring 35 training events and helping

almost 30 communities implement the Comprehensive Strategy. The Office also continued to disseminate information about the Comprehensive

Strategy through publications and presentations

at national conferences. The OJJDP grantees

providing training and technical assistance are

Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., of

Seattle, WA, and the National Council on Crime

and Delinquency of San Francisco, CA.

Coordinating Council on Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

The Comprehensive Strategy served as the

foundation for a major document endorsed by

the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Coordinating Council)

in 1996. OJJDP provides support to the Coordinating Council, which coordinates all Federal

juvenile delinquency prevention programs, Federal

programs and activities that detain or care for

unaccompanied juveniles, and Federal programs

relating to missing and exploited children. This

document, Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan, builds on the

Comprehensive Strategy and the Guide and describes

Federal activities and resources to help communities

address eight critical objectives.

According to the Action Plan, communities must do

the following to effectively combat delinquency

and violence:

✦ Strengthen their juvenile justice systems.

✦ Prosecute certain serious, violent, and chronic

juvenile offenders in the criminal justice

system.

✦ Target youth gun, gang, and drug violence

through comprehensive policing and prevention

techniques.

✦ Create positive opportunities for youth.

✦ Break the cycle of violence by addressing child

victimization, abuse, and neglect.

✦ Mobilize communities into effective partnerships

for change.

✦ Conduct research and evaluate programs.

✦ Develop a public education campaign to

highlight successes in addressing juvenile

delinquency and violence.

The overarching goal is to rebuild community

confidence in the system’s ability to have an impact

on this serious problem. The Action Plan describes

Federal grants, training, technical assistance,

information dissemination, and research and

evaluation activities available to help States and

communities address these objectives.

Several jurisdictions are using the Action Plan as the

basis of their juvenile justice activities. For example,

California based its Juvenile Crime Enforcement

and Accountability Challenge Grant Program on

the Action Plan’s objectives and suggestions for

State and local action. The State has invested more

than $45 million in demonstration programs

related to juvenile crime reduction over a 3-year

period (1995–1997). One of the program’s goals is

to find interventions that work and document the

outcomes.
FY 1996/FY 1997 5

Annual Report

OJJDP and the other Federal agencies represented on the Coordinating Council continued to

build on the Action Plan during 1997 by jointly

funding several projects that support one or more

of the eight objectives listed in the plan. For example,

OJJDP and the National Institute of Mental

Health (NIMH) funded two research programs

to help enhance understanding of juvenile delinquency and crime prevention. The first program,

Early Alliance, was designed to help hundreds of

elementary school children in economically disadvantaged sections of Columbia, SC, learn how to

cope with factors that put them at risk of delinquent behavior. The intent of the program is to

intervene early—in the first grade—to prevent

misconduct, aggression, substance abuse, delinquency and violence, and school failure. The

project will follow the children for 5 years. The

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and

the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) also

provided funds for the program, which is being

conducted by the University of South Carolina.

In a second joint research effort, OJJDP transferred funds to NIMH to add a juvenile justice

component to a study examining the long-term

effects of medication and behavioral and educational treatment on children with attention deficit/

hyperactivity disorder. Researchers are now examining the contacts between these children and the

juvenile justice system.

OJJDP also provided funds to NIDA to study

how public health programs address risk and

protective factors and substance abuse among

adolescents at the State and community levels.

Coordinating Council agencies jointly funded a

number of programs designed to help reduce risk

factors associated with delinquency, involve the

community in prevention efforts, address mental

health and juvenile justice issues, and prevent

substance abuse. For example, the Ounce of

Prevention Program, developed by OJJDP and

the President’s Crime Prevention Council, addresses youth substance abuse issues. The David

Olds Nurse Home Visitation Program, funded by

OJJDP, the Executive Office of Weed and Seed,

and the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, provides prenatal and early childhood

services for low-income mothers.

The Coordinating Council also encouraged collaboration at the State and local levels. Building

on the Child Development–Community Policing

Program initially funded in 1993, OJJDP joined

the Violence Against Women Grants Office and

the Office for Victims of Crime in funding a training

curriculum and technical assistance program. This

initiative helps law enforcement and mental health

practitioners work together with schools to address

the psychological burdens experienced by children

and families exposed to violence.

A complete list of collaborative activities funded by

Coordinating Council member agencies is included

in the 1997 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants

for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs, available

from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC).

SafeFutures Program

OJJDP awarded six communities a total of almost

$8 million to implement SafeFutures programs,

which are locally based initiatives that seek to

prevent and reduce delinquency and victimization

by intervening quickly when children and teens

encounter problems and by holding them responsible when they commit violent or other crimes.

The project helps communities coordinate their

programs so that the human service and juvenile

Kids give off warning signs—running away,

skipping school, failing academically, acting

out aggressively, or showing signs of abuse

or neglect. An effective violence reduction

strategy does not ignore these early symptoms

but rather treats them directly—just like fixing

broken windows—putting the broken pieces of

children’s lives back together again.

Shay Bilchik

OJJDP Administrator
6 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

justice systems, including health, mental health,

child welfare, education, police, probation, courts,

and corrections, all work together. Such coordination helps create a continuum of care to respond to

the needs of youth and their families at any point

along the path toward delinquency.

The six communities receiving SafeFutures grants

included four urban sites (Contra Costa County,

CA; Boston, MA; Seattle, WA; and St. Louis,

MO); one rural community (Imperial County,

CA); and one tribal community (Fort Belknap,

MT). Each site is receiving grants of up to $1.4

million for the 5-year project, which began in 1995.

The following strategies are being used to help

families in these communities:

✦ Contra Costa County is helping at-risk girls

through mentoring programs.

✦ Boston is strengthening the links between

police, the district attorney’s office, the probation

department, and a community organization and

will create a day treatment center to serve

approximately 100 youth per year.

✦ Seattle is expanding its Cambodian girls group,

an outreach program designed for Cambodian

girls ages 12 to 18 who are involved in gang

activities.

✦ St. Louis is launching a communitywide gang

task force and is expanding treatment and

restitution programs for juvenile offenders.

✦ Imperial County is providing a variety of

social, health, and employment services through

its family strengthening center and is making

a special effort to ensure that services are

culturally relevant to the predominantly

Spanish-speaking population of the county.

✦ Fort Belknap is using intensive probation and

community service to target juvenile offenders.

In 1997, OJJDP provided funds for a full-time

training and technical assistance coordinator for

the SafeFutures program. In addition, Boys &

Girls Clubs of America, Communities In Schools,

and other public and private agencies have agreed

to help implement this initiative. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development also

contributed $100,000 for training and technical

assistance to help prevent delinquency and juvenile

violence in public housing areas of SafeFutures

sites.

Although the SafeFutures program is relatively

new, grantees have taken positive steps in their

communities to improve services and create new

programs. They have developed a variety of activities, including quick-response teams of police and

community workers to prevent gang violence; peer

courts; recreational programs that offer positive

alternatives to the streets; “one-stop shopping” for

health, counseling, and educational services for

youth and their families; and special mental health

services for families whose daughters are involved

in gangs.

OJJDP also is funding a national evaluation of

the program. The Office is especially interested in

determining the success of each site in developing

and implementing a strategic plan to establish a

continuum of care and integrated services for young

people in high-risk communities. The Office

awarded a cooperative agreement to the Urban

Institute of Washington, D.C., to conduct the

evaluation, which will track the lessons learned at

each site.

Safe Kids/Safe Streets Program

It is no secret that children who are abused or

neglected often resort to delinquent or violent

behavior later in life. Recognizing the importance

of breaking this cycle before it begins, OJJDP

began a major new community-based initiative in

1996 known as the Safe Kids/Safe Streets Program.

Five communities were awarded a total of $2.7

million in 1997 for an initial 18-month budget

period to help them improve how their communities

respond to abused and neglected children and their

families. Each community is working to coordinate

the management of abuse and neglect cases by

improving the policies and practices of the criminal

and juvenile justice, child welfare, family services,

and related systems. Each community is also developing comprehensive communitywide, cross-agency

strategies and programs to reduce abuse and

neglect and the child fatalities that often result.
FY 1996/FY 1997 7

Annual Report

The five communities receiving OJJDP funds for

this program are Huntsville, AL; the Sault Sainte

Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians in Michigan;

Kansas City, MO; Toledo, OH; and Chittenden

County, VT. The large number (178) of applications

OJJDP received for these grants indicates that

many communities are developing coordinated,

multifaceted responses to abuse and neglect. The

sites are now revising or finalizing the implementation plans that will guide their efforts over the

51

/2-year project period.

In 1997, OJJDP awarded a grant to Westat, Inc.,

of Rockville, MD, to document and evaluate how

communities implement their programs. Westat is

assessing such issues as community mobilization,

planning, and collaboration, and is considering the

feasibility of evaluating the impact of the program.

Juvenile Mentoring Program

The Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP)

encompasses 93 programs across the country that

provide adult mentors to thousands of young

people. Mentors work one-on-one with youth who

are at risk of educational failure, school dropout,

and involvement in delinquent activities, including

gangs and drugs. Mentors in JUMP come from

all walks of life. They include law enforcement

officers, college students, senior citizens, military

personnel, business people, doctors, lawyers,

government employees, and teachers. OJJDP

originally funded 41 sites in 1995 using 1994 and

1995 funds totaling $6.8 million. Because of the

high interest in JUMP and the quality of applications, OJJDP again combined funds (from 1996

and 1997) and awarded an additional 52 sites a

total of $9.8 million. The awards are for a 3-year

period.

OJJDP released a Bulletin in 1997 that examined

the impact of mentoring programs run by Big

Brothers Big Sisters of America. The evaluation

found that youth involved in mentoring programs

were less likely to experiment with alcohol and

drugs, less likely to hit someone, and less likely to

skip school than youth not participating in such

programs. Mentoring—A Proven Delinquency Prevention

Strategy is available from JJC.

The Office awarded a grant in 1997 to Information

Technology International of Bethesda, MD, to

conduct an evaluation of the JUMP program.

Family Strengthening Program

Helping children grow up in strong, safe families is

critical for the future of this country; many families

are in need of help. Prevention, early intervention,

and effective crisis intervention are crucial elements

of a good family support system. However, in many

communities one or more of these elements may be

missing or existing programs may not be coordinated.

In addition, training and technical assistance often

are unavailable to community organizations and

agencies providing family strengthening services.

OJJDP responded to this need by providing funds

to these programs in 1995 for training and technical

assistance. During the past 2 years the Office’s

grantee, the Department of Health Education at

the University of Utah, completed a literature

review, developed summaries of exemplary programs, and conducted a national search for family

strengthening models. Based on a set of strict

evaluation criteria, the grantee selected 11 exemplary

programs and showcased them at 2 regional conferences in Salt Lake City, UT, and Washington, D.C.

The grantee also conducted numerous workshops,

produced training guides, and distributed videos of

several family strengthening workshops.

Model Courts Program

Since 1992, OJJDP has provided funds to the

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges (NCJFCJ) in Reno, NV, to support a

nationwide program to improve how courts handle

child abuse and neglect cases. The Victims Model

Court Project, recognizing that foster care is a last

resort and temporary solution, moves abused and

neglected children through the court process in a

more timely manner and into safe and permanent

homes. The cornerstone of this project is a widely

acclaimed publication, Resource Guidelines: Improving

Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, published by NCJFCJ in 1995. It has been endorsed

by the Coordinating Council, the Conference of

Chief Justices, and the American Bar Association
8 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

(ABA). Courts nationwide use it as a blueprint to

assess barriers to permanency and to implement

systemic change to benefit children.

The Victims Model Court Project initially focused

on Hamilton County Juvenile Court in Cincinnati,

OH, a program referred to by the ABA as “one

court that works.” In the past 3 years, 12 additional

courts have been named as models for improving

practice. They are located in Tucson, AZ; San

Jose, CA; Miami, FL; Honolulu, HI; Chicago, IL;

Louisville, KY; Newark, NJ; Reno, NV; Nashville,

TN; El Paso, TX; Salt Lake City, UT; and Alexandria, VA. In addition to reengineering their own

systems, these courts help other courts across the

Nation by hosting site visits and providing training

and written materials.

During the past 2 years, NCJFCJ has conducted

many training presentations at national, State,

and local conferences and seminars and also has

developed a comprehensive curriculum in permanency planning. The grantee also has provided

technical assistance to courts nationwide both

directly and through written products, including a

Technical Assistance Bulletin series that provides

timely topical information to help courts improve

their daily practice dependency cases. During the

past 6 months, NCJFCJ responded to more than

700 requests for technical assistance.

Hate Crime Prevention

Increased racial, ethnic, and religious tensions and

hate crimes are a nationwide concern. With funding from OJJDP to address this critical issue, the

Education Development Center (EDC) of Newton,

MA, developed Healing the Hate: A National Bias

Crime Prevention Curriculum for Middle Schools.

The curriculum has been distributed to more than

9,000 juvenile justice policymakers, practitioners,

judges, schools, and law enforcement personnel.

During 1997, EDC conducted regional training

sessions in Boston, Chicago, and Miami that were

attended by multidisciplinary teams of school

officials, teachers, students, law enforcement,

prosecutors, and community leaders. EDC also

made several presentations at education conferences

for the U.S. Department of Education, which is a

funding partner in this initiative.

Teens, Crime, and the Community

At a national youth conference in Miami in 1996,

young people in attendance indicated they would

like to have a voice in Federal juvenile justice

policy. OJJDP and the National Crime Prevention

Council (NCPC), which sponsored the conference

as part of its OJJDP-funded Teens, Crime, and

the Community Program, responded by establishing the National Youth Network (NYN). NCPC

and a number of sponsoring organizations brought

more than two dozen youth to Baltimore, MD, in

1997 for a planning meeting and leadership training, followed by a retreat in Columbia, SC.

Since then, NYN has evolved into an active youthled organization. It is primarily self-governing but

receives assistance from OJJDP; the Teens, Crime,

and the Community Program; and approximately

20 sponsoring organizations. The group consists

of 40 youth representing 20 youth-serving organizations. The mission of NYN, as defined by the

youth themselves, is to serve as a catalyst for youth

across the country to prevent crime and victimization and to make a difference in their communities

by collaborating among youth-focused national,

State, and community-based organizations; distributing information on successful programs and

strategies; advocating youth perspectives to policymakers; promoting the need for positive youth

activities through the media; and reaching out to

nonaffiliated youth, especially those in the juvenile

justice system.

NYN has established five committees that address

the areas of public relations, publications, public

policy, events, and sponsors/outreach. Each committee meets monthly via conference call and has

established benchmarks to be achieved in 1998.

Goals include developing bylaws, producing a

Youth in Action publication series, establishing

a Web site as part of an upcoming Department of

Justice “Kidspage,” sponsoring two retreats; and

participating in OJJDP’s 1998 National Conference.

A youth leadership council oversees all NYN plans

and activities.
FY 1996/FY 1997 9

Annual Report

Chapter 2

Sharing Information Is an OJJDP Priority

OJJDP has seen a surge in requests for information in the past decade, as communities across

the Nation struggle to find programs that work.

Information exists in the form of research, statistics,

and demonstration programs, and OJJDP is

working vigorously to get it into the hands of those

who can use it. The Office is committed to disseminating information at the grassroots level

and produced more than 50 publications in 1997

toward that end.

However, sharing information includes more than

producing documents; the information needs to be

easily accessible to wide audiences in a variety of

formats. During the past 2 years, OJJDP used

the following vehicles to disseminate information:

publications, videos, CD-ROMs, satellite videoconferences, e-mail, and Internet sites. This

chapter highlights OJJDP’s key efforts to keep

the juvenile justice field informed about major

breakthroughs in research and promising programs.

publications, provides exhibits at national conferences, and maintains a comprehensive juvenile

justice library and data base. The Clearinghouse

is a component of the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service and is located in Rockville, MD.

During the past 2 years, JJC redesigned the

home page on OJJDP’s Web site, making it easier

for users to locate juvenile justice information and

resources. The home page now includes subpages

highlighting special OJJDP programs and

initiatives.

The Clearinghouse also oversees OJJDP’s popular

electronic mailing list, JUVJUST, which currently

has more than 2,000 subscribers. JUVJUST alerts

subscribers to new documents, funding opportunities, and other OJJDP news. Subscribers received

more than 90 postings in 1997.

JJC also produces many of OJJDP’s publications,

including the Juvenile Justice journal, OJJDP

Bulletins and Fact Sheets, Research Reports, and

the widely acclaimed Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse series. This series, produced

for OJJDP’s Missing and Exploited Children’s

Program (described on page 21), won a first-place

Blue Pencil award from the National Association

of Government Communicators (NAGC) in 1997.

Two other JJC publications highlighting OJJDP’s

Youth Environmental Services initiative also were

recognized by NAGC in 1997.

How To Access Information

Phone: 800–638–8736

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Internet: www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm

I use your materials constantly for training new

volunteers. I also like your Web site and have

started downloading documents when I’m in a

hurry.

Court Appointed Special Advocate

Portland, OR

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

OJJDP’s major vehicle for distributing information

is the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. JJC offers

toll-free telephone and online access to information,

prepares specialized responses to information

requests, produces and distributes OJJDP
10 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

JJC distributed close to 3 million publications to

a mailing list of almost 100,000 individuals during

1996 and 1997; another 100,000 people learned of

OJJDP publications at 167 conferences attended

by JJC staff. During the past 2 years, the Clearinghouse responded to more than 100,000 requests

for information that were received via the toll-free

number, the Internet, and fax services. JJC also

maintains an extensive library collection and data

base and acquired more than 2,000 new titles

during 1996 and 1997.

CD-ROM

For the past 2 years, OJJDP has been working on

a technologically exciting new initiative—a CD-ROM

titled Reducing Youth Violence: A Comprehensive Approach.

The Office believes that this is the first use of an

interactive multimedia CD-ROM in the fields of

criminal and juvenile justice.

The CD-ROM showcases promising and effective

programs and resources that address youth violence.

It includes 126 full publications, 27,000 document

files, 13,000 pages of text, 420 charts and graphs,

1,260 program documents with 6,000 pages of text,

and more than 560 graphic illustrations. It also

refers viewers to additional resources, training, and

technical assistance.

The Office has distributed 1,000 copies of the

preliminary version and is now analyzing user

feedback. After making modifications based on the

feedback, OJJDP hopes to have a final version of

the CD-ROM completed during the summer of

1998. The CD-ROM is being produced by OJJDP’s

grantee, the University of California at Riverside.

Satellite Videoconferencing

OJJDP is using satellite videoconferencing as a

cost-effective way to provide training to individuals

who live and work in areas that may limit their access

to up-to-date information. It is more efficient to

train individuals where they live than to transport

them to another area; it also reduces travel time

for trainers and allows them to deliver a consistent

message simultaneously to thousands of professionals.

Videoconferencing also allows OJJDP to reach

staff who otherwise might be excluded from

national training opportunities. Finally, it acts as a

catalyst for local, regional, and State examination

of OJJDP initiatives and research findings.

During 1996 and 1997, OJJDP broadcast 9

national videoconferences to more than 3,650

jurisdictions and approximately 100,000 viewers.

The telecasts covered a variety of topics—juvenile

boot camps, conflict resolution for youth, reduction

of youth gun violence, youth out of the education

mainstream, juvenile court viability, youth gangs,

drug abuse prevention programs for youth,

mentoring, and drug treatment programs. Videos

of all OJJDP-sponsored teleconferences are

available for a fee from JJC.

Assessments of the satellite videoconferences

indicate that OJJDP is doing a good job of providing timely information to juvenile justice professionals. On average, more than 90 percent of those

responding to surveys said that the content of the

teleconferences successfully addressed critical

issues affecting their professional responsibilities;

that the panelists provided useful, understandable

information; and that they had used ideas presented

during the teleconferences to modify or implement

programs in their communities.

OJJDP has supported teleconferencing since 1992,

when it funded the Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project at Eastern Kentucky

University. This technology has become an integral

part of OJJDP’s continuing efforts to disseminate

information across the Nation in a timely manner.

National Conference

In 1996, OJJDP sponsored its first national

conference, Juvenile Justice At The Crossroads.

OJJDP asked national leaders to offer strategic

and programmatic solutions to help the field address

the changing nature and pattern of juvenile delinquency. Attorney General Janet Reno and other

OJJDP staff joined approximately 700 participants,

including personnel from State juvenile justice

agencies, leading researchers in the field, judges,

State and local policymakers, practitioners, members
FY 1996/FY 1997 11

Annual Report

of public interest groups, and program administrators and directors.

During the 21

/2-day conference, speakers discussed

the changing nature of juvenile offenders, the

impact of “get tough” measures on combating

juvenile crime, community responses to juvenile

crime and violence, innovative intervention and

juvenile justice system strategies, tools to support

juvenile justice professionals, and promising approaches in delinquency prevention programming.

The conference also included a satellite teleconference broadcast, Has the Juvenile Court Outlived

Its Usefulness? Conference proceedings are

available online from JJC.

OJJDP plans to convene a national conference

every other year; the next one will be held December

10–12, 1998, in Washington, D.C.

Guide to the Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act

One of the publications released in 1997 helps

educators and others who work with juveniles

understand how they can share information while

still complying with the Family Educational Rights

and Privacy Act (FERPA), a Federal law that

limits the disclosure of information from a student’s

education records. This document was developed

jointly by OJJDP and the U.S. Department of

Education.

Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act and Participation in Juvenile

Justice Programs gives an overview of FERPA and

uses realistic scenarios to illustrate how information can be shared legally. For example, a teacher

who witnesses a student threatening a classmate

can share this information with law enforcement

because it is based on personal observation, not

on the student’s educational record. The Guide also

includes examples of court orders, interagency

agreements, and State information-sharing statutes;

FERPA regulations for reference; and information

about additional resources and technical assistance.

OJJDP has distributed more than 36,000 copies

of the document; it is available from JJC.

Guide to Conflict Resolution

Education

Another new publication addresses conflict resolution programs, which schools and youth educators

are using to help promote both the individual

behavioral changes necessary for responsible

citizenship and the systemic changes necessary to

ensure a safe learning environment. Conflict Resolution Education: A Guide to Implementing Programs in

Schools, Youth-Serving Organizations, and Community

and Juvenile Justice Settings provides both basic

information and the experience of experts in the

field of conflict resolution education programs. It

provides information needed to select and implement a conflict resolution program along with

examples of quality programs.

The Guide also includes tools to help educators

make informed decisions about conflict resolution

education programs, a discussion of the principles

of these programs, descriptions of four approaches,

guidance on how to extend conflict resolution skills

beyond the classroom and into the community, a

summary of research and evaluations on effective

conflict resolution programs, and a list of curriculum resources. OJJDP has distributed more than

14,000 copies of this document. In addition, the

Sacramento, CA, school district, assisted by JJC

and OJJDP, reprinted 10,000 copies of the manual

for distribution to its schools. The Guide is available

from JJC.

Report on Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offenders

In 1997, OJJDP released information from a

groundbreaking report that presents a comprehensive assessment of serious and violent juvenile

(SVJ) offenders. The report contains researchbased information on these offenders, programs

that have been tried and how well they have

performed, and lessons that policymakers and

practitioners have learned.

The report is the product of OJJDP’s Study Group

on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, funded
12 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

in 1995 through the University of Pittsburgh.

The study group was created to help jurisdictions

implement OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy.

The report provides an authoritative discussion of

issues surrounding SVJ offenders, a population

that poses the greatest challenge to State and local

policymakers. It integrates the concept of risk and

protective factors with information about intervention and prevention programs. The study group

included 29 juvenile justice and criminology

researchers who spent almost 2 years examining

hundreds of studies from the United States, Canada,

England, Scandinavia, and other countries. Some

of the authors’ conclusions are as follows:

✦ SVJ offenders are a distinct group who tend to

start offending early and continue late.

✦ From childhood to adolescence, SVJ offenders

tend to develop behavior problems, including

aggression, dishonesty, property offenses, and

conflict with authority figures.

✦ Prevention interventions for young children at

risk of becoming SVJ offenders are known to

be effective and should be implemented at an

early age.

✦ Interventions and sanctions for known SVJ

offenders can reduce their risk of reoffending.

An OJJDP Bulletin summarizing the report was

released in March 1998. Additional products will

be developed and will be available online from

JJC in the near future.

Causes and Correlates Research

Program

OJJDP’s longitudinal study, the Program of

Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency, continues to contribute new information to

help the field answer the question, What causes a

juvenile to commit delinquent acts? Since OJJDP

began funding the program in 1986, researchers at

three project sites have interviewed 4,000 juveniles

at regular intervals, recording their lives in detail.

The program is a milestone because it is the largest

shared measurement approach ever achieved in

delinquency research. Research findings to date

indicate that preventing the onset of delinquency

requires accurate identification of the risk factors

that increase the likelihood of delinquent behavior

and the protective factors that enhance positive

adolescent development. Findings from this research

contributed significantly to the development of

the Comprehensive Strategy and other OJJDP

program initiatives.

Researchers examined a number of issues during

the past 2 years, including risk factors for teenage

fatherhood; patterns of illegal gun carrying among

young, urban males; factors associated with early

sexual activity among urban adolescents; drug use;

impact of family changes on adolescent development; and neighborhood, individual, and social risk

factors for serious juvenile offenders.

In keeping with its commitment to disseminate

information to the field, OJJDP began a publication series in 1997 that presents the most notable

findings from the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency research program. Epidemiology of Serious

Violence, the first OJJDP Bulletin in this series,

answers basic questions about the varying levels

I just received your publication In the Wake

of Childhood Maltreatment and I want to

express to you my gratitude. I help to define

14- and 15-year-old kids who have been

charged with violent felonies. In doing this work

I quickly found that what these kids have done

can only be properly understood in the context

of their very difficult family situations, which

often includes abuse and neglect. Since these

kids are seen as merely “bad” by the judge and

the assistant district attorney, I had been looking

for a study to bolster my argument that many

of them deserve to benefit from a nonjail

sentence. Your study is exactly what I needed.

So in a nutshell, thank you so much.

Forensic Social Worker

New York, NY
FY 1996/FY 1997 13

Annual Report

of involvement in violent acts according to age,

sex, and ethnicity and recommends a public health

model of prevention, treatment, and control.

In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment explores the

connections between childhood maltreatment and

subsequent problem behaviors. The findings are

particularly valuable because they come from a

population sample that allowed researchers to

examine how maltreated youth differ from the

general population. Both publications are available

from JJC.

OJJDP’s grantees for this project are the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of

Pittsburgh, and the University at Albany, State

University of New York.

Boot Camp Evaluation

In response to increases in the rates and costs of

traditional confinement, many jurisdictions are

implementing boot camps for juvenile offenders.

In 1992, OJJDP funded a program to develop and

evaluate three boot camps designed to address the

special needs and circumstances of juveniles.

In 1997, the Office published the findings of the

interim evaluation reports in a publication titled

Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders. The interim evaluations examined such issues as whether participants

in juvenile boot camps receive the services prescribed

for them, the impact of juvenile boot camps on

recidivism rates, the benefits juvenile offenders

derive from boots camps, and the effectiveness of

such camps.
FY 1996/FY 1997 15

Annual Report

Chapter 3

1996 and 1997 Program Plans

The positive news about the drop in juvenile violent

crime should not lead to a relaxation of efforts to

lower still unacceptably high rates of juvenile

violence and delinquency. As the accomplishments

highlighted in the previous two chapters illustrate,

OJJDP built on the positive momentum of the

recent decrease in juvenile crime by continuing to

focus on programs and strategies that work.

The Comprehensive Strategy remained at the heart

of OJJDP’s program plans and guided its efforts

during the past 2 years. In addition to the activities

already highlighted, OJJDP developed and funded

a number of other programs promoting effective

juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. In

determining which programs to fund, the Office

designed its 1996 and 1997 program plans around

three goals.

The primary goal was to identify and promote

programs that prevent or reduce the occurrence

of juvenile offenses, both criminal and noncriminal,

and that intervene immediately and effectively

when delinquent or status offense conduct first

occurs. Such programs operate on a broad scale,

providing positive youth development or targeting

juveniles at high risk of delinquency with activities

designed to reduce future juvenile offending. During

1996 and 1997, OJJDP developed prevention

programs that draw on the basic principles of the

public health model, which encourage people to

avoid or change behaviors that put them at risk of

health problems and introduce behaviors that can

help them lead healthy lives. OJJDP’s prevention

programs identify the root causes of juvenile crime

by examining the factors that put children at risk,

then implement a range of programs and services

to prevent delinquency from occurring in the first

place. They provide services to juveniles whose

noncriminal misbehavior indicates that they are

on a pathway to delinquency, or to first-time

nonviolent delinquent offenders or nonserious

repeat offenders who do not respond to initial

system interventions. They are designed to deter

future misconduct and to reduce the negative or

enhance the positive factors in a child’s life.

OJJDP’s second goal was to support programs

that improve the juvenile justice system and facilitate the most effective allocation of system resources.

Such programs hold delinquent juveniles accountable for their conduct, especially serious and violent

offenders, and improve the way the system deals

with dependent, neglected, and abused children.

To meet this goal, OJJDP funded programs that

assist law enforcement, courts, and the corrections

system. A community policing program, for example,

is helping law enforcement prevent and control

delinquency and child victimization. OJJDP also

developed programs to help family courts, and the

prosecutors and public defenders who practice

in those courts, provide a system of justice that

maintains due process protections. The Office also

funded programs that use juvenile detention and

correctional facilities in appropriate circumstances

and under conditions that maximize public safety

while at the same time providing effective rehabilitation services to juveniles. Finally, the Office funded

programs that provide the research and statistics

necessary to understand how the juvenile justice

system works in serving children and families.

OJJDP’s third program goal was to support

programs that keep the public safe from juvenile

delinquency and crime by using a balance of secure

detention and corrections along with communitybased alternatives. These include community-based

programs and services for juveniles who have formal

contact with the juvenile justice system and programs

that maintain the safety of the public, are appropriately restrictive, and promote and preserve positive

ties with the youth’s family, school, and community.
16 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

Underlying each of these goals was the premise

that their achievement is vital to ensure public

safety from increased juvenile delinquency and

violence.

Before deciding which programs to fund in 1996

and 1997, the Administrator of OJJDP sought

input from OJJDP staff, other Federal agencies,

and juvenile justice practitioners. Feedback from

the 1996 national conference was particularly

helpful for developing program priorities for 1997.

This combined input led OJJDP to identify a

range of research and evaluation projects needed

to expand knowledge about juvenile offenders;

the effectiveness of prevention, intervention, and

treatment programs; and the operation of the

juvenile justice system.

Combined with continuation programs, the new

programs OJJDP funded in 1996 and 1997 form

a continuum that supports the eight objectives

outlined in the Coordinating Council’s Action Plan

(see page 4). The Office also continued to support

a number of programs identified by Congress for

funding. This chapter provides brief summaries

of the new programs OJJDP funded during the

past 2 years and examples of some of the Office’s

continuation programs.

New Programs

OJJDP provided funds for nine new programs

in 1996 and 1997. These programs address schoolbased gang intervention and prevention, juvenile

sex offenders, cost-benefit analysis of juvenile justice

programs, youth courts, youth gun violence, female

juvenile offenders, technical assistance for NativeAmericans, mentoring activities, and community

and court responses to child abuse and neglect.

A new program to examine the cost benefits of

juvenile justice programs is an example of an

overarching program in 1997. Jurisdictions are

facing difficult questions in regard to adjudication

programs: Which ones work best and how does

their effectiveness compare with their costs? Should

programs be continued, expanded, or discontinued?

To help practitioners analyze programs in terms of

cost and effectiveness, OJJDP provided funds in

1997 to develop an effective method of analysis.

The University of Texas and the Dallas County

Juvenile Department are performing a substantive

cost-benefit analysis of juvenile adjudications in the

county to determine the analytic method that can

provide the most useful answers. The grantees will

examine how to determine program effectiveness,

estimate and allocate unit costs of different programs,

identify types and monetary values of benefits, and

determine the cost-benefit relationships of different

programs.

In terms of prevention programs, youth courts are

one approach to handling petty theft, vandalism,

truancy, and other problem behaviors of youth.

They emphasize accountability, positive peer

pressure, competency development, and youth

empowerment. These programs offer jurisdictions

a way to hold young offenders accountable for

problem behaviors for which they previously may

have received little or no intervention. To determine

how effective youth courts are, OJJDP awarded a

1997 grant to The Urban Institute of Washington,

D.C., to research and evaluate programs across the

country. The grantee will examine several dimensions of youth court programs, including recidivism

and changes in juveniles’ perceptions of justice and

in their ability to make more mature judgments.

To evaluate the effectiveness of youth courts, The

Urban Institute will compare youth handled in at

least three separate youth court programs with

those processed by the traditional juvenile justice

system. They also will look at the legal, administrative, and case process factors that affect the ability

of youth court programs to achieve their goals.

Another new prevention program funded in 1997

addresses youth gangs, which continue to be a

problem in this country. Schools have established

a variety of programs to combat this problem, such

as implementing a youth gang unit or promoting

entrepreneurial skills through storekeeping, gardening, and similar programs. To help schools identify

promising and effective programs, OJJDP funded

a survey of school-based gang prevention and

intervention programs. Researchers will classify

and describe approaches used by a large sample of

urban, suburban, and rural schools to prevent or
FY 1996/FY 1997 17

Annual Report

reduce gang involvement among students. They

will also review activities that States have undertaken to identify and evaluate school-based gang

prevention and intervention programs. The research

is being conducted by Gottfredson Associates, Inc.,

of Ellicott City, MD.

OJJDP supported several new programs to help

strengthen and improve the juvenile justice system.

A new research program will gather data about

juvenile sex offenders. A lack of information about

appropriate levels of placement, potential for

rehabilitation, risk assessment, and intervention

needs makes it difficult for policymakers, law

enforcement officials, and practitioners to determine

how to deal with this troubling population. To help

remedy this, OJJDP awarded a grant in 1997 to

the University of Illinois at Springfield to determine

which methodologies are best suited to develop

and validate an empirically based typology of the

juvenile sexual offender. The grantee will create

a data base of current information identifying

offender, offense, and treatment-linked variables

considered significant in the field and will develop

a Web site to disseminate findings from the research.

Another program to help strengthen the juvenile

justice system addresses gender issues. It builds

on training and technical assistance provided by

OJJDP in 1995 to help States provide better

services for female juvenile offenders. To further

these efforts, OJJDP awarded a grant in 1996 to

Green, Peters and Associates of Nashville, TN, to

design and provide further training and technical

assistance. During 1997, the grantee developed a

training curriculum for policymakers, advocacy

organizations, and community leaders; tested it at

three pilot sites; and drafted a monograph for

national dissemination.

OJJDP is also helping Native-American programs

strengthen their responses to juvenile delinquency

and crime. Many reservations are experiencing the

same problems that plague other communities:

gang activity, violent crime, use of weapons, and

increasing drug and alcohol abuse. From 1992 to

1995, OJJDP funded programs at the Gila River

Indian Community in Arizona, the Jemez Pueblo

in New Mexico, the Navajo Nation in Arizona, and

the Red Lake Band of Chippewa in Minnesota to

help them deal with juvenile crime. Although

programs at these sites have been successful, each

needed to expand programming options, such as

gang prevention and intervention programs. In

1997, OJJDP awarded a grant to American

Indian Development Associates of Albuquerque,

NM, to develop a national technical assistance

program to provide additional programming for

the four sites and to extend support to tribes and

urban tribal programs across the country. During

1997, the grantee provided training and technical

assistance to 95 tribes throughout the country. The

grantee assisted tribal governments in strengthening their juvenile justice systems and juvenile

detention practices, especially their abilities to

provide immediate intervention and appropriate

sanctions for delinquent youth, assess their justice

system needs, and develop partnerships with the

U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, and

legal and judicial organizations. The grantee also

facilitated team learning activities during a NativeAmerican youth gang prevention conference in

Arizona, coordinated the first Native-American

juvenile justice summit, and provided technical

assistance to Native-American tribes on behalf of

several DOJ offices, including OJJDP’s tribal

SafeFutures site.

Two new initiatives to help strengthen and improve

the juvenile justice system—the Juvenile Mentoring

Program and the Safe Kids/Safe Streets Program—

are described in chapter 1.

The Partnerships To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence

Program is an initiative that began in 1996 to help

communities and law enforcement work together

to reduce youth gun violence. OJJDP awarded

grants to four communities that had implemented

Janet Reno has her finger on the “pulse” of

juvenile justice and reinforces that we are

on the right track.

1996 OJJDP National Conference Attendee
18 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

or were in the process of implementing programs

to reduce gun violence by juveniles. Grants were

awarded to Youth Alive of Oakland, CA; the city

of Baton Rouge, LA; Council on Alcoholism and

Drug Abuse of Shreveport, LA; and Center for

Community Alternatives of Syracuse, NY.

OJJDP’s funding is helping these communities

strengthen their efforts by coordinating strategies

and strengthening links among residents, law

enforcement, and the juvenile justice system. The

grantees are incorporating a number of strategies,

including providing positive opportunities (such as

mentoring) for youth; developing conflict resolution programs; using a public information strategy

that communicates the consequences of gun violence; expanding neighborhood communication

through community policing; encouraging grassroots

community activities that engage neighborhood

residents (including youth) in community improvement; reducing juvenile access to illegal guns and

gun trafficking through law enforcement, prosecution, and increasing sanctions; and applying appropriate treatment interventions that respond to the

needs of juvenile offenders who enter the system

on gun-related charges. OJJDP awarded a grant

to COSMOS Corporation of Bethesda, MD, in

1997 to conduct an evaluation of the four programs.

Continuation Programs

The new grants described above work in tandem

with many existing OJJDP programs. For example,

the Office continued to support a range of comprehensive prevention, intervention, and suppression

activities targeting youth gangs during the past

2 years. These efforts include evaluating local

projects and informing communities about the

nature and extent of gang activities and effective

and innovative programs through OJJDP’s

National Youth Gang Center located at the Institute

for Intergovernmental Research in Tallahassee,

FL. The new program that examines school-based

gang prevention and intervention efforts and

evaluates the Boys & Girls Clubs gang outreach

efforts, along with the program that evaluates

juvenile gun violence, complement existing law

enforcement and prosecutor training programs

by supporting and providing research-based

information to grassroots community organizations

addressing these issues. These programs also build

on OJJDP’s youth-focused community policing,

mentoring, and conflict resolution initiatives and

drug abuse prevention activities, such as those

performed by the Congress of National Black

Churches and the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, both of Washington, D.C.

In support of the need to break the cycle of violence,

the new Safe Kids/Safe Streets Program complements OJJDP’s continuing support of court

appointed special advocates programs, children’s

advocacy centers, and prosecutor and judicial

training in the dependency field.

The research and evaluation programs that OJJDP

supported in 1996 and 1997 will help fill critical

gaps in knowledge about the level and seriousness

of juvenile crime and victimization, their causes

and correlates, and effective programs that prevent

delinquency and violence. At the same time, the

Office geared its research toward efforts that

monitor and evaluate the ways in which youth are

treated by the juvenile and criminal justice systems

and the trends in this response, particularly as they

relate to juvenile violence and its impact.

The Office also continued to use its national perspective to disseminate information to a variety of

audiences, including those who are directly responsible for planning and implementing policies and

programs that have a positive impact on juvenile

crime and violence.

The various contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and interagency fund transfers that OJJDP

supported in 1996 and 1997 form a continuum of

activity designed to address youth violence, delinquency, and victimization. By working together,

Federal, State, and local agencies; Native-American

tribes; national organizations; private philanthropies;

the corporate and business sectors; health, mental

health, and social service agencies; schools; youth;

families; and clergy can form the partnerships
FY 1996/FY 1997 19

Annual Report

necessary to ensure public safety and keep the

Nation’s young people from becoming involved in

juvenile crime and violence.

All the continuation programs funded by OJJDP

in 1996 and 1997 are described in greater detail in

the Comprehensive Program Plan for Fiscal Year 1996:

OJJDP Program Objectives, available from JJC, and

in the proposed 1998 Program Plan, published

in the Federal Register on February 6, 1998, and

available electronically from JJC on OJJDP’s

home page.
FY 1996/FY 1997 21

Annual Report

Chapter 4

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program

According to the National Crime Information

Center, each year in America approximately

900,000 children are reported missing. Many

of them are runaways while others are taken by

noncustodial parents and often used as pawns in

custody battles. Some wander away and are unable

to find their way home, and still others are the

victims of child predators. Congress, recognizing

the need for a national response to this issue,

passed the Missing Children’s Assistance Act in

1984 and established the Missing and Exploited

Children’s Program (MECP) within OJJDP.

The program funds a national clearinghouse and

resource center, coordinates Federal missing and

exploited children activities, provides training and

technical assistance, and conducts research pertaining to missing and exploited children.

The past 2 years were active for MECP, and its

accomplishments were many. A major highlight

was the dedication and opening of the Jimmy Ryce

Law Enforcement Training Center, which teaches

law enforcement personnel how to investigate

cases of missing children more effectively. The

program also released important findings from a

study of child homicides and produced numerous

publications to help the Nation respond more

effectively to missing and exploited children. New

publications include a highly acclaimed series of

Portable Guides for investigators and others and a

valuable resource manual that contains detailed

information about Federal programs and services

available to help agencies that serve missing and

exploited children and their families.

During 1996 and 1997, the Office focused on

programs that increase awareness of problems

relating to missing and exploited children, develop

community approaches to address concerns related

to these children, and provide assistance to help

communities implement effective programs. These

programs are described in this chapter.

The National Center for Missing

and Exploited Children

The National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children (NCMEC), the cornerstone of MECP,

is a national resource center and clearinghouse

located in Arlington, VA. Since its inception in

1984, NCMEC has received more than 1 million

calls to its 24-hour hotline, assisted in the recovery

of more than 38,600 children, distributed millions

of publications, and provided advice and technical

assistance to thousands of parents, prosecutors,

law enforcement officers, and child service

professionals.

During 1996 and 1997, NCMEC’s toll-free hotline

(800–843–5678) received 235,648 calls, ranging

from citizens reporting investigative leads to

requests for publications and help from parents,

law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other

professionals working on missing children issues.

The NCMEC Web site, which provides missing

children posters and publications for downloading,

registered more than 1 million requests for

information.

One of NCMEC’s earliest goals was to implement

a missing children’s clearinghouse in every State.

This goal was reached in 1997. In 1984, only two

States had clearinghouses for missing children.

Today NCMEC is electronically linked with

clearinghouses in all 50 States and can instantly

transmit photographs and case information. During

the past year NCMEC, using OJJDP funds,

continued the upgrade of the State clearinghouse

online communications network begun in 1996 by

installing new computers, scanners, software, and

printers. The upgrade substantially enhanced

NCMEC’s capacity to share information and

disseminate missing children posters.
22 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

Through a cooperative agreement with the U.S.

Department of State and OJJDP, NCMEC

continued to handle all incoming Hague Convention

cases (cases involving foreign children abducted

from countries agreeing to abide by the Hague

Convention). NCMEC helps locate children who

are brought to the United States from other

countries illegally and facilitates visitation or their

return to the custodial parent. With additional

OJJDP funding, NCMEC assists American

parents whose children have been wrongfully

removed to other countries. NCMEC helps translate documents, disseminates posters, provides

legal advice about the Hague Convention, and acts

as a liaison with international law enforcement

organizations and missing children advocacy

groups. NCMEC has handled approximately

761 Hague Convention cases from 47 countries,

resulting in the return of more than 300 children

to their country of habitual residence.

NCMEC also developed and implemented a major

new training and technical assistance program to

help law enforcement investigate cases of missing

children more effectively. Authorized by Congress

in 1996, the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement

Training Center, located at NCMEC, is named

after the 9-year-old son of Donald and Claudine

Ryce who was abducted and murdered in Florida

in 1995. Developed in partnership with the FBI

and Fox Valley Technical College (FVTC) of

Appleton, WI, the center opened on April 15,

1997. It provides an intensive 2-day seminar for

law enforcement executives and a 5-day course for

law enforcement personnel working on cases of

missing children. The seminars are restricted to

policy-level law enforcement executives and

highlight the most current research and practice

related to missing children. During 1997, 242 chief

executives attended the seminars. The 5-day course

for investigators is held on a regional basis and

helps Federal, State, and local law enforcement

personnel working on missing children cases

strengthen their investigative techniques. During

1997, 634 law enforcement investigators received

this training.

Major New Publications

MECP produces many publications to help parents,

social service professionals, law enforcement, and

others who work with missing and exploited children. A series of Portable Guides was developed

during the past 2 years to help police officers and

medical and social service professionals investigate

child abuse and neglect cases.

The Portable Guides were developed for personnel

most immediately involved in investigating allegations of crimes against children: police officers,

attorneys, social workers, physicians, and psychologists. The compact size of the guides (5 inches

by 9 inches) allows them to be stored easily in the

glove compartment of a police cruiser. Each guide

is written in clear, concise language and includes

Police in Portsmouth, MA, credit OJJDP with

helping them solve the tragic case of a 10-yearold Cambridge youth who was abducted and

murdered by two individuals who lured him into

a car with the promise of a bicycle. Remembering that the Portsmouth police department

had recently hosted an OJJDP seminar on

responding to reports of missing and abducted

children, the State police, who were coordinating this investigation across several States, asked

for their assistance. Using the training they had

received from OJJDP, the Portsmouth police

department set up a command post to coordinate the search for the young boy. One of the

suspects confessed that the boy had been

murdered but tried to divert the search to the

wrong location. Despite the suspect’s efforts to

divert the search, the police department used

concepts learned from OJJDP’s training to

coordinate search teams and ultimately located

the child’s body.

Portsmouth Police Department

Portsmouth, MA
FY 1996/FY 1997 23

Annual Report

lists, tables, charts, and sample forms with information that can be assimilated quickly and easily.

They were written by recognized experts in each

subject area. OJJDP published 11 Portable Guides

during the past 2 years:

✦ Battered Child Syndrome: Investigating Physical

Abuse and Homicide.

✦ Burn Injuries in Child Abuse.

✦ Child Neglect and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

✦ Criminal Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse.

✦ Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse.

✦ Interviewing Child Witnesses and Victims of Sexual

Abuse.

✦ Law Enforcement Response to Child Abuse.

✦ Photodocumentation in the Investigation of Child

Abuse.

✦ Recognizing When a Child’s Injury or Illness Is

Caused by Abuse.

✦ Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Child Sexual

Abuse.

✦ Understanding and Investigating Child Sexual

Abuse.

OJJDP has received many letters praising the

series and numerous orders for the guides. Police

and county sheriff’s departments, district attorney

and judicial offices, State courts, children and

youth services agencies, and many others have

requested multiple copies of the guides to use in

training. One child protective services unit, for

example, requested 900 sets to be used for training.

Two additional guides are currently being developed: one on a multidisciplinary team approach to

investigating child abuse and another on computers

and the sexual exploitation of children.

Another publication well received by the field was

a resource manual released in 1996. Federal Resources

on Missing and Exploited Children: A Directory for Law

Enforcement and Other Public and Private Agencies puts

a wealth of information at the fingertips of personnel who serve these children. It describes the many

investigative resources, publications, training and

technical assistance opportunities, and services

available to law enforcement and other public and

private agencies that serve missing and exploited

children and their families. The resource manual

contains extensive information about services

available from a variety of Federal agencies. It also

provides quick and easy access to the resources

available during the investigation of missing and

exploited children cases. The manual provides

practical tools for practitioners in the areas of child

sexual exploitation, child pornography, child

abductions, and missing children cases. More than

18,000 copies of the manual have been distributed

nationwide to law enforcement and child-serving

agencies.

In 1996, OJJDP released a special report, Special

Joint Report: Federal Agency Task Force for Missing and

Exploited Children, that describes the many accomplishments of the Federal Agency Task Force for

Missing and Exploited Children, established in 1995.

The task force includes representatives from the

U.S. Departments of Defense, Education, Health

and Human Services, Justice, State, and Treasury;

the U.S. Postal Service; and NCMEC. The report

summarizes the agencies’ individual and collective

efforts and highlights steps that have been taken to

better protect and support missing and exploited

children and their families.

OJJDP and NCMEC also published A Report to

the Nation: Missing and Exploited Children. It describes

individual State action plans and advisory memorandums and suggests ways to improve State and

local responses to missing and exploited children

A teacher who teaches a graduate class

in classroom management says OJJDP’s

document Recognizing When a Child’s Injury

or Illness Is Caused by Abuse is “exactly what

my students have been asking for. They are

constantly asking how to identify when a

child may be abused.”

Graduate-Level Teacher

Greenville, SC
24 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

cases. The report has been sent to all State governors

and attorneys general. It is available from JJC.

OJJDP also provided funds to the ABA for the

development of Juvenile and Family Court Journal,

Jurisdiction in Child Custody and Abduction Cases: A

Judge’s Guide to the UCCJA, PKPA, and the Hague

Child Abduction Convention. The publication examines

the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and

the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.

During the past 2 years OJJDP released Fact

Sheets on various topics, including parental

kidnaping, Department of Justice programs for

missing and exploited children, and a summary

of MECP. NCMEC also produced numerous

publications for parents, social services, and

juvenile justice personnel who work with missing

and exploited children. Publication topics ranged

from advice for parents selecting babysitters to

a Case in Point series for criminal justice professionals that examines case histories of convicted

serial child molesters. These documents are available

from NCMEC.

New Research Findings About

Child Homicides

MECP supports numerous research studies that

address issues surrounding missing and exploited

children. One of them, a 3-year research study of

missing child homicides conducted by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, found

valuable new data with significant implications for

law enforcement. The study examined 577 child

abduction murder cases from 44 States.

Researchers interviewed investigators who had

successfully closed missing child homicide cases

and collected information about investigative

techniques; media impact; victim typology and risk

assessment; offender characteristics, including

postoffense behavior; evidence collection; and the

various evidence sites within a homicide incident.

The report is available from the Washington State

Attorney General’s Office Homicide Investigation

Tracking Office, 800–345–2793.

Training and Technical

Assistance

MECP continued to provide training and technical

assistance through its grantee, FVTC of Appleton,

WI. In 1997, 4,100 individuals attended FVTC’s

training courses on a variety of topics, including

investigative techniques, interview strategies,

offender and victim profiles, community team

investigations, and an overview of available

resources to help State and local law enforcement

investigate cases of missing, exploited, and abused

children. During 1997, FVTC held 25 regional

training courses throughout the country, conducted

10 week-long courses for local communities that

requested training, and responded to 50 State and

local requests for technical assistance. FVTC also

implemented the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement

Training Center program (see page 22).

New Initiative

MECP awarded 1997 funds to the National Center

on Child Fatality Review (NCCFR) in Los Angeles

for a new initiative to develop State and local

uniform reporting definitions and generic child

fatality review team protocols for communities

interested in enhancing their child death investigations. NCCFR has developed a model for integrating data among the criminal justice, vital statistics,

and social services child abuse indices.

Continuation Programs

MECP funded several continuation programs

during the past 2 years, including the Alzheimer’s

Disease and Related Disorders Association’s

Safe Return Program. During 1997, the program

increased its registration data base to 30,000

individuals and assisted in the return of 1,700

patients who had wandered from their caregivers.

The program also continued to manage a data base

of more than 25,500 photographs, produced and

disseminated training videos for law enforcement,

and distributed Safe Return handbooks for the

Alzheimer’s Association.
FY 1996/FY 1997 25

Annual Report

OJJDP also continued to fund the Missing and

Exploited Children’s Comprehensive Action

Program (M/CAP), a training program conducted

by FVTC. M/CAP promotes the use of community

multiagency teams to respond to missing and

exploited children cases. OJJDP encouraged

existing M/CAP sites to serve as regional technical

assistance sites, and FVTC provided training and

technical assistance to communities interested in

developing M/CAP programs in their neighborhoods. To date, 27 communities have implemented

this program, including a statewide effort in South

Carolina.

OJJDP funding allowed NCMEC to continue its

online access to the FBI National Crime Information Center’s (NCIC’s) wanted and missing persons

files. NCMEC’s ability to verify NCIC entries,

communicate with law enforcement through the

Interstate Law Enforcement Telecommunication

System, and be notified of life-threatening cases

through the NCIC flagging system is crucial to its

mission of providing advice and technical assistance to law enforcement. A new flagging system

that provides a place for reporting the endangered

child was implemented in 1997.

Temple University Institute for Survey Research

in Philadelphia continued work on OJJDP’s

second National Incidence Studies of Missing,

Exploited, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway

Children (NISMART II). The project is building

on the strengths and creatively addresses some

of the weaknesses of the first incidence studies.

Temple has assembled a team of experts who have

extensive knowledge and experience with child

victimization and survey research capabilities,

particularly those involving sensitive topics regarding children and families. Temple is contracting

with the University of New Hampshire Survey

Research Lab and Westat, Inc., to carry out

specific components of the study and to provide

extensive background knowledge about

NISMART I. Preliminary results are expected

in early 1999.

In late 1995, OJJDP awarded the ABA an

18-month grant to study effective communitybased approaches for dealing with missing and

exploited children. During 1997, the grantee

completed a national search for communities that

had successfully implemented a multiagency

response to missing and exploited children and

selected five sites that hold promise for replication.

After synthesizing the research findings, the ABA

will develop a training curriculum to help other

communities plan, implement, and evaluate a

multiagency approach for handling missing and

exploited children cases.

OJJDP also continued to fund the American

Prosecutors Research Institute of the National

District Attorneys’ Association of Alexandria, VA.

During 1997, the grantee trained 60 prosecutors on

missing and exploited children issues, disseminated

a quarterly newsletter, maintained an up-to-date

parental kidnaping and child exploitation data base

that included statutes and case law summaries, and

provided technical assistance to more than 100

prosecutors and investigators.

The wide range of programs funded by MECP

during the past 2 years—from NCMEC to the

numerous publications, training, technical assistance,

and research activities—have helped heighten

public awareness, improve law enforcement

responses, and focus national attention on ways

to help missing and exploited children and their

families.
FY 1996/FY 1997 27

Annual Report

Chapter 5

State and Local Assistance Grants Programs

A large portion of OJJDP’s annual appropriation

supports three programs that award funds directly

to States to help communities combat juvenile

crime and develop programs directed toward youth

who are at risk of committing delinquent or criminal acts. Each has made significant contributions to

the field of juvenile justice during the past 2 years.

The oldest of these programs, the Formula Grants

Program, has fundamentally changed the way in

which the juvenile justice system detains juveniles.

It has been especially successful in helping States

meet the needs of noncriminal juveniles—or status

offenders—who were being confined in facilities

where they did not belong and in removing juvenile

offenders from adult jails and lockups where they

were subject to abuse and influence by adult

criminals. The Office is equally proud of the Title

V Program, which is providing communities with

the framework, tools, and initial funding needed

to develop and implement delinquency prevention

programs. It is especially exciting to see communities, which in the past had asked the Federal

Government to help them “do something” about

their growing juvenile crime problems, address

these problems themselves through a methodical

assessment of community needs. Early indications

show that this strategy of helping communities

develop programs designed to meet their specific

needs is successful.

The accomplishments of OJJDP’s three formula

grants programs—State Formula Grants Program,

Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency

Prevention Program, and State Challenge

Activities—are described in this chapter.

Formula Grants Program

The Formula Grants Program has been operating

for more than 23 years, since Congress passed

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(JJDP) Act in 1974. It provides funds to help States

meet four core requirements of the JJDP Act. The

Act requires States to (1) deinstitutionalize status

offenders and nonoffenders, (2) separate adults

and juveniles held in secure institutions, (3)

eliminate the practice of detaining or confining

juveniles in adult jails and lockups, and (4) reduce

the disproportionate representation of minority

juveniles in secure facilities where such conditions

exist. Most States are now in full compliance or

compliance with de minimis exceptions to the first

three requirements. The fourth requirement was

added to the level of a full core requirement in

1992 when Congress amended the JJDP Act.

States are meeting this requirement as well by

documenting numbers of minority and nonminority

juveniles in secure confinement, analyzing the

reasons for disproportionate representation, and

implementing activities to address this issue.

One of OJJDP’s major accomplishments in FY

1996 was to revise the regulations that govern

the Formula Grants Program. Seeking input from

the field, OJJDP invited judges, public defenders,

prosecutors, sheriffs, other juvenile justice practitioners, and private citizens to “listening” conferences

in Idaho and New Jersey. OJJDP also met with

national associations and youth-serving agencies

and asked for their responses to the proposed

The University of Iowa, hired by the State

to evaluate the planning, program implementation, and early outcomes of 20 of its Title V

prevention grants programs, concluded that

many programs are producing positive changes

in client attitudes and behaviors.
28 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

changes. The Office also asked for written suggestions from State agencies and State advisory

groups charged with implementing the JJDP

Act and met with public interest groups and youth

advocacy organizations. The resulting revisions

allow States to be more flexible and reduce the

complexity of program administration.

During 1996 and 1997, 57 States and Territories

were eligible to participate in the Formula Grants

Program. Wyoming and Kentucky did not meet the

requirements necessary to participate. According

to 1994 and 1995 monitoring reports, which

determined eligibility for FY 1996 and 1997

Formula Grant funds, the vast majority of States

were in compliance with the four core requirements

of the JJDP Act. (The term “States” as used

throughout the remainder of this chapter includes

U.S. Territories and the District of Columbia.)

Each State’s annual monitoring report is based

on data the State collects from secure juvenile

and adult facilities. Data collection includes selfreporting to a State agency, onsite data collection

by a State agency, or a combination of these

methods. All State agencies administering the

JJDP Formula Grants Program are required to

verify data that are self-reported by facilities and

received from other State agencies.

During 1997, 11 States with no violations were in

compliance with the deinstitutionalization of status

offenders provision of the JJDP Act, which

stipulates that status offenders and nonoffenders

cannot be detained or confined in secure detention

or correctional facilities. Forty-four States were in

full compliance with de minimis exceptions, with

fewer than 29.4 violations per 100,000 persons

under age 18 in the State.

Thirty-eight States with no violations were in

compliance with the separation provision of the

JJDP Act, which requires that accused and

adjudicated delinquent, status offender, and

nonoffender juveniles not have contact with

incarcerated adults. Seventeen States were in

compliance with separation based on regulatory

exceptions.

The jail and lockup removal provision of the JJDP

Act stipulates that juveniles cannot be detained in

any adult jail or lockup. Twelve States with zero

violations were in full compliance with this provision. Forty-two States were in compliance with de

minimis exceptions, with fewer than 9 violations

per 100,000 persons under age 18 in the State.

One State is out of compliance with this provision.

Compliance with the disproportionate minority

confinement (DMC) section of the JJDP Act is

based on information provided in the States’ FY

1996 Formula Grants Comprehensive Three-Year

Plan Update. The provision requires States to

determine if minority juveniles are disproportionately confined in secure detention and correctional

facilities and, if so, to identify and address any

features of their system that may account for the

situation. Thirty-eight States have completed the

identification and assessment phases and are

implementing the intervention phase of the DMC

initiative.

Another four States have completed the identification and assessment phases and have submitted

a time-limited plan of action for completing the

intervention phase. Four States have completed

the identification phase, submitted a time-limited

plan of action for the assessment phase, and agreed

to submit a time-limited plan for addressing the

intervention phase. Nine States have completed the

identification phase and determined that minority

youth are not disproportionately arrested or

detained in their States.

The charts on pages 29–37 provide an overview of

State compliance.

Community Prevention Grant

Program

The Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency

Prevention Program provides funds to local communities to start juvenile crime prevention programs.

Though only 5 years old, this program has produced

promising results.

Continued on page 38
FY 1996/FY 1997 29

Annual Report

1994 1995

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)

Full compliance—zero violations 13 11

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 43* 44

Not participating 1 2

Separation of Juvenile and Adult Offenders

Full compliance—zero violations 42* 38

Full compliance—exception provision 13 17

Not in compliance 1 0

Not participating 1 2

Jail and Lockup Removal

Full compliance—zero violations 14 12

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 38 42**

Not in compliance 4* 1

Not participating 1 2

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)

Completed identification phase, assessment phase, 28 38

and now implementing the intervention phase

Completed identification phase and assessment phase, 7 4

and submitted time-limited plan for intervention phase

Completed identification phase, submitted time-limited 11 4

plan for assessment phase, and agreed to submit a

time-limited plan for intervention phase

Completed identification phase—no DMC problem 9 9

exists in State

State’s 1996 Formula Grant applications under review— 1* –

eligibility to be determined

Not participating 1 2

* Kentucky submitted a 1994 Compliance Monitoring Report but did not participate in the 1996 Formula Grants Program.

** Nebraska’s 1995 Monitoring Report indicated that the State was not in compliance with the jail and lockup removal requirement.

However, Nebraska was able to submit newer data that established its compliance with de minimis exceptions.

1994 and 1995 Compliance Summary Totals
30 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report Full compliance— zero violations

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions (1)Not participating

Formula Grant Participants

State Compliance

Based on 1995 Reports

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—de minimis exceptions (1)Not participating

Formula Grant Participants

Alabama ◆

Alaska ◆

Arizona ◆

Arkansas ◆

California ◆

Colorado ◆

Connecticut ◆

Delaware ◆

D.C. ◆

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 ◆

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF STATUS OFFENDERS

(DSO)

Sec. 223(a)(12)(A)

(1) Fewer than 29.4 violations per 100,000 persons under age 18

in the State.

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF STATUS OFFENDERS

(DSO)

Sec. 223(a)(12)(A)

New York ◆

North Carolina ◆

North Dakota ◆

Ohio ◆

Oklahoma ◆

Oregon ◆

Pennsylvania ◆

Rhode Island ◆

South Carolina ◆

South Dakota ◆

Tennessee ◆

Texas ◆

Utah ◆

Vermont ◆

Virginia ◆

Washington ◆

West Virginia ◆

Wisconsin ◆

Wyoming ◆

Amer. Samoa ◆

Guam ◆

N. Marianas ◆

Palau ◆

Puerto Rico ◆

Virgin Islands ◆

TOTALS 11 44 2
FY 1996/FY 1997 31

Annual Report

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—exception provision (2)Not participating

Formula Grant Participants

New York ◆

North Carolina ◆

North Dakota ◆

Ohio ◆

Oklahoma ◆

Oregon ◆

Pennsylvania ◆

Rhode Island ◆

South Carolina ◆

South Dakota ◆

Tennessee ◆

Texas ◆

Utah ◆

Vermont ◆

Virginia ◆

Washington ◆

West Virginia ◆

Wisconsin ◆

Wyoming ◆

Amer. Samoa ◆

Guam ◆

N. Marianas ◆

Palau ◆

Puerto Rico ◆

Virgin Islands ◆

TOTALS 38 17 2

SEPARATION OF

JUVENILES AND ADULT

OFFENDERS

Sec. 223(a)(13)

(2) OJJDP regulatory criteria set forth in Section 31.303(f)(6)(ii) of

the OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation (28 CFR 31) and published

in the June 20, 1985, Federal Register, allow States reporting noncompliant incidents to continue in the program provided the incidents are

in violation of State law and no pattern or practice exists.

State Compliance

Based on 1995 Reports

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—exception provision (2)Not participating

Formula Grant Participants

SEPARATION OF

JUVENILES AND ADULT

OFFENDERS

Sec. 223(a)(13)

Alabama ◆

Alaska ◆

Arizona ◆

Arkansas ◆

California ◆

Colorado ◆

Connecticut ◆

Delaware ◆

D.C. ◆

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 ◆
32 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report Full compliance— zero violations Full compliance— de minimis exceptions (3)

Not in complianceNot participating

Formula Grant

Participants

State Compliance

Based on 1995 Reports

Formula Grant

Participants

Alabama ◆

Alaska ◆

Arizona ◆

Arkansas ◆

California ◆

Colorado ◆

Connecticut ◆

Delaware ◆

D.C. ◆

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 ◆

JAIL AND LOCKUP

REMOVAL

Sec. 223(a)(14)

(3) Fewer than 9 violations per 100,000 persons under age 18 in

the State.

* Nebraska’s 1995 Monitoring Report indicated that the State was

not in compliance with the jail and lockup removal requirement.

However, Nebraska was able to submit newer data that established

its compliance with de minimis exceptions.

JAIL AND LOCKUP

REMOVAL

Sec. 223(a)(14)

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—de minimis exceptions (3)

Not in complianceNot participating

New York ◆

North Carolina ◆

North Dakota ◆

Ohio ◆

Oklahoma ◆

Oregon ◆

Pennsylvania ◆

Rhode Island ◆

South Carolina ◆

South Dakota ◆

Tennessee ◆

Texas ◆

Utah ◆

Vermont ◆

Virginia ◆

Washington ◆

West Virginia ◆

Wisconsin ◆

Wyoming ◆

Amer. Samoa ◆

Guam ◆

N. Marianas ◆

Palau ◆

Puerto Rico ◆

Virgin Islands ◆

TOTALS 12 42 1 2
FY 1996/FY 1997 33

Annual Report

Formula Grant

Participants

Formula Grant

Participants

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC)

Sec. 223(a)(23)

State Compliance

Based on FY 1996 Formula Grants Program Comprehensive Plan Completed identification and assessment/implementing intervention phase Completed identification and assessment/agreed to submit time-limited plan for completing intervention Completed identification/ submitted time-limited plan for assessment Completed identification phase—no DMC problem in the State Not participating

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC)

Sec. 223(a)(23)

Alabama ◆

Alaska ◆

Arizona ◆

Arkansas ◆

California ◆

Colorado ◆

Connecticut ◆

Delaware ◆

D.C. ◆

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 ◆

Completed identificationand assessment/implementingintervention phaseCompleted identificationand assessment/agreed tosubmit time-limited plan forcompleting interventionCompleted identification/submitted time-limited plan

for assessmentCompleted identificationphase—no DMC problemin the StateNot participating

New York ◆

North Carolina ◆

North Dakota ◆

Ohio ◆

Oklahoma ◆

Oregon ◆

Pennsylvania ◆

Rhode Island ◆

South Carolina ◆

South Dakota ◆

Tennessee ◆

Texas ◆

Utah ◆

Vermont ◆

Virginia ◆

Washington ◆

West Virginia ◆

Wisconsin ◆

Wyoming ◆

Amer. Samoa ◆

Guam ◆

N. Marianas ◆

Palau ◆

Puerto Rico ◆

Virgin Islands ◆

TOTALS 38 4 4 9 2
34 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report Full compliance— zero violations

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions (1)Not participating

Formula Grant Participants

State Compliance

Based on 1994 Reports

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—de minimis exceptions (1)Not participating

Formula Grant Participants

Alabama ●

Alaska ●

Arizona ●

Arkansas ●

California ●

Colorado ●

Connecticut ●

Delaware ●

D.C. ●

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 ●

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF STATUS OFFENDERS

(DSO)

Sec. 223(a)(12)(A)

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF STATUS OFFENDERS

(DSO)

Sec. 223(a)(12)(A)

New York ●

North Carolina ●

North Dakota ●

Ohio ●

Oklahoma ●

Oregon ●

Pennsylvania ●

Rhode Island ●

South Carolina ●

South Dakota ●

Tennessee ●

Texas ●

Utah ●

Vermont ●

Virginia ●

Washington ●

West Virginia ●

Wisconsin ●

Wyoming ●

Amer. Samoa ●

Guam ●

N. Marianas ●

Palau ●

Puerto Rico ●

Virgin Islands ●

TOTALS 13 43 1

* Kentucky submitted a 1994 Compliance Monitoring Report but

did not participate in the 1996 Formula Grants Program.

(1) Fewer than 29.4 violations per 100,000 persons under age 18

in the State.
FY 1996/FY 1997 35

Annual Report

Formula Grant

Participants

SEPARATION OF

JUVENILES AND ADULT

OFFENDERS

Sec. 223(a)(13)

State Compliance

Based on 1994 Reports

Formula Grant

Participants

SEPARATION OF

JUVENILES AND ADULT

OFFENDERS

Sec. 223(a)(13)

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—exception provision (2)

Not in complianceNot participating

Full compliance—

zero violationsFull compliance—exception provision (2)

Not in complianceNot participating

* Kentucky submitted a 1994 Compliance Monitoring Report but

did not participate in the 1996 Formula Grants Program.

(2) OJJDP regulatory criteria set forth in Section 31.303(f)(6)(ii)

of the OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation (28 CFR 31) and published

in the June 20, 1985, Federal Register, allow States reporting noncompliant incidents to continue in the program provided the incidents

are in violation of State law and no pattern or practice exists.

Alabama ●

Alaska ●

Arizona ●

Arkansas ●

California ●

Colorado ●

Connecticut ●

Delaware ●

D.C. ●

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 Dakota ●

Tennessee ●

Texas ●

Utah ●

Vermont ●

Virginia ●

Washington ●

West Virginia ●

Wisconsin ●

Wyoming ●

Amer. Samoa ●

Guam ●

N. Marianas ●

Palau ●

Puerto Rico ●

Virgin Islands ●

TOTALS 42 13 1 1
36 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report Full compliance— zero violations Full compliance— de minimis exceptions (3)

Not in complianceNot participating

Formula Grant

Participants

State Compliance

Based on 1994 Reports

Formula Grant

Participants

Alabama ●

Alaska ●

Arizona ●

Arkansas ●

California ●

Colorado ●

Connecticut ●

Delaware ●

D.C. ●

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 ●

JAIL AND LOCKUP

REMOVAL

Sec. 223(a)(14)

JAIL AND LOCKUP

REMOVAL

Sec. 223(a)(14)

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—de minimis exceptions (3)

Not in complianceNot participating

New York ●

North Carolina ●

North Dakota ●

Ohio ●

Oklahoma ●

Oregon ●

Pennsylvania ●

Rhode Island ●

South Carolina ●

South Dakota ●

Tennessee ●

Texas ●

Utah ●

Vermont ●

Virginia ●

Washington ●

West Virginia ●

Wisconsin ●

Wyoming ●

Amer. Samoa ●

Guam ●

N. Marianas ●

Palau ●

Puerto Rico ●

Virgin Islands ●

TOTALS 14 38 4 1

* Kentucky submitted a 1994 Compliance Monitoring Report but

did not participate in the 1996 Formula Grants Program.

(3) Fewer than 9 violations per 100,000 persons under age 18 in the

State.
FY 1996/FY 1997 37

Annual Report

Formula

Grant

Participants

Formula

Grant

Participants

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC)

Sec. 223(a)(23)

State Compliance

Based on FY 1995 Formula Grants Program Comprehensive Plan Completed identification and assessment/implementing intervention phase Completed identification and assessment/agreed to submit time-limited plan for completing intervention Completed identification/ submitted time-limited plan for assessment Completed identification phase—no DMC problem in the State Grant application under review Not participating

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC)

Sec. 223(a)(23)

Completed identificationand assessment/implementingintervention phaseCompleted identificationand assessment/agreed tosubmit time-limited plan forcompleting interventionCompleted identification/submitted time-limited plan

for assessmentCompleted identificationphase—no DMC problemin the StateGrant application under reviewNot participating

Alabama ●

Alaska ●

Arizona ●

Arkansas ●

California ●

Colorado ●

Connecticut ●

Delaware ●

D.C. ●

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 Dakota ●

Tennessee ●

Texas ●

Utah ●

Vermont ●

Virginia ●

Washington ●

West Virginia ●

Wisconsin ●

Wyoming ●

Amer. Samoa ●

Guam ●

N. Marianas ●

Palau ●

Puerto Rico ●

Virgin Islands ●

TOTALS 28 7 11 9 1 1

* Kentucky submitted a 1994 Compliance Monitoring Report but

did not participate in the 1996 Formula Grants Program.
38 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

Passed by Congress in 1992, the Title V Program,

commonly known as the Community Prevention

Grant Program, encourages communities to design

and implement programs that prevent juveniles

from entering the juvenile justice system. Communities must base their programs on an assessment

of risk factors associated with the development of

delinquent behavior. This risk-focused prevention

strategy underscores the idea that the factors

contributing to the development of a problem must

be identified and addressed in order to prevent it

from occurring.

Local communities participating in the Community

Prevention Grant Program have designed a variety

of strategies. For example, Marquette County, WI,

developed a child at-risk program that provides

family management skills training and parenting

education.

The training includes two workshops. The first is

a 1-day workshop for the community’s major

policymakers, business leaders, and agency

executives. The second is a 3-day workshop with

hands-on exercises and activities for local prevention policy board members and staff. Local policy

boards are made up of various members of the

community representing sectors that provide

services for children, youth, and their families.

The training shows them how to use research to

identify and assess their community’s risk factors

and resources, and how to collect and analyze data

to prepare a 3-year delinquency prevention plan.

To date, more than 4,300 leaders representing

nearly 500 communities have received OJJDP’s

risk-focused delinquency prevention training.

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

and investment in these programs is impressive

and contributes to the programs’ success. Many

communities contribute more than 90 percent of

the cost of their program. In 1996, the General

Accounting Office found that Title V has been

instrumental in uniting broad groups of community

residents to design prevention programs based on

their specific needs. For example, the momentum

created by the risk-assessment forums in Tallahassee,

FL, resulted in a core of 350 volunteers who were

ready to help implement the area’s community

prevention initiative. Taking advantage of the skills

of those who volunteered, the program plans to

have professional family and marriage therapists

supervise student therapists, who will provide

counseling to low-income families in the community

and at the same time earn the practical experience

they need to graduate.

Congress appropriated $20 million for the Title V

Program in both FY 1996 and 1997; 54 States and

Territories received grants each year. OJJDP

awards grants to States for transmission through

State advisory groups to qualified units of general

local government that implement local delinquency

prevention programs.

Other communities have developed counseling and

intervention services, health services, school-based

programs that target truancy and other problems,

economic development and training programs such

as job readiness, law enforcement programs such

as community policing, and programs that streamline available services for youth and families.

The success of the Community Prevention Grant

Program is due in part to OJJDP’s extensive

training program, which helps local planners design

and implement prevention strategies. OJJDP

provides this training and technical assistance at

no cost to help communities organize key leaders

in their communities and help them establish a

risk-assessment prevention plan.

OJJDP’s Title V Program, which provides grants

for local delinquency prevention efforts, “has

been instrumental in giving communities

a rallying point, and has brought brand new

players to the table. It is extremely powerful for

our prevention efforts.”

State Juvenile Justice Specialist
FY 1996/FY 1997 39

Annual Report

To ensure the effectiveness of the Community

Prevention Grant Program, OJJDP is evaluating

individual local projects in addition to the national

program. The Office also published the Community

Self-Evaluation Workbook in 1996 to help local

communities assess and improve their delinquency

prevention programs. The Workbook provides userfriendly guidance on collecting data, analyzing

program progress and impact, and using evaluation

information to refine plans and programs as needed.

These self-evaluations are a critical way to conserve

resources. In 1997, OJJDP held four regional

training sessions to help juvenile justice specialists

across the country learn how to use the Workbook to

evaluate local prevention programs. The Workbook

is available from JJC.

The success of the Community Prevention Grant

Program is discussed in greater detail in the 1996

Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local

Delinquency Prevention Programs, available from JJC.

State Challenge Activities

The OJJDP State Challenge Activities Program

provides funds to States to develop, adopt, and

improve policies and programs in 1 or more of 10

program areas specified by Congress. Established

in 1992, the State Challenge Activities Program is

designed to promote systemic change at the State

level. Only those States participating in the Formula

Grants Program are eligible to receive State

Challenge grants. In 1996 and 1997, 54 States

participated in the program, which had an appropriation of $10 million each year.

The 10 State Challenge Activities include basic

system services, access to counsel, communitybased alternatives, violent juvenile offender facilities, gender bias policies and programs, State

ombudsman offices, deinstitutionalization of status

offenders and nonoffenders, alternatives to suspension and expulsion, aftercare services, and State

agency coordination/case review systems.

Both the level of participation in the program and

the number of State Challenge Activities chosen by

the States are encouraging. Nearly all of the States

are addressing at least two activities; one State

addressed six activities in 1996 and four in 1997.

(See the chart on page 42.)

During 1997, 24 States addressed the issue of

gender bias policies and programs. The common

approaches these States are taking include developing appropriate interventions to address chronic

status offender behaviors; implementing comprehensive strategies to work effectively with this

population, with the goal of developing the full

potential of female youth; and providing specific

sensitivity and cultural awareness training for

professionals working with these youth. Many

States also addressed the prevention of suspensions

and expulsions from school (21), aftercare services

(20), increased community-based alternatives to

incarceration (20), and basic system services (15).

Only two States selected the establishment of an

ombudsman office and coordination of programs

and case reviews as their State Challenge Activities.

Following is a description of the 10 State Challenge

Activities and a chart showing State involvement.

Challenge Activity A

Developing and adopting policies and programs to

provide basic health, mental health, and appropriate education services, including special education,

for youth in the juvenile justice system as specified

in standards developed by the National Advisory

Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention prior to October 12, 1984.

Challenge Activity B

Developing and adopting policies and programs

to provide access to counsel for all juveniles in the

justice system to ensure that juveniles consult with

counsel before waiving the right 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
40 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

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 the placement of violent

juvenile offenders by closing down traditional

training schools and replacing them with secure

settings with capacities of no more than 50 violent

juvenile offenders with ratios of staff to youth

great enough to ensure adequate supervision and

treatment.

Challenge Activity E

Developing and adopting policies to prohibit

gender bias in placement and treatment and

establishing programs to ensure that female youth

have access to the full range of health and mental

health services, treatment for physical or sexual

assault and abuse, self-defense instruction, education in parenting, education in general, and other

training and vocational services.

Challenge Activity F

Establishing and operating, either directly or by

contract or arrangement with a public agency or

other appropriate private nonprofit organization

(other than an agency or organization that is

responsible for licensing or certifying out-of-home

care services for youth), a State ombudsman office

for children, youth, and families to investigate and

resolve complaints relating to action, inaction,

or decisions of providers of out-of-home care to

children and youth (including secure detention and

correctional facilities, residential care facilities,

public agencies, and social service agencies) that

may adversely affect health, safety, welfare, or

rights of resident children and youth.

Challenge Activity G

Developing and adopting policies and programs

designed to remove, where appropriate, status

offenders from the jurisdiction of the juvenile

court to prevent the placement in secure detention

facilities or secure correctional facilities of juveniles

who are nonoffenders or who are charged with or

who have committed offenses that would not be

criminal if committed by an adult.

Challenge Activity H

Developing and adopting policies and programs

designed to serve as alternatives to suspension and

expulsion from school.

Challenge Activity I

Increasing aftercare services for juveniles involved

in the justice system by establishing programs

and developing and adopting policies to provide

comprehensive health, mental health, education,

vocational services, and services that preserve and

strengthen the families of such juveniles.

Challenge Activity J

Developing and adopting policies to establish:

(i) a State administrative structure to coordinate

program and fiscal policies for children who have

emotional and behavioral problems and their

families among the major child-serving systems,

including schools, social services, health services,

and the juvenile justice system; and

(ii) a Statewide case review system. The term “case

review system” means a procedure for ensuring

that—
FY 1996/FY 1997 41

Annual Report

(a) each youth has a case plan, based on the

use of objective criteria for determining a

youth’s danger to the community or himself or

herself, that is designed to achieve appropriate

placement in the least restrictive and most

family-like setting available in close proximity

to the parents’ home, consistent with the best

interest and special needs of the youth;

(b) the status of each youth is reviewed periodically, but not less frequently than once

every three months, by a court or by administrative review, in order to determine the

continuing necessity for the appropriateness

of the placement;

(c) with respect to each youth, procedural

safeguards will be applied to ensure that a

dispositional hearing is held to consider the

future status of each youth under State supervision, in a juvenile or family court or another

court (including a tribal court) of competent

jurisdiction, or by an administrative body

appointed or approved by the court, not later

than 12 months after the original placement of

the youth and periodically thereafter during

the continuation of out-of-home placement;

and

(d) a youth’s health, mental health, and education record is reviewed and updated periodically.
42 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

1996 1997 1996 1997

CHALLENGE CHALLENGE CHALLENGE CHALLENGE

STATE ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES STATE ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES

Alabama C,H C,H

Alaska H,I H,I

Arizona G,H G,H,I

Arkansas B,I C,I

California C,E,I C,E,I

Colorado E,G B,G

Connecticut E,H E,H

Delaware E,H E,H

District of Columbia C,E C,E

Florida E,H E,H

Georgia A,I C,I

Hawaii E,G,H G,H

Idaho C,I A,E

Illinois A,B,C,E,H,I B,C,D,E

Indiana B,H B,H

Iowa E,J E,J

Kansas D,C C,I

Louisiana I J

Maine C,E C,E

Maryland A,E,F A,E,F

Massachusetts A,C,E,I A,C,E,I

Michigan E,H,I C,E,I

Minnesota E,I E,I

Mississippi A,B H,I

Missouri A,E,J C,H

Montana C,I C,H

Nebraska A,C C,H

Nevada A,I A,I

FY 1996 and 1997 Challenge Activities by State

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

New Hampshire C,G A,H

New Jersey C,E C,E

New Mexico C,G C,G

New York A,F,I A,E,I

North Carolina C,E C,E

North Dakota C,I H,I

Ohio B,C,E C,E

Oklahoma A,B,E,J C,I

Oregon A,H,I A,H,I

Pennsylvania D,I A,I

Rhode Island E,H E,H

South Carolina G,I G,I

South Dakota A,I A,I

Tennessee A,F B,F

Texas A,H A,H

Utah E,H E,H

Vermont A,I A,I

Virginia A,O A,C,D

Washington G,I A,E

West Virginia G,H H,I

Wisconsin I,A D,E

Amer. Samoa E A,E

Guam C,H C,H

N. Marianas — E,H

Palau E —

Puerto Rico H,E A,B

Virgin Islands E E,G
FY 1996/FY 1997 43

Annual Report

Chapter 6

Juveniles Taken Into Custody

OJJDP has been collecting information on the

number of juveniles held in detention and other

facilities for more than 20 years. 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.

Data from CIC have had an enormous impact on

juvenile justice policy. Findings from CIC in the

1970’s showed that States were using secure

facilities—intended for serious delinquent offenders—

to hold status offenders. This led Congress to

mandate that States participating in OJJDP’s

Formula Grants Program remove status offender

and nonoffender juveniles from such settings. In

the 1980’s, CIC data indicated that minorities were

disproportionately represented in secure placement

facilities. This led Congress to require States to

address disproportionate minority confinement

when submitting plans to OJJDP in order to

receive formula grants.

After using the same type of survey for more than

20 years, OJJDP consulted with juvenile justice

experts, survey methodologists, practitioners, and

facility personnel to determine if CIC was meeting

the needs of the field. As a result, the Office

concluded that CIC was not meeting these needs.

With the help of the U.S. Bureau of the Census

and a technical advisory board, OJJDP has

developed a new survey that more accurately

measures the numbers of juveniles in residential

placement and describes the reasons for their placement. This new Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement (CJRP) is replacing CIC. It is being

implemented by the Census Bureau.

OJJDP tested the new survey in 1996, gathering

data in a roster-type booklet format and by electronic means. The new method is expected to result

in more accurate and useful data on the juvenile

population while lessening the reporting burden

for facilities responding to the survey. The Office

funded the initial implementation of the new survey

in 1997, including preparation, mailing, and processing of census forms. The first survey results are

expected in the fall of 1998.

This chapter summarizes information about

juveniles in custody from the most recent CIC

survey, which was conducted in 1995. It includes

data about arrest rates, court cases, types of offenses,

and admissions to custody facilities. OJJDP

anticipates that CJRP information will be available

for the 1998 Annual Report.

According to the FBI, 2.1 million juveniles were

arrested in the United States in 1995. This represents a 20-percent rise in juvenile arrest rates

between 1985 and 1995. The largest percentage

increases were for drug and weapons offenses.

Males accounted for three-fourths of all juvenile

arrests. However, the percentage increase in arrests

for females was higher than the increase for males.

White youth accounted for 69 percent of all arrests.

Juvenile courts handled approximately 1.7 million

delinquency cases in 1995, a 45-percent increase

from 1986. Seventy-eight percent of these cases

involved males, but as in the arrest data, the percentage increase was higher for females. White

youth constituted 66 percent of the delinquency

court referrals while black youth were disproportionately represented; their referral rate was more

than twice their representation in the general

population.

Approximately 50 percent of the cases processed

in juvenile courts were for property crimes and

20 percent were for violent offenses. Another 9

percent were drug cases and 18 percent were

public order offenses. Two-thirds of all delinquency

cases referred to the court were not adjudicated.
44 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

Of those adjudicated, one-half were for property

offenses. Once adjudicated, the majority of dispositions were to probation; 31 percent of the violent

offense cases resulted in out-of-home placement.

Admissions to juvenile custody facilities increased

38 percent between 1985 and 1995. Youth admitted

to juvenile and adult facilities reached their highest

level of 939,000 in the latest available reporting

period of 1995. The largest percentage of these

admissions were to juvenile detention facilities.

CIC collects the most comprehensive data available

on juvenile custody facilities in the United States.

The Census Bureau surveyed approximately 3,000

facilities in 1995. Of these, 65 percent were privately

operated. While only 15 percent of facilities were

considered overcrowded, 45 percent of all youth

admitted were placed in overcrowded facilities.

The largest facilities, therefore, have the biggest

crowding problems.

Of the 108,000 youth held in juvenile custody

facilities on a given day in 1995, 83 percent were

male; in addition, 40 percent were white, 39 percent

were black, 17 percent were Hispanic, and 4 percent

were from other minority groups. Thus, the racial

composition of the population in juvenile custody

facilities is completely different from the arrest or

court population (where whites accounted for 69

percent of all arrests and 64 percent of delinquency

court referrals). Black youth were greatly overrepresented in the custody population.

It is important to examine juvenile detention as a

point of custody because it is typically used prior

to adjudication and is often the gateway to further

penetration into the system. The number of juveniles

held in public detention centers on any given day

increased 74 percent between 1985 and 1995,

according to the latest available data. Males and

minority youth were more likely to be detained

across all offense categories.

Custody in a State juvenile correctional facility is

the furthest penetration a youth can make into the

juvenile justice system. In 1995, males constituted

the vast majority of admissions (90 percent) to

these facilities. Of all youth held (males and females),

44 percent were black, 39 percent were white, and

the remainder were from other minority groups.

Hispanic youth were admitted to State facilities at

three times the rate of whites; blacks were admitted

at seven times the rate of whites.

Property offenders constituted 38 percent of the

population and violent offenders 28 percent, followed by public order, drug, and other offenses

(each under 10 percent of the total population).

A higher proportion of females than males were

admitted for status offenses. Females generally

were admitted for less serious offenses. On average, youth were held approximately 8 months in

State facilities. Violent offenders had the longest

lengths of stay.

Some youth were held in adult facilities. While

they represent a relatively small proportion of all

youth in custody, there was a 14-percent increase

in the number of youth in adult jails between 1985

and 1995. The admission of youth to prison has

also been increasing. In 1993, almost 6,000 offenders under 18 were admitted to prison; 97 percent

were male and 65 percent were black. Violent

offenders accounted for slightly less than one-half

of youth admitted to prison.
FY 1996/FY 1997 45

Annual Report

Conclusion

As the OJJDP Administrator pointed out in his

Foreword to this Report, OJJDP’s actions during

FY 1996 and FY 1997 took place in a period that

saw the juvenile crime rate drop while juvenile

violence drew increasing concern from parents,

schools, and the community. In this environment,

OJJDP sought to provide leadership not only in

responding to current problems but also in developing long-term strategies to keep today’s children

from falling prey to the lure of gangs, drugs, guns,

and violence. It did this on many fronts.

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders—which

fostered community-based prevention programs to

reduce risk factors for juvenile crime and provide

buffering protective factors—provided direction

for many OJJDP initiatives during 1996 and

1997. OJJDP also worked with other Federal

agencies on the Coordinating Council on Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention to build on

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National

Juvenile Justice Action Plan, endorsed by the Coordinating Council in 1996, to help communities take

actions to combat juvenile crime and provide positive

opportunities for youth. In cooperation with the

National Institutes of Health, the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, and the National

Institute on Drug Abuse, OJJDP funded early

intervention programs with very young schoolchildren and studies that examined health-related

factors that may contribute to delinquency and

substance abuse.

Other OJJDP programs supported mentoring,

family strengthening, improved court handling

of child abuse and neglect cases, and other positive

approaches to preventing delinquency. In cooperation with the Department of Education, the Office

sought to heighten awareness of hate crimes,

providing a curriculum and special training to help

educators and law enforcement personnel respond

to such crimes and prevent them in the future.

At the same time, OJJDP’s Missing and Exploited

Children’s Program continued doing research and

providing technical assistance, and it continued to

fund the National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children, whose goal of implementing a missing

children’s clearinghouse in every State was reached

in 1997. The center hosted seminars for policylevel law enforcement executives and distributed

OJJDP’s series of Portable Guides, small, practical booklets to help police officers and medical and

social service professionals investigate child abuse

and neglect cases.

Through its Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse,

OJJDP has provided a central means of disseminating information and publications. During 1996

and 1997, OJJDP took advantage of new technologies to more effectively reach juvenile justice

audiences. The World Wide Web, CD-ROM,

and satellite videoconferencing now supplement

conferences as a means of sharing information on

juvenile justice issues.

The largest share of funds went to OJJDP’s

Formula Grants Programs, Title V/Community

Prevention Grant Program, and State Challenge

Activities Program—all of them designed to give

States and localities help in combating juvenile

crime and keeping at-risk youth from getting into

the juvenile justice system. The Formula Grants

have led to steady progress in deinstitu- tionalizing

status offenders, keeping juveniles out of adult jails

and lockups, and getting States to identify the

proportion of minority juveniles in secure detention. The Community Prevention Grant Program

succeeded during 1996 and 1997 in bringing broad

groups of community residents together to design

prevention programs based on their specific needs.

The State Challenge Activities Program, too,

enlisted wide State participation, with nearly all

States addressing at least 2 of the 10 activities for

which funds are provided.
46 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

The coordinated, comprehensive approaches

OJJDP has pursued in 1996 and 1997 offer States

and localities flexibility to develop approaches and

programs in tune with their own needs and benefiting from broad community participation. OJJDP’s

approaches have been coordinated and comprehensive on the Federal level as well, many of them

carried out jointly with other departments and

agencies in recognition that the provision of

effective and fair juvenile justice—and the prevention of delinquency—is not within the purview of a

single agency but is the responsibility of society as

a whole.
FY 1996/FY 1997 47

Annual Report

Appendix

OJJDP Publications Released in 1996 and 1997

Courts

A Guide for Implementing Teen Court Programs (Fact

Sheet), FS–9645

Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) (Fact Sheet),

FS–9642

Delays in Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases

(Fact Sheet), FS–9760

Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Courts, 1994 (Fact Sheet),

FS–9647

Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1985–1994

(Fact Sheet), FS–9752

Drug Offense Cases in Juvenile Court, 1985–1994 (Fact

Sheet), FS–9753

Due Process Advocacy (Fact Sheet), FS–9749

Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases, 1985–

1994 (Fact Sheet), FS–9757

Juvenile Court Statistics 1993 (Statistics Report),

NCJ 159535

Juvenile Court Statistics 1994 (Statistics Report),

NCJ 163709

The Juvenile Drug Court Movement (Fact Sheet),

FS–9759

The National Juvenile Court Data Archive: Collecting

Data Since 1927 (Fact Sheet), FS–9766

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1993 (Bulletin),

NCJ 160945

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1994 (Bulletin),

NCJ 162423

Person Offenses in Juvenile Court, 1985–1994 (Fact

Sheet), FS–9648

About the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

An Introduction to the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Fact Sheet), FS–9643

Comprehensive Program Plan for Fiscal Year 1996:

OJJDP Program Objectives, SL 000227

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(Brochure), NCJ 144527

Corrections and Detention

Accountability-Based Sanctions (Fact Sheet), FS–9758

Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders (Program Summary),

NCJ 164258

Detention and Delinquency Cases, 1985–1994 (Fact Sheet),

FS–9756

Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice

(Research Report), NCJ 161408

Juvenile Arrests 1995 (Bulletin), NCJ 163813

Juvenile Boot Camps: Lessons Learned (Fact Sheet),

FS–9636

The Juvenile Delinquency Probation Caseload, 1985–1994

(Fact Sheet), FS–9754

Juvenile Detention Training Needs Assessment (Research

Report), NCJ 156833

Juveniles in Private Facilities, 1991–1995 (Fact Sheet),

FS–9764

Juvenile Probation: The Workhorse of the Juvenile Justice

System (Bulletin), NCJ 158534

Juveniles Taken Into Custody: Fiscal Year 1993 (Statistics

Report), NCJ 154022

Training of Staff in Juvenile Detention and Correctional

Facilities (Fact Sheet), FS–9637
48 FY 1996/FY 1997

Annual Report

Delinquency Prevention

1995 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for

Local Delinquency Prevention Programs (Program

Report), NCJ 160942

1996 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for

Local Delinquency Prevention Programs (Program

Report), NCJ 165694

Adolescent Motherhood: Implications for the Juvenile

Justice System (Fact Sheet), FS–9750

Allegheny County, PA: Mobilizing To Reduce Juvenile

Crime (Bulletin), NCJ 165693

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National

Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Report), NCJ 157106

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National

Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Summary), NCJ 157105

Creating Safe and Drug-Free Schools: An Action Guide,

NCJ 163064

Curfew: An Answer to Juvenile Delinquency and Victimization? (Bulletin), NCJ 159533

Keeping Young People in School: Community Programs

That Work (Bulletin), NCJ 162783

Matrix of Community-Based Initiatives (Program

Summary), NCJ 154816

Mentoring—A Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy

(Bulletin), NCJ 164834

Mobilizing Communities To Prevent Juvenile Crime

(Bulletin), NCJ 165928

Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Education Mainstream

(Bulletin), NCJ 163920

Title V Delinquency Prevention Program Community

Self-Evaluation Workbook, NCJ 160125

Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: The

MST Approach (Bulletin), NCJ 165151

YES: Youth Environmental Service Initiative (Fact Sheet),

FS–9530

Youth Environmental Service: YES in Action (Program

Summary), NCJ 159762

Youth Environmental Service: YES Technical Assistance

Package, NCJ 159763

Gangs

A Comprehensive Response to America’s Youth Gang

Problem (Fact Sheet), FS–9640

Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior (Bulletin),

NCJ 165154

Highlights of the 1995 National Youth Gang Survey

(Fact Sheet), FS–9763

1995 National Youth Gang Survey (Program Summary),

NCJ 164728

General

America’s Children: Key National Indicators of WellBeing, NCJ 165472

Delinquency Development Statements for Fiscal Year 1995

(Fact Sheet), FS–9646

Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System (Statistics

Summary), NCJ 160941

The Gould-Wysinger Awards: A Tradition of Excellence

(Fact Sheet), FS–9644

Information Sharing and the Family Educational Rights

and Privacy Act (Fact Sheet), FS–9639

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence

(Statistics Summary), NCJ 159107

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update on Violence

(Statistics Summary), NCJ 165703

Publications List—Spring 1996, BC 000115

Publications List—Spring 1997, BC 000115

Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act and Participation in Juvenile

Justice Programs (Program Report), NCJ 163705

State Challenge Activities (Bulletin), NCJ 163055

The Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under Age 15

(Bulletin), NCJ 165256

Missing and Exploited Children

Court Appointed Special Advocates: A Voice for Abused

and Neglected Children in Court (Bulletin), NCJ 164512
FY 1996/FY 1997 49

Annual Report

In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment (Bulletin),

NCJ 165257

Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center Program

(Fact Sheet), FS–9762

The Missing and Exploited Children’s Program (Fact

Sheet), FS–9761

Permanency Planning for Abused and Neglected Children

(Fact Sheet), FS–9765

Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse: An Overview

(Bulletin), NCJ 165153

Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse:

Battered Child Syndrome: Investigating Physical

Abuse and Homicide, NCJ 161406

Burn Injuries in Child Abuse, NCJ 162424

Child Neglect and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy,

NCJ 161841

Criminal Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse,

NCJ 162426

Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse, NCJ 161235

Interviewing Child Witnesses and Victims of Sexual

Abuse, NCJ 161623

Law Enforcement Response to Child Abuse,

NCJ 162425

Photodocumentation in the Investigation of Child

Abuse, NCJ 160939

Recognizing When a Child’s Injury or Illness Is

Caused by Abuse, NCJ 160938

Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Child Sexual

Abuse, NCJ 160940

Understanding and Investigating Child Sexual

Exploitation, NCJ 162427

Using Agency Records To Find Missing Children: A

Guide for Law Enforcement (Program Summary),

NCJ 154633

Status Offenders

Truancy: First Step to a Lifetime of Problems (Bulletin),

NCJ 161958

Violence and Victimization

Child Development–Community Policing: Partnership in

a Climate of Violence (Bulletin), NCJ 164380

Conflict Resolution (Fact Sheet), FS–9755

Conflict Resolution Education: A Guide to Implementing

Programs in Schools, Youth-Serving Organizations, and

Community and Juvenile Justice Settings (Program

Report), NCJ 160935

Epidemiology of Serious Violence (Bulletin),

NCJ 165152

Juvenile Firesetting and Arson (Fact Sheet), FS–9751

Reducing Youth Gun Violence: An Overview of Programs

and Initiatives (Program Report), NCJ 154303

SafeFutures: Partnerships To Reduce Youth Violence and

Delinquency (Fact Sheet), FS–9638

Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program

(Fact Sheet), FS–9635

State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime

(Fact Sheet), LT 240

State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime

(Research Report), NCJ 161565

Journals

Juvenile Justice, Volume II, Number 2

(Fall/Winter 1995), NCJ 152979

Offers a retrospective look at the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 and a

review of progress made in the deinstitutionalization

of status offenders.

Juvenile Justice, Volume III, Number 1

(December 1996), NCJ 161410

Describes restorative justice, the use of satellite

teleconferencing to deliver training, and OJJDP’s

community-based aftercare initiative.

Juvenile Justice, Volume III, Number 2

(September 1997), NCJ 165925

Discusses the lethal mix of kids and guns and

OJJDP’s National Juvenile Justice Action Plan, a

comprehensive approach to responding to juvenile

delinquency and crime.
Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a variety of publications—

Fact Sheets, Bulletins, Summaries, Reports,

and the Juvenile Justice journal—along with

videotapes, including broadcasts from the

juvenile justice telecommunications initiative.

Through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), these publications and other

resources are as close as your phone, fax,

computer, or mailbox.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7:00 p.m. ET)

Fax:

301–519–5212

Online:

OJJDP Home Page:

www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm

E-Mail:

puborder@ncjrs.org (to order materials)

askncjrs@ncjrs.org (to ask questions

about materials)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Fact Sheets and Bulletins are also available

through Fax-on-Demand.

Fax-on-Demand:

800–638–8736, select option 1, select option 2,

and listen for instructions

To ensure timely notice of new publications,

subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic

mailing list.

JUVJUST Mailing List:

e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

leave the subject line blank

type subscribe juvjust your name

In addition, 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. They are abstracted and

made available through a data base, which is

searchable online (www.ncjrs.org/database.htm).

You are also welcome to submit materials to

JJC for inclusion in the data base.

The following list highlights popular and recently

published OJJDP documents and videotapes,

grouped by topical areas.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Brochure (1996, NCJ 144527 (23

pp.)) offers more information about the agency.

The OJJDP Publications List (BC000115) offers

a complete list of OJJDP publications and is

also available online.

Corrections and Detention

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of

Confinement for Youth in Custody. 1998,

NCJ 164727 (116 pp.).

Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders. 1997,

NCJ 164258 (42 pp.).

Conditions of Confinement Teleconference

(Video). 1993, NCJ 147531 (90 min.), $14.00.

Effective Programs for Serious, Violent and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders Teleconference

(Video). 1996, NCJ 160947 (120 min.), $17.00.

Juvenile Arrests 1996. 1997, NCJ 167578

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Boot Camps Teleconference (Video).

1996, NCJ 160949 (120 min.), $17.00.

Juvenile Court Statistics 1995. 1998,

NCJ 170607 (112 pp.).

Courts

Has the Juvenile Court Outlived Its Usefulness?

Teleconference (Video). 1996, NCJ 163929

(120 min.), $17.00.

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1995. 1997,

NCJ 167885 (12 pp.).

RESTTA National Directory of Restitution

and Community Service Programs. 1998,

NCJ 166365 (500 pp.), $33.50.

Delinquency Prevention

1997 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention

Programs. 1998, NCJ 170605 (71 pp.).

Allegheny County, PA: Mobilizing To Reduce

Juvenile Crime. 1997, NCJ 165693 (12 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Report).

1996, NCJ 157106 (200 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Summary).

1996, NCJ 157105 (36 pp.).

Communities Working Together Teleconference

(Video). 1996, NCJ 160946 (120 min.), $17.00.

Mentoring—A Proven Delinquency Prevention

Strategy. 1997, NCJ 164834 (8 pp.).

Mentoring for Youth in Schools and Communities

Teleconference (Video). 1997, NCJ 166376

(120 min.), $17.00

Mobilizing Communities To Prevent Juvenile

Crime. 1997, NCJ 165928 (8 pp.).

Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Education

Mainstream. 1997, NCJ 163920 (12 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. 1998,

NCJ 170027 (8 pp.).

Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth:

The MST Approach. 1997, NCJ 165151 (8 pp.).

The Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under

Age 15. 1997, NCJ 165256 (12 pp.).

Youth-Oriented Community Policing Teleconference (Video). 1996, NCJ 160947 (120 min.),

$17.00.

Youth Out of the Education Mainstream Teleconference (Video). 1996, NCJ 163386 (120

min.), $17.00.

Gangs

1995 National Youth Gang Survey. 1997,

NCJ 164728 (41 pp.).

Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior. 1997,

NCJ 165154 (6 pp.).

Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998, NCJ 167249

(20 pp.).

Youth Gangs in America Teleconference

(Video). 1997, NCJ 164937 (120 min.), $17.00.

General Juvenile Justice

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice in State

Legislatures Teleconference (Video). 1998,

NCJ 169593 (120 min.), $17.00.

Developmental Pathways in Boys’ Disruptive

and Delinquent Behavior. 1997, NCJ 165692

(20 pp.).

Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Working With Children, the Elderly, and Individuals

With Disabilities in Need of Support. 1998,

NCJ 167248 (52 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume III, Number 2. 1997,

NCJ 165925 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume IV, Number 2. 1997,

NCJ 166823 (28 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume V, Number 1. 1998,

NCJ 170025 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States

1994–1996. 1997, NCJ 165697 (81 pp.).

A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century.

1998, NCJ 169726 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update

on Violence. 1997, NCJ 165703 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National

Report. 1995, NCJ 153569 (188 pp.).

Keeping Young People in School: Community

Programs That Work. 1997, NCJ 162783

(12 pp.).

Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act and

Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs.

1997, NCJ 163705 (52 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Court Appointed Special Advocates: A Voice

for Abused and Neglected Children in Court.

1997, NCJ 164512 (4 pp.).

Federal Resources on Missing and Exploited

Children: A Directory for Law Enforcement and

Other Public and Private Agencies. 1997,

NCJ 168962 (156 pp.).

In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment. 1997,

NCJ 165257 (16 pp.).

Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse:

An Overview. 1997, NCJ 165153 (8 pp.).

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.).

Substance Abuse

Beyond the Bench: How Judges Can Help Reduce Juvenile DUI and Alcohol and Other Drug

Violations (Video and discussion guide). 1996,

NCJ 162357 (16 min.), $17.00.

Capacity Building for Juvenile Substance

Abuse Treatment. 1997, NCJ 167251 (12 pp.).

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile

Justice System. 1998, NCJ 167889 (92 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Drug Treatment:

Promising Approaches Teleconference (Video).

1997, NCJ 168617 (120 min.), $17.00.

Preventing Drug Abuse Among Youth Teleconference (Video). 1997, NCJ 165583 (120 min.),

$17.00.

Violence and Victimization

Child Development–Community Policing:

Partnership in a Climate of Violence. 1997,

NCJ 164380 (8 pp.).

Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in

Schools. 1998, NCJ 167888 (16 pp.).

Conflict Resolution for Youth Teleconference

(Video). 1996, NCJ 161416 (150 min.), $17.00.

Epidemiology of Serious Violence. 1997,

NCJ 165152 (12 pp.).

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders. 1995, NCJ 153571 (6 pp.).

Reducing Youth Gun Violence Teleconference

(Video). 1996, NCJ 162421 (120 min.), $17.00.

Youth in Action

Planning a Successful Crime Prevention

Project. 1998, NCJ 170024 (28 pp.).
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

BULK RATE

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G–91

Annual Report NCJ 166597