U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Annual Report

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

1998

Annual Report

1998

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC
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

October 1999

This report covers activities undertaken by the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention during Fiscal

Year 1998.
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

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
FY 1998 iii

Annual Report

Foreword

Although serious violent crime by juveniles dropped 33 percent between 1993 and 1997, juvenile

delinquency and the victimization of juveniles remain serious concerns for juvenile justice practitioners and policymakers alike. How can we ensure public safety, hold juvenile offenders accountable, and help offenders develop into law-abiding citizens? What can we do to combat drug

and alcohol abuse? What programs work best in responding to juvenile gangs and gang violence?

What can we do to focus positive attention on the majority of youth who aren’t involved in delinquency? How can we protect children from maltreatment and abuse?

These are just some of the questions the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP) addressed during fiscal year 1998. The diverse programs we funded were designed to

help communities build on the downturn in juvenile crime by developing comprehensive, coordinated responses to delinquency. From promoting family strengthening, dependency court reform,

and opportunities for youth, to enhancing law enforcement efforts and strengthening the juvenile

justice system, integrated strategies can make a difference in a community’s rates of juvenile offending and victimization.

To support State and local efforts, OJJDP engages in a continuum of activity. First, we use what we

have learned from our research, evaluation, and statistical programs to develop model demonstration

programs. Once our evaluation efforts have proven these programs successful, we help other communities replicate them. Finally, we develop training and technical assistance to help others learn about

effective policies and programs. Keeping the public and policymakers informed about the issues surrounding juvenile crime and programs that work is a key OJJDP priority. This cycle of activity reflects a critical Federal role in supporting programs to help communities address problems.

This OJJDP Annual Report highlights some of the many accomplishments of FY 1998. It discusses

a variety of research, statistical, demonstration, training, technical assistance, and information

dissemination initiatives. It also provides a snapshot of how States and U.S. territories are using

formula and block grants from OJJDP to improve their juvenile justice systems and prevent delinquency. It summarizes our efforts to help missing and exploited children, including several new

initiatives to protect children from online exploitation. The Report also offers information about

the number of juveniles taken into custody and several new surveys that will provide even further

insights into juvenile detention and corrections issues.

 I hope that the information in this Report will help practitioners and policymakers as they shape

their programs to address juvenile delinquency and victimization. By working together and sharing our experiences, I am confident that we can ensure that the downturn in serious violent juvenile crime will continue.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
FY 1998 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 FY 1998 ..............................................................................................3

Assessment of Space Needs in Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities ............................................. 3

Balanced and Restorative Justice .................................................................................................................... 5

Combating Underage Drinking ....................................................................................................................... 5

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.......................................... 6

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ..................................................... 7

Drug-Free Communities Support Program .................................................................................................... 7

Gang Programs ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program............................................................................. 9

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

Model Courts Program ................................................................................................................................... 11

National Youth Network ................................................................................................................................ 11

Training and Technical Assistance for a Drug Prevention Program............................................................ 12

Chapter 2: Sharing Information ......................................................................................................................13

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse ..................................................................................................................... 13

Major Publications .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Media Campaign ............................................................................................................................................. 15

National Conference ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Satellite Videoconferencing ............................................................................................................................ 16

Chapter 3: FY 1998 Program Plan ..................................................................................................................17

Preventing and Intervening in Delinquency ................................................................................................. 17

Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System .................................................................................................. 18

Ensuring Public Safety and Enhancing Law Enforcement .......................................................................... 21

Addressing Child Abuse and Neglect ............................................................................................................ 21

Overarching Programs ................................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 4: Missing and Exploited Children’s Program .................................................................................25

Highlights ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

National Resource Center and Clearinghouse .............................................................................................. 26

Training and Technical Assistance Program.................................................................................................. 27

Continuation Programs................................................................................................................................... 28

Chapter 5: Formula and Block Grant Programs ............................................................................................31

Formula Grants Program ............................................................................................................................... 31

Community Prevention Grants Program (Title V) ....................................................................................... 41

State Challenge Activities ............................................................................................................................... 43

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

Combating Underage Drinking Program ...................................................................................................... 48
vi FY 1998

Annual Report

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 6: Juveniles Taken Into Custody ......................................................................................................51

Juvenile Arrests in 1997 ................................................................................................................................. 51

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement .............................................................................................. 52

Deaths in Custody .......................................................................................................................................... 53

Performance-Based Measures ........................................................................................................................ 53

Upcoming Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 54

Emerging Issues in Juvenile Detention and Corrections ............................................................................. 55

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................57

Appendix: OJJDP Publications Released in FY 1998 ..................................................................................59
FY 1998 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 and

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

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, OJJDP is

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

and the 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 considerably since OJJDP was

created, the Office continues to provide national

leadership and support an array of activities to help

States and local communities meet the many juvenile

justice challenges they face. These challenges include dealing with the small percentage of juveniles

who commit serious, violent offenses; holding young

offenders accountable for their unlawful actions;

combating alcohol and drug abuse; addressing gangs

and juvenile gun violence; working to strengthen

families; and helping children victimized by crime

and child abuse.

The Office funds critical research, statistical, and

evaluation efforts and demonstration programs,

provides technical assistance and training, produces

and distributes publications containing the most upto-date juvenile-justice-related information available,

oversees the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program, and administers formula, block, and discretionary grant programs.

This annual report describes OJJDP’s major accomplishments in these areas during fiscal year (FY)

1998, discusses the philosophy that guided its program plan, and summarizes the most recent data

available on juveniles taken into custody. These activities reflect OJJDP’s continuing commitment to

focus on programs that have the greatest potential

for reducing juvenile delinquency and improving

the juvenile justice system.
FY 1998 3

Annual Report

Chapter 1

Major Accomplishments in FY 1998

Since 1995, juvenile crime in this country has significantly decreased. The most recent figures from the

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime

Reporting Program indicate that, in 1997, juveniles

accounted for 19 percent of all arrests and 17 percent

of arrests for violent crimes. Although the juvenile

violent crime arrest rate increased more than 60 percent between 1988 and 1994, it decreased 23 percent

between 1994 and 1997. Similarly, the juvenile homicide arrest rate increased substantially between 1988

and 1993 but declined 39 percent between 1993 and

1997. It is also important to note that, in 1997, only a

fraction—less than one-half of 1 percent—of all juveniles were arrested for a violent crime.

Although these figures are encouraging, there is

still much work to be done. During the past year,

OJJDP remained at the forefront in providing national leadership to help prevent and control juvenile

delinquency and address the victimization of children. The Office’s many activities were designed to

help sustain the ebbing tide of juvenile crime and

to help make the Nation’s communities safe for both

children and adults. The Comprehensive Strategy

for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders continued to be the foundation of the Office’s

programs in FY 1998. The Comprehensive Strategy

is a research-based plan that calls for using a balanced approach to aggressively address juvenile

delinquency and violence by preventing the onset of

delinquency, improving the juvenile justice system’s

ability to respond to juvenile offending, and establishing graduated sanctions.

The Comprehensive Strategy and other accomplishments highlighted in this chapter represent the types

of programs OJJDP funded during FY 1998 to help

States and localities ensure a continuing decline in the

juvenile crime rate. The programs run the gamut from

research and evaluation to training and technical assistance to demonstration programs. They include

several major new programs established by Congress

and many ongoing programs. Recognizing the importance of knowing how well programs work, OJJDP

has built evaluation components into many of its programs and continued efforts on documenting what

works and what does not. OJJDP activities addressed a number of issues in FY 1998, including

accountability, alcohol and drug abuse, gangs, hate

crimes, and effective court programs. Sharing information with practitioners in the field remained a priority; dissemination activities are highlighted in chapter 2. The Missing and Exploited Children’s Program

also had many accomplishments, which are highlighted in chapter 4. Although this report highlights

several key OJJDP research, statistical, and evaluation projects, more detailed descriptions are contained

in OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for Juveniles. The

document is available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse (see page 13, under “How To Access

Information From JJC”).

Assessment of Space Needs

in Juvenile Detention and

Corrections Facilities

During the past year, OJJDP undertook a congressionally required study of space needs in juvenile detention and correctional facilities and submitted a report to Congress in July 1998. The report examines

the need for space nationwide based on information

from several data collection programs supported by

the U.S. Department of Justice. The report also analyzes this need in 10 States selected by Congress for

more detailed study. The States are Alaska, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New

Hampshire, South Carolina, West Virginia, and

Wisconsin.
4 FY 1998

Annual Report

Based on analysis of several national data sets and

on assessments from State experts, OJJDP found

the following:

✦ Nationwide, juvenile detention and corrections

facilities appear to be moderately crowded, although the causes of this crowding can be traced

to several factors other than the volume of juvenile crime in each jurisdiction.

✦ Most of the 10 States identified by Congress have

experienced moderate to severe crowding in their

juvenile detention and corrections facilities in

recent years.

✦ No State contacted for the assessment reported

that it had all of the resources it required for both

juvenile detention and juvenile corrections.

✦ Eight of the ten States plan to add 10 percent or

more to their existing corrections bedspace within

the next 5 years; 7 of the 10 plan to add 10 percent or more to the existing number of detention

beds.

The assessment also found several general obstacles

to effective State planning. These obstacles include:

✦ Projecting future juvenile corrections populations

is often more challenging than projecting future

trends in adult corrections.

✦ Nationally available information (e.g., population,

arrest, and juvenile court data) is insufficient for

projecting future juvenile detention and corrections bedspace in a manner that is most useful to

policymakers and administrators.

✦ Understanding the sources of demand for detention and corrections space requires a knowledge

of the laws, policies, and practices that shape each

jurisdiction’s juvenile justice system.

✦ The methods States currently use to plan for

future detention and corrections space vary

significantly.

✦ More than half of the States assessed for the

report make either limited or no use of empirically based methods to project future bedspace

needs.

The report emphasizes that assessing space needs

and projecting future requirements are policy

analysis exercises most effectively pursued as a

component of a more comprehensive planning

process. Projections of future bedspace are effective only if they provide sound information that is

useful for developing, implementing, and monitoring juvenile justice policy. The report also describes several sound methodologies to help States

increase their ability to forecast future bed needs.

It is, however, also clear from the report’s analysis

of existing national data sets and the experiences

of the 10 States that the solution to the States’

problems with projecting future bed needs is not

simply to increase the amount of data available

to State juvenile justice agencies. The report concludes that projecting future bedspace should be

an exercise at least as much in policy analysis as

in data analysis. In fact, the best approaches to

forecasting future corrections and detention needs

may involve using statistical forecast methodologies primarily as learning tools. In this way, population forecasting methods can aid State and local

officials in making complex decisions that are fundamentally about management and policy rather

than statistical accuracy.

OJJDP is expanding the scope of the report to provide an indepth analysis of the supply and demand

for detention and corrections bedspace nationally

and to develop analytic tools for use in determining

future needs at both the national and State levels.

OJJDP awarded a grant to The Urban Institute of

Washington, DC, to conduct the study, which is to

be completed by October 2000. The space needs assessment is funded through the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants program, discussed

later in this chapter. An Assessment of Space Needs in

Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities (Report to

Congress) is available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse (see page 13, under “How To Access

Information From JJC”).
FY 1998 5

Annual Report

Balanced and Restorative

Justice

Based on research showing that properly structured

restitution programs can help reduce recidivism,

OJJDP has supported the development and improvement of juvenile restitution programs since

1977. The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ)

project sprang from OJJDP’s Restitution, Education, Specialized Training, and Technical Assistance

(RESTTA) project. The three priorities of BARJ—

public safety, accountability, and competency development—recognize restoration of both victims and

offenders as critical goals of community justice. In

FY 1992, OJJDP awarded Florida Atlantic University of Fort Lauderdale a grant to enhance the development of restitution programs as part of systemwide

juvenile justice improvement using balanced approach concepts and restorative justice principles.

In subsequent years, the project developed a BARJ

program model. The model was initially described in

a 1994 OJJDP Program Summary, Balanced and Restorative Justice, which became a reference source for

BARJ training. During 1998, OJJDP published the

Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice

Model.

Project staff also drafted new training materials, including a BARJ Training Curriculum and a Training of Trainers Curriculum, both prepared in cooperation with the National Institute of Corrections.

The Training of Trainers Curriculum, which was

prepared under a separate Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) program grant

to Florida Atlantic University, represents the first

step in OJJDP’s commitment to develop a cadre of

trainers proficient in training juvenile justice managers and line staff across the Nation in accountabilitybased correctional interventions consistent with the

BARJ model.

During 1998, the BARJ project also intensified

training and technical assistance for State officials

and targeted key professional groups, such as judges

and prosecutors, for BARJ-focused orientation and

training. The project also provided training at numerous national and regional conferences and workshops and specialized roundtables. One roundtable

brought together staff from the three original BARJ

“intensive” sites—Allegheny County, PA; Dakota

County, MN; and West Palm Beach County, FL—

which have been implementing different degrees

of systemic change in accordance with the BARJ

model. Staff from other States and local jurisdictions

pursuing BARJ activities also participated in the

roundtable.

Combating Underage Drinking

OJJDP moved forward quickly to administer the

Combating Underage Drinking (CUD) program,

a new multifaceted program created by Congress.

OJJDP’s FY 1998 appropriation for this program

included funding for block grants to each of the 50

States and the District of Columbia, discretionary

programs, and training and technical assistance. The

CUD block grants program is discussed in chapter

5; discretionary and training and technical assistance

activities are highlighted here.

OJJDP awarded 10 States and Puerto Rico discretionary CUD funds in FY 1998 to help communities

develop comprehensive approaches to the problem of

underage drinking, with an emphasis on increasing

law enforcement activity. California, Connecticut,

Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New

Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin each received up to $400,000 to address underage drinking

at the local level. The communities include urban,

suburban, and rural areas; colleges; and Hispanic and

Asian populations. The States are implementing strategic plans based on community needs assessments,

increasing enforcement of underage drinking laws,

developing youth leadership and involvement in prevention and public awareness efforts, and hiring

project coordinators for communitywide task forces.

Puerto Rico received $25,000 to develop a pilot program with similar objectives.

OJJDP awarded a discretionary grant to Students

Against Destructive Decisions, Marlboro, MA, to

develop a youth-adult partnership to work with

alcohol distributors and law enforcement officials
6 FY 1998

Annual Report

and to implement the Not on Your Life program in

Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and New York. This

program seeks to ensure compliance with State underage drinking laws. Native American Connections, Inc., of Phoenix, AZ, received $400,000 to

develop and demonstrate a model program on four

tribal reservations to curtail the illegal sale of alcohol

to American Indian youth and develop youth leadership in combating alcohol abuse by American Indian

youth. An advisory committee of American Indians

is assisting with the selection process for the four

initial sites. OJJDP also will award funds to additional sites in the future.

Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC, received a grant to evaluate how States and local communities are using their block and discretionary

grants and to evaluate the impact of the program’s

first 2 years in a sample of communities.

OJJDP awarded four grants to support training

and technical assistance for combating underage

drinking in FY 1998. The National Association of

Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives of

Washington, DC, is helping to prepare States to

implement underage drinking prevention initiatives.

The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

(PIRE) of Bethesda, MD, is helping program grantees focus their efforts on prevention, intervention,

and enforcement issues related to retail and social

availability of alcohol to minors, possession of alcohol by minors, and drinking and driving by minors.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) of Irving, TX, received a grant to introduce youth leadership and program participation models to States and

local communities. The Police Executive Research

Forum (PERF) of Washington, DC, is identifying

state-of-the-art law enforcement techniques related

to underage drinking and is producing underage

drinking enforcement resource materials for police

executives.

To further help States combat underage drinking

and enforce underage drinking laws, OJJDP developed and distributed Enforcing the Underage Drinking

Laws Program: A Compendium of Resources. The Compendium includes information about the prevalence

of and trends in underage drinking and its relationship to driving fatalities; contact information for

Federal, State, and local agencies and national and

private organizations; descriptions of initiatives, programs, strategies, and materials that address underage drinking; and an annotated bibliography.

The Compendium is available online from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (see page 13, under

“How To Access Information From JJC”).

Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders

The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993)

serves as a juvenile justice planning process that

uses local planning teams to assess the factors and

influences that put youth at risk of delinquency, determine available resources, and establish prevention programs to reduce risk factors and provide

protective factors that buffer juveniles from the

impact of risk factors. OJJDP published the Guide

for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders in 1995 and has

distributed almost 30,000 copies of the Guide. It is

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

(see page 13, under “How To Access Information

From JJC”).

OJJDP launched a national training and technical

assistance initiative in selected communities in 1996

and in selected States in 1997. During FY 1998,

OJJDP continued to provide intensive training and

technical assistance to three pilot sites (San Diego

County, CA; and Fort Myers and Jacksonville, FL)

in the development of strategic plans for implementing the Comprehensive Strategy. OJJDP also is

providing intensive onsite technical assistance in

Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode

Island, Texas, and Wisconsin. OJJDP is field testing a community planning manual, designed to assist

local juvenile justice planners and professionals in

developing a comprehensive strategic plan, and

anticipates publishing the manual in 2000.
FY 1998 7

Annual Report

OJJDP continues to provide Comprehensive Strategy technical assistance, resource information, and

guidance workshops on the Comprehensive Strategy

to interested sites. OJJDP also plans to publish in

2000 a Comprehensive Strategy training curriculum

based on the experiences of the communities and

States that are developing Comprehensive Strategy

plans.

The local sites and sites in Iowa, Maryland, Rhode

Island, and Texas have published local Comprehensive Strategic plans. Several of these are available on

OJJDP’s Web site (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org).

Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., of

Seattle, WA, and the National Council on Crime and

Delinquency of San Francisco, CA, provide training

and technical assistance for this project through an

OJJDP grant.

In 1999, OJJDP also began a process evaluation of

the Comprehensive Strategy. In addition to addressing key process evaluation issues, the evaluation is

examining the complexity and variation in the program and identifying general principles and unique

accomplishments. It also will provide the basis for

the development of an impact evaluation design. The

evaluation is being conducted by Caliber Associates

of Fairfax, VA.

Coordinating Council on

Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention coordinates the overall

policy and development of objectives and priorities

for all Federal programs and activities pertaining to

juvenile delinquency and missing and exploited children. During FY 1998, OJJDP and the other Federal agencies represented on the Council continued

to support the implementation of a national agenda

as set forth in the Council’s publication Combating

Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice

Action Plan. This support was provided through a

variety of activities. For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded

grants to public housing authorities, tribes, and

Tribally Designated Housing Entities to combat

drugs and drug-related crime in the communities.

The National Endowment for the Arts, through an

interagency partnership with the U.S. Department

of Education, funded seven programs that use the

arts and humanities to build resilience in youth.

During FY 1998, the Council also convened a focus

group to discuss with experts the link between juvenile delinquency and learning disabilities and related conditions. The focus group set the stage

for the development of a new Center for Students

With Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System

to be jointly funded by the U.S. Department of

Education’s Office of Special Education Programs

and OJJDP. The center will conduct research and

provide training and technical assistance to States,

schools, justice programs, families, and communities. The center’s activities will focus on prevention,

education, and reintegration or transition programs

for students with disabilities in the juvenile justice

system. OJJDP and the Department of Education’s

Office of Vocational and Adult Education also are

developing a series of monographs and bulletins to

address issues raised by the focus group.

The Council also reviewed the status of youth who

are held in Federal custody and prepared a related

report, Juveniles in Federal Custody—Recommendations

and Prospects for Change, which is available online from

the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (see page 13,

under “How To Access Information From JJC”).

Drug-Free Communities

Support Program

OJJDP, through an interagency agreement with the

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),

awarded grants of up to $100,000 to 92 communitybased coalitions to fight juvenile drug use. OJJDP

and ONDCP received more than 500 applications

for the program, which was created by Congress

under the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997.

The coalitions—made up of young people, parents,
8 FY 1998

Annual Report

medical professionals, law enforcement officials,

school officials, religious leaders, and other community representatives—target young people’s use of

illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. The coalitions

encourage citizen participation in substance abuse

reduction efforts and disseminate information about

effective programs.

The program sites represent a cross-section of

projects from every region in the Nation. Fifty-four

are predominately urban, 35 are rural, and 3 include both urban and rural communities. Eight of

the sites serve predominately tribal communities.

All sites are participating in a national evaluation of

the program, to be conducted by Caliber Associates

of Fairfax, VA. The U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services’ Center for Substance Abuse

Prevention is providing training and technical assistance to help grantees implement effective community

prevention programs under a separate interagency

agreement with ONDCP.

Gang Programs

The proliferation of gang problems over the past

two decades led OJJDP to develop a comprehensive, coordinated response to these problems. This

response includes several programs. The Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression (Comprehensive

Gang Model) program is helping five jurisdictions

(Bloomington, IL; Mesa, AZ; Riverside, CA; San

Antonio, TX; and Tucson, AZ) implement a model

program developed by the University of Chicago with

OJJDP funding. The model includes five key strategies: mobilizing communities, providing youth opportunities, suppressing gang violence, providing social

interactions and street outreach, and facilitating organizational change and development. Although the

demonstration phase of the projects will not end for

some time, each site has seen important preliminary

results. The University of Chicago is conducting an

evaluation of the program and has helped each site

establish realistic and measurable objectives, document program implementation, and measure the impact of the comprehensive approach.

An OJJDP grant also supports Boys & Girls

Clubs of America’s targeted outreach program that

provides training and technical assistance to local

clubs to build their capacity to prevent youth from

entering gangs, intervene with gang members in

the early stages of gang involvement, and divert

youth from gang activities to more constructive

programs. Public/Private Ventures of Philadelphia,

PA, is evaluating the program. This program reflects an ongoing pattern of cooperation between

OJJDP and the Boys & Girls Clubs to reduce

problems of juvenile delinquency and violence and

supports a youth development approach to gang

prevention and intervention.

The National Youth Gang Center (NYGC), located

at the Institute for Intergovernmental Research in

Tallahassee, FL, gathers and maintains information

about youth gangs and effective responses to them.

(For information about NYGC, phone 850–385–

0600 or visit www.iir.com/nygc.) Since 1996, NYGC

has conducted annual surveys of police and sheriffs’

departments to determine the extent of the Nation’s

gang problem. NYGC also analyzes gang legislation,

reviews current gang literature, and provides support to the National Youth Gang Consortium, composed of Federal agencies that deal with gangs. The

Community coalitions are the heart and soul of

drug prevention. Groups like the Boys & Girls

Clubs, the Elks, the Lions, YMCA, 100 Black Men,

Big Brother Big Sister, and other mentoring leaders

are examples of the organizations we need

to support through coalitions. The program we

are launching today will help all of us to come

together—parents, teachers, coaches, religious

leaders, volunteers, law enforcement—to address

this problem and to encourage youth to understand that any drug use is not only unacceptable

but harmful.

Barry R. McCaffrey, Director

White House Office of National

Drug Control Policy
FY 1998 9

Annual Report

Consortium facilitates ongoing coordination of gang

program development, information exchange, and

service delivery among Federal agencies and to

State and local agencies.

OJJDP also awarded a supplemental grant to NYGC

in FY 1998 to provide training and technical assistance

to four demonstration sites under OJJDP’s rural gang

initiative. Under this initiative, four sites—Cowlitz

County, WA; Elk City, OK; Glenn County, CA; and

Mt. Vernon, IL—are testing OJJDP’s Comprehensive

Gang Model. The sites will perform a comprehensive

community assessment of their local gang problem and

design a plan to implement the Comprehensive Gang

Model. OJJDP also awarded a grant to the National

Council on Crime and Delinquency of San Francisco,

CA, to document and analyze gang community assessment efforts in the four sites. These case studies will

contribute to the development of a model approach

specifically geared to gang problems in rural areas. The

National Council on Crime and Delinquency also will

develop an impact evaluation plan for sites that are

funded to implement the model in subsequent years.

The Survey of School-Based Gang Prevention

and Intervention Programs is being conducted by

Gottfredson Associates, Inc., of Ellicott City, MD.

The survey is describing and classifying approaches

used by schools to prevent or reduce gang involvement among students in a large sample of urban,

suburban, and rural schools. The grantee will identify a small number of promising programs from

the national survey and examine them more closely.

Future plans include developing technical reports to

describe the full range of school-based gang prevention and intervention activities currently being

implemented in the United States.

As part of its response to public concern about the

youth gang problem, OJJDP initiated a Youth

Gang Series of Bulletins to explore key issues related to youth gangs. These issues include gang migration, female involvement with gangs, and the

growth of gang activity related to homicide, drugs,

and overall delinquency. The first issues in this

series, published in 1998, were Youth Gangs: An Overview; Gang Membership, Delinquent Peers, and Delinquent

Behavior; and Gang Members on the Move. Future

Bulletins will address youth gang drug trafficking,

female gangs, promising programs, and ways to prevent juveniles from joining gangs.

Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grants

Program

During FY 1998, OJJDP began administering the

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

(JAIBG) program, created by Congress in 1997 to

encourage accountability-based reforms in States and

local jurisdictions. Of the $250 million appropriated

for JAIBG in FY 1998, more than $232 million was

allocated for block grants to the States; these grants

are discussed in chapter 5. The remaining funds were

designated for research, demonstration, evaluation,

and training and technical assistance activities. The

JAIBG legislation required that OJJDP use part of

these funds to support two specific activities: a national assessment of space needs in juvenile detention

and corrections facilities and a study of the overall

effectiveness and efficiency of the administrative provisions of the JAIBG program. As mentioned earlier

(see page 3), OJJDP completed the assessment of

space needs and submitted a report to Congress in

July 1998.

OJJDP formed a working group with the Office

of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

to develop the national evaluation and specific programs to be targeted for research, evaluation, and

demonstration support. OJJDP also sought input

from State juvenile justice specialists and national

juvenile justice and criminal justice organizations.

OJJDP transferred funds to NIJ to oversee the

evaluation and to develop a field-initiated research

and evaluation program. NIJ awarded a grant to

Abt Associates Inc. of Cambridge, MA, to conduct

the evaluation and funded four field-initiated research projects and two researcher-practitioner

research projects. OJJDP also funded one fieldinitiated research project with JAIBG funding.
10 FY 1998

Annual Report

JAIBG funds also are supporting two demonstration

programs. OJJDP awarded $1.2 million to enhance

two previously funded Community Assessment Centers (CAC’s) and to expand evaluation of the programs. CAC’s are described on pages 19 and 20.

OJJDP also awarded $1.5 million in JAIBG funds

to the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators in Boston, MA, to provide training and financial

resources to support development and implementation of accountability activities in up to 30 juvenile

correction and detention facilities participating in

OJJDP’s performance-based standards initiative.

OJJDP also awarded JAIBG funds to Westat, Inc.,

of Rockville, MD, to conduct a survey of youth in

custody. These programs are discussed in chapter 6.

To help States implement JAIBG’s 12 purpose areas

(described on pages 47 and 48), OJJDP developed

a guide to provide States with a conceptual framework to analyze their juvenile justice system needs

and to determine the most effective use of JAIBG

funds. (The resulting publication, Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants: Strategic Planning Guide, was

released in January 1999.) OJJDP also awarded a

grant to Development Services Group (DSG) of

Bethesda, MD, and to 14 other technical assistance

providers to form an alliance for the delivery of training and technical assistance to States and units of local government to help them implement accountability programs. DSG is coordinating the alliance.

To further assist States in planning and using JAIBG

funds in the 12 purpose areas, OJJDP and BJS cooperatively developed a program to competitively

award funds to State Statistical Analysis Centers

(SAC’s). The funds are used to develop and conduct

specific, directed studies regarding the JAIBG requirements based on a State’s needs within the JAIBG

program. OJJDP transferred funds to BJS for this

program.

Juvenile Mentoring Program

The Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) supports programs that provide one-to-one mentoring

to help keep at-risk youth in school and away from

drugs and crime. OJJDP awarded a total of $14

million to 73 new sites in 37 States. The grantees

were selected from a pool of more than 424 applications. Because of the high level of interest and the

quality of the applications, OJJDP combined FY

1998 and 1999 funds into a single round of awards.

Awards ranged from $94,826 to $200,000 for use

over the next 3 years. With these new awards, there

are now 166 JUMP sites in 41 States.

The most recent awards, announced by First Lady

Hillary Rodham Clinton, will help more than 7,500

at-risk youth in grades 1–12. The JUMP sites represent a strong cross-section of the Nation and include rural, urban, and suburban areas. One of the

new projects is on an American Indian reservation

and numerous others serve American Indian youth.

The mentors in JUMP represent a cross-section

of the population and come from all walks of life.

They include law enforcement officers, college students, senior citizens, military personnel, business

leaders, doctors, lawyers, government employees,

and teachers.

OJJDP also published Juvenile Mentoring Program:

1998 Report to Congress, which highlights initial evaluation findings from the 93 previously awarded JUMP

projects. The initial findings are hopeful. Mentors and

youth both reported that mentoring was a positive

experience and that youth benefited from the experience. Youth reported that mentoring helped them

stay away from alcohol and drugs, fights, peers who

start trouble, and gangs and also helped them refrain

from using guns or knives. The Report to Congress is

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

(see page 13, under “How To Access Information

From JJC”).

During FY 1998, OJJDP grantee Information

Technology International of Bethesda, MD, continued its evaluation of JUMP activities, and the Office extended the evaluation period through 2001.

OJJDP plans to strengthen local evaluations by

developing a manual to assist JUMP sites in collecting and assessing program data.
FY 1998 11

Annual Report

Model Courts Program

For the past 25 years, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has

focused national attention on abused and neglected

children. With funding from OJJDP, the Permanency Planning for Children Department at

NCJFCJ has implemented its Victims Act Model

Courts program in jurisdictions across the Nation.

The program helps courts improve how they handle

child abuse and neglect cases so that children spend

less time in foster care and dependency courts resolve cases earlier while maintaining the adequate

protections these children deserve and need.

Today, NCJFCJ oversees 18 Model Courts in 17

States. These Model Court jurisdictions have implemented a variety of programs that are being replicated by other dependency courts. For example,

reorganized “one-family/one-judge” court calendars

ensure that judges assigned to dependency cases

remain on the same cases until the children involved

achieve permanence, either by being safely reunited

with their rehabilitated families or by being placed

in permanent adoptive homes.

Child health and safety remain paramount concerns

as these alternative programs are integrated into

court and community responses to child abuse and

neglect. Many Model Courts have expanded preliminary protective hearings to ensure that related

issues are substantively investigated at the early

stages of child abuse and neglect litigation. Scheduling hearings at specific times, implementing strict

continuance policies, and developing state-of-the-art

data information systems are goals of several Model

Courts, while others are focusing on increasing

adoptions. All Model Courts are seeking to shorten

timelines for children under court supervision, and

many are striving to decrease the number of cases

under court supervision by examining records and

clearing case backlogs.

The 18 Model Court jurisdictions are Alexandria,

VA; Buffalo, NY; Charlotte, NC; Chicago, IL;

Cincinnati, OH; El Paso, TX; Honolulu, HI; Louisville, KY; Miami, FL; Nashville, TN; New Orleans,

LA; New York, NY; Newark, NJ; Portland, OR;

Reno, NV; Salt Lake City, UT; San Jose, CA; and

Tucson, AZ.

National Youth Network

The National Youth Network (NYN), established

in 1997, consists of young people (ages 14 to 21) representing key national and local nonprofit, communitybased, school, and juvenile justice organizations. The

NYN is implemented and administered under the

Teens, Crime, and the Community program, sponsored by the National Crime Prevention Council of

Washington, DC. A collaboration of youth-serving

organizations along with OJJDP serve as official

sponsors of all activities.

The Network works to foster youth-based crime

prevention efforts across the Nation. The youth

meet regularly to discuss how their organizations

can work together to involve more young people in

preventing and solving youth problems. The youth

of the Network have organized into four working

committees: public policy, public relations, events,

and publications. Each of the committees is supported by OJJDP staff who volunteer to help the

youth set priorities and accomplish goals. These

Model Court innovations are resulting in remarkable and measurable outcomes for children.

When Nancy Salyers, Presiding Judge of the Child

Protection Division of the Cook County Circuit

Court in Chicago, started work to establish a

Model Court in 1996, more than 58,000 children

were under the Division’s supervision. By carefully coordinating their efforts to implement programs that improve the handling of abuse and

neglect cases, the court, related government agencies, the legal community, and community-based

child welfare and adoption advocacy groups

streamlined court operations and reduced case

backlogs. The court’s caseload as of August 31,

1998, had dropped to 31,534 children.
12 FY 1998

Annual Report

committees meet at least once a month via conference calls. Because youth are usually in school during the day, it is not uncommon for OJJDP staff to

participate in conference calls during the evenings

and weekends. In addition, a youth leadership team

meets weekly via conference call with OJJDP staff

to discuss pressing and ongoing NYN issues and

concerns.

During FY 1998, the Network and OJJDP developed and released the Youth in Action series of publications that suggest ways in which young people

can protect themselves and fight crime. Publications

released in 1998 addressed vandalism and graffiti,

a school crime watch, drug abuse prevention, and

Youth Crime Watch of America.

Members of the Network also participated with

Attorney General Reno in a national youth townhall meeting during OJJDP’s national conference

in December 1998. The Attorney General talked

with youth leaders from across the country about

school violence, young people’s concerns, and youth

involvement in crime prevention. James Boyd, a

Youth Network member from New York City, was

1 of 14 individuals honored for their contributions

to juvenile justice by OJJDP Administrator Shay

Bilchik during the conference.

Network youth also assisted OJJDP in developing

a section of the Justice Department’s youth-focused

Web site and provided OJJDP with a youth perspective during the design and development of the

Combating Underage Drinking Program.

Training and Technical

Assistance for a Drug

Prevention Program

While crime is on the decline in certain parts of the

Nation, a dangerous precursor to crime, teenage drug

use, is on the rise. Congress allocated $5 million in FY

1998 for OJJDP to develop a program to support

the development and implementation of drug abuse

prevention programs that help reduce risk factors

and enhance protective factors among adolescents

in middle and junior high school. OJJDP awarded

a cooperative agreement to the Center for the Study

and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) at the University

of Colorado at Boulder to coordinate training and

technical assistance provided to selected communities

implementing the Life Skills Training (LST) program.

Developed by Dr. Gil Botvin, the LST program has

empirically demonstrated, across many different settings, that it reduces gateway drug use among youth.

Although this model has been tested in a number of

jurisdictions, OJJDP’s training and technical assistance program will foster its replication in a large

number of new settings and in diverse jurisdictions

including urban, rural, and tribal communities. The

LST program is a whole-school-immersion prevention effort that targets all middle and junior high

school students with initial intervention in sixth or

seventh grade (depending on school structure). In

conjunction with CSPV, the LST team will provide

training, materials, and technical assistance to each

site for a 3-year period. CSPV also will conduct a

process evaluation.

To get youth involved in crime prevention, we

cannot just talk to them but must listen to what

they have to say. Young people can contribute

valuable ideas and suggestions if given the

chance.

Attorney General Janet Reno

at youth townhall meeting at

OJJDP’s national conference,

December 11, 1998
FY 1998 13

Annual Report

Chapter 2

Sharing Information

For the past several years, sharing information

about research, statistics, and programs that work

has been a priority at OJJDP. Getting information

out to those at the grassroots level remained a priority during the past year. During FY 1998, OJJDP

used many vehicles to share information, including

publications, a national conference, satellite teleconferences, and forums for policymakers. This chapter

highlights OJJDP’s key efforts to keep the juvenile

justice field informed about major breakthroughs in

research and promising programs.

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

OJJDP’s major vehicle for distributing information

is the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC). JJC

offers toll-free telephone and online access to information, prepares specialized responses to information requests, produces and distributes OJJDP

publications, exhibits at national conferences, and

maintains a comprehensive juvenile justice library

and database. The Clearinghouse is a component

of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service

and is located in Rockville, MD.

JJC maintains OJJDP’s Web site, which remained extremely popular last year. During FY

1998, the home page received almost 160,000 hits.

JJC also answered nearly 46,000 requests for

information and faxed information to more than

17,000 individuals.

The Clearinghouse also oversees OJJDP’s popular

electronic mailing list, JUVJUST, which currently

has close to 4,500 subscribers (up from 2,000 in

1997). JUVJUST alerts subscribers to new documents, funding opportunities, and other OJJDP

news. Subscribers received more than 120 postings

in 1998.

JJC also produces many of OJJDP’s publications,

including the Juvenile Justice journal and OJJDP

Bulletins, Fact Sheets, and Research Reports. During FY 1998, JJC produced 71 documents and distributed almost 3 million publications (a 45-percent

increase over FY 1997). JJC also represented

OJJDP at 148 conferences.

How To Access Information From JJC

Phone: 800–638–8736

Fax: 301–519–5212

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To order publications via e-mail: puborder@ncjrs.org

Internet: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

The information I receive through the JUVJUST

mail list and the documents that are available

through the NCJRS home page are outstanding.

I doubt if there is a way to measure the effectiveness of these, but in terms of disseminating best

practice information to community resources, you

get an A+++. Kudos all the way around.

Deputy Director, Covenant House

Washington, DC

Major Publications

OJJDP publications during FY 1998 addressed

a variety of topics, including conditions in juvenile

correctional facilities, guidelines to help coaches

combat drug use by players, school safety, and serious juvenile offenders. The major publications

described below are all available from JJC (see
14 FY 1998

Annual Report

page 13, under “How To Access Information From

JJC”). A list of all OJJDP publications released in

FY 1998 appears in the appendix.

Annual Report on School Safety (1998)

The President asked Attorney General Janet Reno

and U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley to

develop a report on school safety that would provide

the Nation with an overview of the nature and extent of school crime and a comprehensive model for

enhancing school safety. OJJDP worked with the

U.S. Department of Education on the Annual Report

on School Safety (1998), which was released October

15, 1998, at the White House Conference on School

Safety. The report examines data on criminal and

violent incidents on school property at the national,

State, and local levels; the data show that the vast

majority of America’s schools are safe places. The

report also highlights measures some schools and

communities have taken to prevent or address

school violence and provides parents, students, and

educators with information and resources to evaluate and enhance their own school’s level of safety.

The report will be updated annually.

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions

of Confinement for Youth in Custody

Parents, child advocates, attorneys, and juvenile justice professionals will be able to further improve

conditions in juvenile correctional facilities by using

the tools in a report released by OJJDP in 1998.

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of Confinement

for Youth in Custody offers step-by-step instructions,

examples from real-life cases, and lists of organizations that can provide assistance. The publication

describes six useful tools: the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, ombudsman programs, the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, protection and advocacy systems, Federal and State administrative procedure statutes, and self-assessment.

The report also includes relevant laws and key court

decisions and discusses State ombudsman programs

and protection and advocacy systems.

The Coaches Playbook Against Drugs

A Portable Guidebook, The Coaches Playbook Against

Drugs, was developed to help middle and high school

coaches talk to students about the dangers of drugs.

OJJDP produced the 20-page document in partnership with the Office of National Drug Control

Policy (ONDCP). The Guidebook provides information on why players use drugs and how drugs affect them. It also offers pointers to help coaches get

their message across and keep their teams drug free.

A special feature is the Pledge To Beat Drugs. The

Guidebook provides sample pledges for players and

coaches that can be copied or modified to meet the

needs of a team or school.

Early Warning, Timely Response:

A Guide to Safe Schools

Although most schools are safe, the violence that

occurs in some neighborhoods and communities has

found its way inside the schoolhouse door. In response to a request from the President, OJJDP and

the U.S. Department of Education worked together

to develop an early warning guide to help adults

reach out to troubled children. Early Warning, Timely

Response: A Guide to Safe Schools is based on research

and the positive experiences of schools around the

country where the value and potential of each and

every child are cherished and where good practices

have produced, and continue to produce, successful

students and communities. The Guide discusses characteristics of a school that is safe and responsive

to children and early warning signs that may signal

a troubled child. It also describes how to get help

for troubled children, how to create a violence prevention and response plan, and how to respond to

a crisis.

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders

In March 1998, OJJDP announced the findings

and recommendations of its Study Group on Serious

and Violent Juvenile Offenders. The study group,

which comprised 22 researchers under the direction
FY 1998 15

Annual Report

of Dr. Rolf Loeber and Dr. David P. Farrington,

analyzed current research on risk factors and protective factors related to the development of serious

violent juvenile offending careers. The study group’s

complete findings, first published in Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, are quite hopeful and compelling and provide valuable insights into the pathways to serious

and violent juvenile offending. OJJDP also released

the Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders Bulletin, which

summarizes the study group’s findings, in 1998.

Expanding on OJJDP’s formative work published

in the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993),

the study group documented what is known about

these types of offenders, what programs have been

tried, how the programs have performed and what

lessons can be drawn from them, and what research

and evaluation efforts are needed to advance knowledge about preventing and controlling serious violent juvenile offending. A primary goal of the study

group was to provide further guidance to jurisdictions implementing OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy. OJJDP has published and distributed more

than 30,000 copies of the Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offenders Bulletin. Additional Bulletins summarizing

findings on specific programmatic areas are being

developed.

OJJDP also launched a vigorous campaign to

disseminate the study group’s findings to policymakers and practitioners across the Nation. The

Office held policy forums in Chicago, IL; Sacramento, CA; and Washington, DC. The forums gave

policymakers and agency officials the opportunity

to discuss with study group members the group’s

findings and their implications for policy, practice,

and program development. To share the study

group’s findings, OJJDP also held a nationwide

satellite videoconference with downlinks to more

than 700 sites, the largest number of sites to view

a broadcast in OJJDP’s 5-year history of conducting videoconferences.

When Your Child Is Missing:

A Family Survival Guide

In May 1998, OJJDP released When Your Child Is

Missing: A Family Survival Guide. Written by parents

for parents, the Guide provides firsthand insights

into what families should do and expect when their

children are missing. It has been distributed to every law enforcement agency and public library

across the country and to nonprofit organizations,

State clearinghouses for missing children, and family support programs. To date, more than 75,000

copies have been mailed out. Attorney General

Reno promoted the publication during an appearance on “Larry King Live” on CNN. OJJDP’s

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse received more than

3,000 calls during a 4-hour period after the broadcast and another 7,000 calls over the next 5 days.

The callers were primarily grandparents and parents who wanted copies of the Guide as a precautionary measure. OJJDP is having the document

translated into Spanish.

Media Campaign

OJJDP is supporting a program that informs the

public of effective solutions to juvenile crime and

motivates young people and adults to get involved

and support these solutions. The Investing in Youth

for a Safer Future public education campaign is developing public service announcements about these

solutions. OJJDP and the Bureau of Justice Assistance provided funds to the National Crime Prevention Council of Washington, DC, for the project.

National Conference

OJJDP held its first national conference in 1996,

and response was so positive that the Office held

another one in 1998. Recognizing that today’s youth

change and develop at a very rapid pace and that the

juvenile justice field must be prepared to keep up

with this pace and the new issues facing youth,
16 FY 1998

Annual Report

OJJDP designated Juvenile Justice: Focus on the

Future as the theme of the second conference, which

was held in Washington, DC, December 10–12,

1998. The goal of the second conference was to assess current topics in juvenile justice and address

developing issues that will undoubtedly affect juvenile justice in the future. OJJDP designed the conference around seven themes: protecting children,

youth in action, community responses to juvenile

crime and victimization, promising and effective interventions, responding to today’s offenders, emerging issues and innovative programs, and strengthening the juvenile justice system in the 21st century.

The conference included 42 workshops, 5 plenary

sessions, and a satellite videoconference. Sessions

included a youth forum featuring the Attorney General and youth participants. More than 1,700 participants, double the number at the 1996 conference,

attended the 21

/2-day event. Attendees included personnel from State juvenile justice agencies, leading

researchers in the field, judges, State and local

policymakers, practitioners, members of public interest groups, and program administrators and directors. During the conference, OJJDP Administrator Shay Bilchik presented awards to 14

individuals in recognition of their work in the

juvenile justice field.

Satellite Videoconferencing

OJJDP has been using satellite videoconferencing

since 1993 as a means of effectively and efficiently

disseminating information to diverse juvenile justice

constituencies across the United States. Satellite

videoconferencing is a cost-effective means of delivering consistent training and information to individuals

who live in geographically diverse areas, including

persons whose location may limit their access to such

information. Since 1993, OJJDP and grantee Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) of Richmond, KY,

have produced 19 videoconferences for an estimated

audience of more than 200,000 viewers. Other organizations have used videotaped copies of the broadcasts for their own internal training purposes. The

videotapes are available for purchase from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (see page 13, under

“How To Access Information From JJC”).

During 1998, OJJDP sponsored six national satellite videoconferences. On average, 458 viewing sites,

with an average estimated viewing audience of

13,730, tuned in to each of the videoconferences.

Topics addressed in the 1998 videoconferences

were developing comprehensive State juvenile justice plans, protecting children from online exploitation, teen courts, risk factors and successful interventions for serious and violent juvenile offenders,

the White House Conference on School Safety, and

juveniles in the criminal justice system.

EKU also initiated pilot tests of cybercast technologies during 1998. Using emerging technology, EKU

can now simultaneously broadcast OJJDP videoconferences on the Internet. EKU conducted an

audio-only test of the simulcast technique during

the videoconference on school safety; more than

1,500 people participated in this broadcast via the

Internet. EKU then conducted a second test, using

full audio and video technologies, during the videoconference on juveniles in the criminal justice system. Merging Internet capabilities with satellite

videoconferencing technology will allow even

greater numbers of people to receive OJJDP’s

training and information in the future. Additional

pilot tests are planned for 1999.

EKU also has conducted internal and independent

external evaluations to assess potential modifications

to the videoconferencing format. Evaluations of the

six videoconferences produced in 1998 show that

the majority of viewers find this method of information dissemination to be as effective as traditional

conferences. Benefits cited by videoconference participants include the ease of participation, the opportunity for professional networking, and the sharing

of information and ideas among audience members,

panelists, and other downlink sites.
FY 1998 17

Annual Report

Chapter 3

FY 1998 Program Plan

For the third consecutive year, the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders remained at the heart of OJJDP’s program plan and guided its efforts in FY 1998. In addition to the activities highlighted in chapters 1

and 2, OJJDP developed and funded a number

of other programs to help States, local governments, and communities adopt the Comprehensive

Strategy’s research-based approach to addressing

the problems of juvenile crime and victimization.

More and more communities are coming to understand that a long-term, consistent commitment is required to reduce juvenile delinquency, violence, and

victimization and to ensure public safety. It is encouraging that, in recent years, many communities

have begun to make the commitment needed to

make a comprehensive strategy for achieving these

goals a reality.

OJJDP built on this positive momentum by continuing to focus on programs and strategies that

work. Many of these programs require a concerted

effort by Federal, State, and local governments, in

partnership with private organizations and community agencies, to ensure that available resources are

used in a way that maximizes their impact; decreases

juvenile crime, violence, and victimization; and increases community safety. Leading by example,

OJJDP coordinated its programs with other Office

of Justice Programs components and Federal agencies whenever possible to concentrate Federal resources and to achieve maximum results from programs and initiatives. This coordination, which is

evidenced in many of the programs described in this

chapter, includes joint funding, interagency agreements, and partnerships to develop, implement, and

evaluate projects.

In determining which programs to fund in FY 1998,

OJJDP designed its programming around four

major themes: preventing and intervening in delinquency, strengthening the juvenile justice system,

ensuring public safety and enhancing law enforcement, and addressing child abuse and neglect. A

category of programs known as “overarching programs” completes OJJDP’s program plan and includes programs that have significant elements common to more than one of the other four themes.

Taken together, these programs form a continuum

that supports the objectives of the Comprehensive

Strategy. This chapter briefly discusses each of these

themes and provides examples of the programs

funded under them.

Preventing and Intervening in

Delinquency

OJJDP promotes delinquency prevention and early

intervention efforts that reduce the flow of juvenile

offenders into the juvenile justice system, the numbers of serious and violent offenders, and the development of chronic delinquent careers. Although removing serious and violent juvenile offenders from

the street serves to protect the public, long-term solutions lie primarily in taking aggressive steps to

stop delinquency before it starts or becomes a pattern of behavior. One way to do this is to support

programs that emphasize family involvement and

youth development; OJJDP supported several

such programs in the past year.

The family programs represented a variety of approaches, including parent training, nurse-based

home visitation for at-risk first-time mothers, problem solving, parent support groups led by parents

themselves, and training and technical assistance for

replicating exemplary programs. The nurse home

visitation project, for example, sends nurses into the

homes of at-risk first-time mothers to ensure the
18 FY 1998

Annual Report

health of the mother and child. OJJDP’s grantee,

the University of Colorado Health Services Center

at Boulder, is providing these services to five sites

of Operation Weed and Seed (a national initiative

to help make communities safe) and one site of SafeFutures (an OJJDP initiative to help communities

address juvenile delinquency by implementing comprehensive programs that include a continuum of

care). The U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) transferred funds to OJJDP to

evaluate the program. The evaluation is being conducted by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

OJJDP also continued to fund a cooperative agreement with the University of Utah’s Department of

Health Education of Salt Lake City to provide training and technical assistance to communities interested in establishing or enhancing a continuum of

family strengthening efforts. During FY 1998, this

grantee began working on a number of OJJDP

Bulletins, including one that describes effective family strengthening interventions and another that describes Parents AnonymousSM, a well-known parent

training and support program that is being used in

communities across the country. Other OJJDP

prevention programs addressed mental health, substance abuse, youth development, conflict resolution, mentoring, career preparation, drug prevention, violence prevention, and gang issues.

As part of its strong commitment to collaborate with

other Federal agencies, OJJDP entered into several

interagency agreements to address mental health and

substance abuse issues. A partnership with HHS is

helping to strengthen the capacity of jurisdictions to

provide mental health and substance abuse treatment

to at-risk and delinquent children in the juvenile justice system. In another partnership with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), OJJDP also transferred funds

to the National Institute of Corrections to support the

training and technical assistance work of the GAINS

Center in Delmar, NY. The Center helps court and

juvenile justice leaders improve treatment and services for juvenile offenders with co-occurring disorders (e.g., mental health and substance abuse). To

reach American Indian youth (including those in the

juvenile justice system) who are seriously emotionally

disturbed and/or substance abusers with the Circles

of Care treatment approach, OJJDP is supplementing a SAMHSA program that will support six to

eight sites with grants and training and technical assistance. OJJDP also is working with the National

Institute of Mental Health to support research on

delinquent youth with attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder and on school-based interventions for atrisk elementary school students in South Carolina.

OJJDP, in partnership with the U.S. Department

of Education, also continued to support the National

Center for Conflict Resolution Education in FY

1998. Implemented by the Illinois Institute for Dispute Resolution of Urbana, IL, the center provides

training, technical assistance, and resource materials

to help schools, communities, and juvenile facilities

establish conflict resolution programs. To help communities fight hate crimes, OJJDP also continued

to fund the Education Development Center (EDC)

of Newton, MA. During FY 1998, EDC continued

to provide training and technical assistance to help

schools implement Healing the Hate, a multipurpose

curriculum for hate crime prevention in middle

schools and other classroom settings.

Strengthening the Juvenile

Justice System

The juvenile justice system remains hampered by

limited resources and heavy caseloads and is often

unable to provide full attention to every case. Many

OJJDP’s program plan for FY 1998 supported a

balanced approach to aggressively address juvenile delinquency and violence by establishing

graduated sanctions, improving the juvenile justice system’s ability to respond to juvenile offending, and preventing the onset of delinquency. The

program plan recognized the need to ensure public safety and support children’s development into

healthy, productive citizens through a range of

prevention, early intervention, and graduated

sanctions programs.
FY 1998 19

Annual Report

policymakers and jurisdictions, however, are attempting to strengthen the system in a variety of

ways. A strengthened juvenile justice system must

hold youth accountable for their behavior and at the

same time provide appropriate rehabilitation services for youth—services that involve both social

control and treatment.

In addition to the Balanced and Restorative Justice

(BARJ) project and the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) program discussed in

chapter 1, OJJDP supported a number of other programs during FY 1998 to help improve the juvenile

justice system and its response to juvenile delinquents,

status offenders, and dependent, neglected, and abused

children. A new program funded in FY 1998 is helping

communities implement proven prevention and intervention programs. OJJDP awarded a cooperative

agreement to the Center for the Study and Prevention

of Violence (CSPV) at the University of Colorado at

Boulder to provide intensive training and technical assistance for community organizations and units of local

government to replicate 10 “Blueprint” model programs. CSPV identified the models as meeting rigorous

scientific standards of effectiveness and replicability for

reducing violence, crime, and substance abuse among

youth. Two examples of the models are multisystemic

therapy (MST) and treatment foster care (TFC). MST

is a nonresidential, short-term, intensive therapy program that targets specific factors (family, peers, school,

etc.) that contribute to antisocial behavior by youth.

MST has been proved effective for decreasing antisocial behavior of violent and chronic juvenile offenders.

TFC is an alternative to residential and group care

placement for serious and chronic juvenile offenders.

Youth in the program are placed in well-supervised

foster families for 6 to 9 months and undergo weekly

individualized therapy. Studies indicate that, compared

with alternative residential treatment models, TFC is

cost effective and leads to better outcomes for children

and families.

OJJDP also continued to support an Intensive

Aftercare Program in three pilot States: Colorado,

Nevada, and Virginia. The program emphasizes the

importance of helping reintegrate youth released

from confinement into their communities. The model

program includes community-based controls over

the juveniles, effective case management, and services that help the youth develop social, educational,

and employment capabilities. The National Council

on Crime and Delinquency of San Francisco, CA,

under a separate grant, is using an experimental

design to evaluate the project.

Recognizing the need for gender-specific programming for female juvenile offenders, OJJDP supported development of specialized programs ranging

from prevention to detention. The Office continued

to fund such program development at the Cook

County Bureau of Public Safety and Judicial Coordination of Chicago and began providing development funds to the State of Connecticut. In conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Assistance, OJJDP

initiated a unique collaborative effort between Connecticut and Illinois. OJJDP will use lessons

learned from the Girls Link Juvenile Female Offender Project in Cook County (Chicago), IL, which

the Office funded, to develop specialized delinquency prevention and detention programs for Connecticut girls. The project will target females up to

age 18 and will include the development of a plan

for statewide change in the way the juvenile justice

system deals with female juvenile offenders, a hierarchy of sanctions that include specific provisions

for pregnant girls and girls who are mothers, development of a range of sanctions in Connecticut’s juvenile justice system, and effective use of Medicaid/

Medicare reimbursements. The Office also published Guiding Principles for Promising Female Programming: An Inventory of Best Practices, which highlights

exemplary and effective gender-specific program

practices that States and local jurisdictions can use

immediately. The document was prepared by

Greene, Peters, and Associates of Nashville, TN,

under an OJJDP grant.

Since 1996, OJJDP has supported a program to

explore the potential value of the Community Assessment Center (CAC) concept. CAC’s provide a

24-hour centralized point of intake and assessment

for juveniles who either have come into contact with

the juvenile justice system or are likely to do so. The

program is designed to facilitate careful assessment
20 FY 1998

Annual Report

and efficient prevention and intervention service delivery at the front end of the juvenile justice system.

OJJDP funding is supporting CAC development at

four sites: Denver and Jefferson County, CO, and

Fort Myers and Orlando, FL. The Denver and

Orlando CAC’s received additional JAIBG awards

based on their proposals to develop centers that address four key elements OJJDP identified as having the potential to have a positive impact on the

lives of youth and prevent them from becoming serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. These

four elements are a single point of entry, immediate

and comprehensive assessments, integrated case

management, and a comprehensive and integrated

management information system. The Denver CAC

is focusing on implementing a family strengthsbased model. Orlando CAC activities include working with a local nonprofit agency that provides

mental health and case management services to dependent youth to serve juveniles in the center; the

Orlando CAC is working to integrate its information

systems with those of the nonprofit agency. In addition, OJJDP awarded additional funds to the existing evaluator, the National Council on Crime and

Delinquency of San Francisco, CA, to expand its

existing process evaluation to include both process

and outcome measures.

OJJDP also continued to support training and technical assistance to help jurisdictions address critical

issues and improve their juvenile justice systems. The

National Juvenile Detention Association of Richmond, KY, for example, is providing training and

technical assistance in the development of procedures

for reducing overcrowding in detention facilities.

Three jurisdictions (Camden, NJ; Oklahoma City,

OK; and the Rhode Island Juvenile Corrections

System) are involved in developing, implementing,

and testing procedures. Cygnus Corporation of

Rockville, MD, is providing training and technical

assistance to help States and local jurisdictions design

and implement innovations to reduce disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles. OJJDP also

continued to fund the American Correctional Association of Lanham, MD, to provide specialized technical assistance to juvenile corrections, detention, and

community residential service providers.

OJJDP continued to provide technical assistance

to help American Indians develop comprehensive,

systemwide responses to youth crime, delinquency,

violence, and victimization. In 1997, the Office

awarded a 3-year cooperative agreement to American Indian Development Associates (AIDA) of

Albuquerque, NM, to provide training and technical assistance. AIDA recognizes the complex and

varying relationships that Indian nations have with

local and State governments and the Federal Government and designs its training and technical assistance accordingly.

OJJDP funds a national Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Training and Technical

Assistance Center. The center serves as a clearinghouse, inventories and coordinates training and

technical assistance resources, and maintains a database of these resources for OJJDP. The center also

produced a Training and Technical Assistance Resources

Catalog (1998-99 Edition), which presents organizational profiles of all of OJJDP’s training and technical assistance providers and a brief synopsis of

each of the more than 50 such projects funded by

OJJDP. The catalog is available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse (see page 13, under “How To

Access Information From JJC”).

A continuum of activity occurs at OJJDP. Using

what has been learned through our research, evaluation, and statistical efforts, OJJDP divisions are

implementing model demonstration programs, replicating successful programs, providing comprehensive and targeted training and technical assistance

to States and local communities, and informing the

public about the extent and nature of juvenile

crime and what works to prevent and stop it.

Shay Bilchik

OJJDP Administrator
FY 1998 21

Annual Report

Ensuring Public Safety and

Enhancing Law Enforcement

In keeping with one of the basic principles of the

Comprehensive Strategy, OJJDP also supported

several programs that protect the public from the

most serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders

by reducing opportunities for these young offenders

to commit crimes and by addressing the treatment

needs these offenders present. In addition to programs addressing the critical issue of gangs, discussed in chapter 1, OJJDP continued to support

juvenile gun violence reduction projects in communities initially funded in FY 1997 to help them increase the effectiveness of existing gun violence

reduction strategies. These communities—Baton

Rouge, LA; Oakland, CA; and Syracuse, NY—are

enhancing and coordinating prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies and strengthening

links among community residents, law enforcement, and the juvenile justice system. OJJDP also

continued to fund a national evaluation of this gun

violence project through a grant to COSMOS Corporation of Bethesda, MD. COSMOS is documenting the process of community mobilization,

planning, and collaboration needed to develop the

comprehensive, collaborative approach to reducing

juvenile gun violence. During FY 1998, COSMOS

developed data collection protocols, conducted a

process evaluation, and continued to provide onsite

technical assistance to the sites.

OJJDP also continued to support the Chicago Project

for Violence Prevention, a community-based, longterm effort to reduce violence. The project, currently

in seven neighborhoods, is designed to expand

throughout the city. Objectives include reducing homicides, physical injuries, disabilities, and emotional

harm from assaults, domestic abuse, sexual abuse and

rape, and child abuse and neglect. A partnership

among the Chicago Department of Public Health,

the Illinois Council for the Prevention of Violence, the

University of Illinois, and Chicago communities, the

project began in 1995 with joint funding from OJJDP

and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The project provides technical assistance to a variety

of community-based and citywide organizations involved in violence prevention planning. It is being

implemented by the University of Illinois, School of

Public Health, in Chicago.

The Child Development-Community Oriented Policing (CD–CP) program is an innovative partnership between the New Haven (CT) Department of

Police Services and the Child Study Center at the

Yale University School of Medicine to address the

psychological burdens that witnessing violence imposes on children, families, and the broader community. OJJDP initially provided support in 1993 to

document Yale-New Haven’s child-centered, community oriented policing model. Components of the

model include training for police officers, consultation, and the teaming of mental health clinicians

with law enforcement in providing onsite intervention for children and families who witness violence.

OJJDP, with first-year support from the Bureau of

Justice Assistance, funded a 3-year replication of

the model in Buffalo, NY; Charlotte, NC; Nashville,

TN; and Portland, OR. The U.S. Department of

Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime and Violence

Against Women Office joined OJJDP in funding

an expansion of CD–CP in FY 1998. This expansion

moved the project into school-based activities and

the area of domestic violence.

Addressing Child Abuse

and Neglect

Reports of child victimization, abuse, and neglect

in the United States continue to be alarming. For

example, in 1996 alone, more than 3 million children were reported to child protective service

agencies as victims of abuse or neglect; nearly 1

million of the children reported were substantiated as victims. Numerous studies cite the connection between abuse or neglect of a child and later

development of violent and delinquent behavior.

In addition to the Model Courts work (see page

11) and programs supported under the Missing
22 FY 1998

Annual Report

and Exploited Children’s Program discussed in

chapter 4, OJJDP supported two other programs

that address child abuse and neglect.

Acknowledging the correlation between abuse and

future delinquency and the need to both improve

system responses and foster strong, nurturing families, OJJDP and several other Office of Justice

Programs components joined together in 1996 to

design the Safe Kids/Safe Streets: Community Approaches to Reducing Abuse and Neglect and Preventing Delinquency Program. OJJDP is administering this 51/2-year demonstration program and is

working with five communities: Huntsville, AL; the

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Sault

Ste. Marie, MI; Kansas City, MO; Toledo, OH; and

Chittenden County, VT. The communities are developing coordinated responses to child abuse and neglect that include prevention, intervention, and

treatment services. OJJDP continued to fund the

evaluation of this program; the evaluation is being

conducted by Westat, Inc., of Rockville, MD.

OJJDP also continued to fund a project that examined the secondary analysis of childhood victimization data that were collected on 1,200 individuals as

part of an ongoing research project that began in

1986. The data set includes extensive information

on psychiatric, cognitive, intellectual, social, and

behavioral functioning. OJJDP awarded a 2-year

grant to the University at Albany, State University

of New York, in 1997 to conduct the analysis. During the first year, the grantee focused on childhood

victimization as a precursor to running away and

delinquency. In 1998, researchers examined several

other outcomes, such as out-of-home placements

and drug use by children who run away, and also

explored gender differences.

Overarching Programs

Because many of OJJDP’s programs relate to more

than one of the four themes addressed by other programs, they have been designated as “overarching”

programs. These programs cover a range of topics

and include demonstration and research activities.

The SafeFutures program is the best example of an

overarching program, because it encompasses the

elements that must be present in an effective strategy to prevent and control delinquency, protect the

public, and strengthen the juvenile justice system.

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

program since 1995. The Office awarded continuation grants of up to $1.4 million last year to each of

six communities (Boston, MA; Contra Costa County

and Imperial County, CA; Fort Belknap, MT; Seattle, WA; and St. Louis, MO) to help them implement comprehensive community programs designed

to reduce youth violence, delinquency, and victimization by creating a continuum of services in their

communities. This continuum enables communities

to respond to the needs of youth at critical stages of

their development through a range of prevention,

intervention, treatment, and sanctions programs.

Seattle’s Youth Center, for example, provides a safe

place with structured activities for teenagers experiencing the transitions of both adolescence and immigration. Fort Belknap’s Youth Ranch helps youth

integrate tribal traditions with life and job skills.

Imperial County’s Family Resource Center uses a

multidisciplinary team approach to help meet the

needs of youth in its area, providing mental health

and substance abuse counseling, case management,

and referrals to other services. OJJDP also continued to support a grant to The Urban Institute of

Washington, DC, to evaluate the SafeFutures program. The evaluation is addressing the program’s

implementation process, performance measures,

lessons learned, and accomplishments.

OJJDP also continued to support the Program of

Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency (Causes and Correlates). Since 1986, these

longitudinal studies have addressed a variety of

issues related to juvenile violence and delinquency

and have produced a massive amount of information

on the causes and correlates of delinquent behavior.

The Causes and Correlates study encompasses three

coordinated projects: the Denver Youth Survey,

directed by the Institute of Behavioral Science,

University of Colorado at Boulder; the Pittsburgh

Youth Study, directed by the Western Psychiatric
FY 1998 23

Annual Report

Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh, PA;

and the Rochester Youth Study, directed by the

Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center,

University at Albany, State University of New

York. The sites pursue both collaborative and sitespecific research. Results from the study have been

used extensively in the field of juvenile justice and

have contributed significantly to the development

of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy. The Denver

Youth Survey is based on a random sample of

households in high-risk neighborhoods of Denver,

CO. Survey respondents include 1,527 children

who were age 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 in 1987 and who

were randomly selected from disadvantaged neighborhoods with high crime rates. The Pittsburgh

Youth Study began with a random sample of boys

in the first, fourth, and seventh grades of the public

school system in Pittsburgh, PA. The Rochester

Youth Development Study sample consists of 1,000

students who were in the seventh and eighth grades

of the Rochester, NY, public schools during the

spring semester of the 1988 school year.

The Study Group on Serious and Violent Juvenile

(SVJ) Offenders (described on pages 14 and 15)

determined that gathering more information about

very young offenders is an important step in stemming the development of delinquent and criminal

careers. In response to this finding, OJJDP convened a second study group, which is focusing on

this population. Modeled after the SVJ study group,

this group is exploring what is known about the

prevalence and frequency of offending among youth

under the age of 13. OJJDP supplemented a grant

to the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic at the

University of Pittsburgh, the grantee for the study

group on SVJ Offenders, to conduct the study. The

project will disseminate the results of its research to

the public, policymakers, and practitioners.

All of the continuation programs funded by OJJDP

in FY 1998 are described in greater detail in the

Comprehensive Program Plan for Fiscal Year 1998 and

Availability of Discretionary Program Announcements and

Application Kit, published in the Federal Register on

June 17, 1998.
FY 1998 25

Annual Report

Chapter 4:

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program

The National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and

Neglect found that, between 1986 and 1993, the

number of children seriously injured or endangered

by maltreatment quadrupled and the number of

sexually abused children rose 125 percent. In 1996,

child protective service agencies investigated more

than 2 million reports alleging the maltreatment of

more than 3 million children. An estimated 1,077

children died as a result of maltreatment. Even more

alarming, 76 percent of these fatalities were children

under the age of 4.

Congress created OJJDP’s Missing and Exploited

Children’s Program (MECP) in 1984 to help address such issues. MECP funds a national clearinghouse and resource center on missing and exploited

children, coordinates related Federal activities, provides training and technical assistance, and conducts

research.

Recognizing that the advent of the “information age”

has exposed children to new threats, MECP undertook several new activities in FY 1998 to help protect

children from online exploitation. Industry experts

estimate that more than 10 million children currently

use the Internet to explore museums, libraries, and

universities. Unfortunately, these children’s exploration may also lead to sexual exploitation and victimization. The anonymity of cyberspace allows sex offenders to seek victims with little risk of detection.

Chatroom stalking circumvents conventional safeguards and provides sex offenders virtually unlimited

opportunity to have unsupervised contact with children. This has grave implications for parents, educators, and law enforcement.

Any type of victimization of children can have devastating effects on the child and the family. There

are clear linkages between early childhood victimization and later behavioral problems, such as violence in school, drug abuse, and adult criminality.

For example, OJJDP’s Program of Research on the

Causes and Correlates of Delinquency has found

that individuals who have experienced maltreatment

during childhood are significantly more likely to display a variety of problem behaviors during adolescence, including serious and violent delinquency,

teen pregnancy, drug use, low academic achievement, and mental health problems. During the past

year, OJJDP addressed this and many other issues

pertaining to missing and exploited children. This

chapter describes OJJDP’s efforts to help children,

parents, educators, prosecutors, law enforcement,

and others working on these issues.

Highlights

OJJDP launched its Missing and Exploited

Children’s Program Web site in April 1998. The

Web site (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/missing/index.html)

features Tips for Kids, which tell children where

they should go if they are scared, lost, or need help

and also provide children with information to help

them avoid online exploitation. The site has pages

devoted to children, parents, teachers, and law enforcement and is linked to other Web sites of the

U.S. Department of Justice and to the National

Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The

site is averaging about 500 hits per month.

To help respond to the emerging threat posed by the

use of computer technology to sexually exploit children, OJJDP implemented a new Internet Crimes

Against Children (ICAC) Program. The Office

awarded a total of $2.4 million to 10 State and local

law enforcement agencies to help them implement

regional task forces to address and combat Internet

crimes against children. The task forces include representatives from law enforcement, victim service,

child protective service, and other government and

nongovernment agencies. Ideally, these task forces
26 FY 1998

Annual Report

will become regional clusters of technical and investigative expertise and will be part of a national law

enforcement network providing assistance to parents, educators, prosecutors, and other professionals

working on child protection issues.

The 10 jurisdictions receiving FY 1998 grants

through the ICAC Program are Bedford County

(VA) Sheriff’s Office; Broward County (FL)

Sheriff’s Office; Colorado Springs (CO) Police Department; Dallas (TX) Police Department; Illinois

State Police; New York State Division of Criminal

Justice Services; Portsmouth (NH) Police Department; Sacramento County (CA) Sheriff’s Office;

South Carolina Office of the Attorney General; and

Wisconsin Department of Justice.

MECP also has been instrumental in helping parents whose children are victims of international

abduction. In 1998, MECP received a National Performance Review Hammer Award, sponsored by

Vice President Gore, for its work in this area. Research sponsored by OJJDP has found that parents

often face many obstacles and incur insurmountable

debt while searching for their abducted children

outside the United States. Sometimes the search

and legal proceedings are so expensive that parents

cannot afford the airfare to bring their children

home. In response to this need, OJJDP and the

Office for Victims of Crime developed the International Child Abduction Travel Reunification Program, which provides travel funds to parents recovering their children from other countries.

As part of its coordination responsibilities, OJJDP

chairs the Federal Agency Task Force on Missing

and Exploited Children. During 1998, the task force

convened a subcommittee on international parental

abductions to discuss related issues, practices, and

concerns and to consider Federal agencies’ roles in

responding to parents and family members, identifying the location of missing children, and facilitating

their return home. The subcommittee drafted a report on recommendations to improve the Federal

response to these cases and delivered it to the

Attorney General in FY 1999.

National Resource Center and

Clearinghouse

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is a national resource center and

clearinghouse dedicated to missing and exploited

children and their families. Located in Alexandria,

VA, NCMEC operates a 24-hour toll-free hotline

(800–843–5678), provides training and technical assistance, and produces and distributes publications.

In FY 1998, NCMEC’s hotline received more than

132,000 calls, ranging from citizens reporting information about missing children to parents and law

enforcement personnel requesting information and

publications. NCMEC also assisted in the recovery

of 6,930 children, disseminated millions of photographs of missing children, distributed thousands

of publications, and sponsored a national training

workshop for State clearinghouses and relevant

nonprofit organizations. NCMEC also assists

American parents whose children have been abducted to foreign countries. Also, in a unique agreement between the U.S. Department of State and

OJJDP, NCMEC assists the State Department in

fulfilling its Hague Convention responsibilities by

processing applications for the return of children

who have been abducted in foreign countries and

brought to the United States.

NCMEC also undertook several activities in 1998

to help protect children from online exploitation.

With funding from both OJJDP and the private

In partnership with the Office for Victims of Crime

and OJJDP, NCMEC administers a reunification

program with the U.S. Department of State. Under

the program, 21 American children in a number

of countries have been reunited with their families

in the United States. In one case, an American

child was returned home after being abandoned

in a Middle East refugee camp. In another recovery, a child missing for 3 years was located in the

foster care system of an African country.
FY 1998 27

Annual Report

sector, NCMEC established a CyberTipline

(www.cybertipline.com) to collect information

from citizens regarding computer-facilitated sexual

exploitation of children. NCMEC forwards this information to appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Online since March 1998, the CyberTipline already

has provided law enforcement with information

that has resulted in arrests for child exploitation

offenses and the safe return of children enticed

from home by sex offenders. In its first year of

operation, the CyberTipline received more than

7,500 reports of online enticement.

In April 1998, NCMEC and OJJDP sponsored

a satellite videoconference for law enforcement

personnel, titled Protecting Children Online. The

videoconference provided information about prevention, investigation, applicable Federal law, and

available resources to more than 30,000 viewers at

more than 400 downlink sites.

 OJJDP and NCMEC also developed two new

training programs for law enforcement executives

and investigators in FY 1998. The Protecting Children Online course, offered regionally, focuses on

Internet investigative techniques, interview and interrogation practices, sex offender behavioral characteristics, current statutory law, and case decisions

pertaining to electronic communications. The Protecting Children Online Unit Commander seminar

concentrates on broader policy and legal concerns

and is designed to help law enforcement executives

develop and execute ICAC response plans for their

agencies. This seminar is held monthly at NCMEC’s

Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center,

discussed later in this chapter. More than 400 law

enforcement executives and investigators participated in these two courses in FY 1998.

NCMEC also launched a Know the Rules safety education program in FY 1998. This program, which targets teenage girls, was developed in response to research indicating that girls are at much greater risk

of sexual exploitation than boys. NCMEC also published Teen Safety on the Information Highway to complement its CyberTipline and ICAC law enforcement

training programs. The Teen Safety publication is

designed to promote safe Internet practices for teenagers, the age group most at risk of online sexual

exploitation.

The Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center

(JRLETC) in Alexandria, VA, was established in

1997 by OJJDP, NCMEC, the FBI, and Fox

Valley Technical College (FVTC) of Appleton, WI.

JRLETC offers two law enforcement training tracks

designed to improve the Nation’s investigative response to missing children cases. The Chief Executive

Officer seminars offer a management perspective on

missing children cases and provide information for

police chiefs and sheriffs regarding coordination and

communication issues, resource assessment, legal concerns, and policy development. The Responding to

Missing and Exploited Children course focuses on

investigative techniques for all aspects of missing children cases. In FY 1998, 402 police chiefs and sheriffs

and 458 investigators representing law enforcement

agencies from every State participated in at least one

JRLETC training session.

NCMEC and OJJDP’s MECP also sponsor an

annual National Missing Children’s Day ceremony.

Attorney General Janet Reno participated in the

1998 ceremony and recognized six law enforcement

officers for their extraordinary efforts to reunite

children and their families. The Attorney General

presented the NCMEC Law Enforcement Officer

of the Year Award to Inspector Jose Berrios Torres

and Agents Ismael Cintron and Cesar Nieves, all

of Puerto Rico; Detective Jim Munsterman of San

Diego, CA; and Detectives Christina Metelski and

Billy Soza of Phoenix, AZ. At the 1998 ceremony,

OJJDP also released the publication When Your

Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide, described

in chapter 2.

Training and Technical

Assistance Program

In addition to the training provided through NCMEC,

OJJDP awarded FVTC a 3-year cooperative agreement to provide training and technical assistance to

law enforcement, prosecutors, and health and family
28 FY 1998

Annual Report

services professionals. FVTC offers five courses: Responding to Missing and Abducted Children, Child

Sexual Exploitation Investigations, Child Abuse and

Exploitation Investigative Techniques, Missing and

Exploited Children, and Child Abuse and Exploitation

Team Investigation Process. During FY 1998, FVTC

offered 25 regional training programs, provided training for 5,000 individuals, and responded to 47 requests

for technical assistance.

Continuation Programs

MECP funded several continuation programs last

year, including the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related

Disorders Association’s Safe Return Program. This

program facilitates identification and safe return of

memory-impaired persons who wander from their

homes. During FY 1998, the Safe Return Program

increased its registration database to nearly 45,000

individuals and assisted in the safe return of 992

individuals.

OJJDP funding allowed NCMEC to continue its

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

files. Such access allows NCMEC to verify NCIC

entries, communicate with law enforcement through

the Interstate Law Enforcement Telecommunication

System, and become aware of life-threatening cases

through the NCIC flagging system—capabilities

that are crucial to NCMEC’s mission of providing

advice and technical assistance to law enforcement.

Temple University Institute for Survey Research in

Philadelphia, PA, continued work on OJJDP’s second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Exploited, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway

Children (NISMART II). This study builds on the

strengths and addresses some of the weaknesses of

the initial NISMART study, which was conducted in

1988. Temple has contracted with the University of

New Hampshire Survey Research Laboratory and

Westat to carry out specific components of the study

and to provide extensive background information

about the initial NISMART study. NISMART II will

provide updated estimates on the number of missing

children in the United States. Preliminary findings

focusing on kidnaping are expected in late 1999.

The American Bar Association (ABA) of Washington, DC, continued a study of effective communitybased approaches for dealing with missing and exploited children. Since the project began in 1995, the

ABA has conducted a national search for communities that have successfully implemented a multiagency

response to missing and exploited children and their

families. The search resulted in selection of five communities with working multiagency responses that

hold promise for replication. The ABA evaluated

these five communities’ responses and is preparing a

final report that will synthesize the research findings

into a modular training curriculum. The curriculum

will help communities plan, implement, and evaluate

their own multiagency responses to missing and exploited children and their families.

OJJDP also continued to fund the Parent Resource Support Network through a cooperative

agreement with Public Administration Services

(PAS) of McLean, VA. The goal of the project is

to provide a resource for parents of missing children by developing a network of screened and

trained volunteers (parents who have experienced

A Vermont State Trooper credits an OJJDP training

course conducted by Fox Valley Technical College

with helping him not only to substantiate a case

of child sexual abuse but also to get the perpetrator to confess. The day the Child Sexual Exploitation Investigations class ended, the trooper was

assigned to investigate a case that involved a father abusing his young daughter. Using several

tips he learned in the class, the trooper interviewed the mother in-depth and learned that the

man had previously sexually abused both an

older daughter and his wife. “A week prior to the

course, I would never have gone so deep into an

interview with the mother, and would never have

gotten the father to confess,” said the State

Trooper.
FY 1998 29

Annual Report

a child’s disappearance) to offer assistance and

advice to parents upon request. During FY 1998,

PAS installed a case management system to document referrals and assistance activity, recruited and

trained parent volunteers, and began direct service

delivery to requesting parents.

OJJDP funding allowed the American Prosecutors

Research Institute (APRI) of Alexandria, VA, to

continue to provide prosecutors with training and

technical assistance pertaining to parental abduction

cases and to develop a training course on prosecuting child sexual exploitation cases. Child sexual exploitation cases are among the most complicated that

prosecutors confront because of the victims’ age, societal and law enforcement attitudes about these victims, the need for specialized understanding of the

dynamics of sexual exploitation, and jurisdictional

and communication-related difficulties that result

from the involvement of numerous agencies. To

handle such cases effectively, prosecutors must approach victims with sensitivity and an understanding of the psychological dynamics involved. In FY

1998, APRI delivered training to 60 prosecutors and

provided technical assistance to more than 400 prosecutors and investigators.

OJJDP awarded a grant to the National Center on

Child Fatality Review (NCCFR) in Los Angeles,

CA, in 1997 to develop uniform definitions for State

and local reporting of child fatalities and to develop

generic protocols for child fatality review teams for

consideration by communities working on improving

child death investigations. During 1998, NCCFR

developed a model for integrating data among the

Criminal Justice, Vital Statistics, and Social Services

Child Abuse Indexes. NCCFR also selected a multidisciplinary national advisory board composed of

representatives from across the country.

The Washington State Attorney General’s Office

(WAGO) received an OJJDP grant in 1993 to

analyze solvability factors in missing child homicide investigations. During the course of its research, WAGO collected and analyzed data on

specific characteristics of more than 550 missing

child homicide cases. These data were recorded in

WAGO’s child homicide database. In FY 1998,

WAGO conducted a national search and identified

an additional 526 cases for possible inclusion in the

database. Law enforcement database inquiries can

be made by calling WAGO at 800–345–2793.

A 1997 OJJDP grant allowed the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit to expand research intended to broaden law enforcement’s understanding

of how homicidal pedophiles select and lure victims,

plan activities, and elude prosecution. The FBI and

OJJDP will use information resulting from this research in training and technical assistance programs.

FY 1998 activities under this research grant included

identification of 300 prospective interview candidates,

completion of a 780-question interview protocol, and

submission of the protocol for review by various State

boards.
FY 1998 31

Annual Report

Chapter 5

Formula and Block Grant Programs

A major portion of OJJDP’s annual appropriation

supports five formula and block grant programs that

provide funds directly to States, U.S. territories, and

the District of Columbia to help them prevent and

control juvenile delinquency and improve their juvenile justice systems. Under OJJDP’s leadership,

each program has made tremendous strides.

The oldest of these programs, the Formula Grants

Program, has been the impetus for State and local

reforms of the juvenile justice system. In addition to

bringing about overall improvements in the system,

the Formula Grants Program has been the primary

reason that States have deinstitutionalized status

offenders and nonoffenders, separated juveniles

from adults in institutional settings, and removed

juveniles from adult jails and lockups. Most recently,

the Formula Grants Program has been successful in

helping States determine whether minority juveniles

are being disproportionately confined in secure detention and correctional facilities, determine the reasons for minority overrepresentation, and adopt interventions to reduce overrepresentation. The Title

V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs, often referred to as the Community

Prevention Grants program, is also making a difference by offering communities a funding incentive to

develop comprehensive and coordinated delinquency prevention strategies that focus on risk and

protective factors. It is especially rewarding to see

Title V communities develop and implement programs that strengthen families and help children become law-abiding and productive members of society. The State Challenge Activities program is

encouraging States to revamp their juvenile justice

systems by providing funds to help the States develop, adopt, and improve policies and programs in

1 or more of 10 critical program areas identified by

Congress. States participating in this program are

developing activities to stimulate positive changes in

their juvenile justice systems.

During FY 1998, OJJDP added two new block

grant programs: the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) program and the

Combating Underage Drinking (CUD) program.

JAIBG provides funds to States and localities to

implement programs that focus on holding juveniles

accountable for their offenses. CUD provides block

grants to each State and the District of Columbia to

support law enforcement programs that target establishments that sell alcohol to minors, create public

awareness campaigns, and implement programs to

prevent and combat underage drinking.

The accomplishments of these five programs—Formula Grants, Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs, State Challenge Activities, JAIBG, and CUD—are described in this

chapter. The chart on pages 32 and 33 indicates FY

1998 State awards for each program.

Formula Grants Program

The Formula Grants Program was established in

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

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

U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia implement a comprehensive State juvenile justice plan based

on a detailed study of needs. (The term “States” as

used throughout the remainder of this chapter refers

to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the six

U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands.) The State plans must meet 25 statutory

requirements, including four core requirements of the

JJDP Act. The Act requires participating States to

commit to (1) deinstitutionalizing status offenders
32 FY 1998

Annual Report

OJJDP FY 1998 Formula-Based Awards

(as of September 30, 1998)

Formula Incentive State Juvenile Combating Total

Grants Grants Challenge Accountability Underage

for Local Grants Incentive Block Drinking

Delinquency Grants Grants

Prevention

Programs*

Alabama $1,358,000 $286,000 $139,000 $3,756,600 $360,000 $5,899,600

Alaska 669,000 100,000 87,500 1,605,800 360,000 2,822,300

Arizona 1,450,000 305,000 148,000 3,934,500 360,000 6,197,500

Arkansas 849,000 175,000 87,500 2,751,200 360,000 4,222,700

California 11,180,000 2,354,000 1,142,000 22,539,000 360,000 37,575,000

Colorado 1,258,000 265,000 129,000 3,567,400 360,000 5,579,400

Connecticut 1,006,000 190,000 103,000 3,085,200 360,000 4,744,200

Delaware 666,000 100,000 87,500 1,585,600 360,000 2,799,100

District of Columbia(1) 641,000 100,000 87,500 1,425,400 360,000 2,613,900

Florida 4,316,000 909,000 441,000 9,414,600 360,000 15,440,600

Georgia 2,462,000 490,000 252,000 5,868,800 360,000 9,432,800

Hawaii 716,000 100,000 87,500 1,900,300 360,000 3,163,800

Idaho 731,000 100,000 87,500 2,001,500 360,000 3,280,000

Illinois 3,979,000 794,000 407,000 8,770,400 360,000 14,310,400

Indiana 1,890,000 398,000 193,000 4,774,300 360,000 7,615,300

Iowa 907,000 191,000 93,000 2,895,700 360,000 4,446,700

Kansas 867,000 183,000 88,000 2,818,400 360,000 4,316,400

Kentucky(2) 1,221,000 257,000 125,000 3,496,800 360,000 5,459,800

Louisiana 1,556,000 308,000 159,000 4,135,200 360,000 6,518,200

Maine(3) 534,750 100,000 87,500 1,883,400 360,000 2,965,650

Maryland 1,622,000 341,000 166,000 4,262,400 360,000 6,751,400

Massachusetts(4) 1,344,750 358,000 183,000 4,589,700 360,000 6,835,450

Michigan 3,199,000 636,000 327,000 7,278,200 360,000 11,800,200

Minnesota 1,572,250 331,000 161,000 4,167,900 360,000 6,592,150

Mississippi 954,000 201,000 97,000 2,984,400 360,000 4,596,400

Missouri 1,758,000 349,000 180,000 4,522,800 360,000 7,169,800

Montana 688,000 100,000 87,500 1,722,400 360,000 2,957,900

Nebraska 767,000 117,000 87,500 2,227,400 360,000 3,558,900

Nevada 757,000 111,000 87,500 2,166,100 360,000 3,481,600

New Hampshire 711,450 100,000 87,500 1,874,600 360,000 3,133,550

New Jersey(5) 2,506,000 528,000 256,000 5,952,000 360,000 9,602,000

New Mexico 789,000 133,000 87,500 2,369,800 360,000 3,739,300

New York 5,725,000 1,080,000 585,000 12,108,900 360,000 19,858,900

North Carolina 2,312,000 434,000 236,000 5,582,300 360,000 8,924,300

North Dakota 664,000 100,000 87,500 1,567,900 360,000 2,779,400

Ohio 3,591,000 756,000 367,000 8,027,700 360,000 13,101,700
FY 1998 33

Annual Report

Oklahoma 1,111,000 234,000 113,000 3,284,900 360,000 5,102,900

Oregon 1,020,000 215,000 104,000 3,110,400 360,000 4,809,400

Pennsylvania 3,650,000 769,000 373,000 8,140,600 360,000 13,292,600

Rhode Island 689,000 100,000 87,500 1,728,500 360,000 2,965,000

South Carolina 1,182,000 234,000 121,000 3,422,300 360,000 5,319,300

South Dakota(6) 677,000 –0– –0– 1,653,500 360,000 2,690,500

Tennessee 1,667,000 351,000 170,000 4,349,100 360,000 6,897,100

Texas 6,875,000 1,369,000 703,000 14,307,200 360,000 23,614,200

Utah 856,000 180,000 87,500 2,797,900 360,000 4,281,400

Vermont 655,000 100,000 87,500 1,514,800 360,000 2,717,300

Virginia 2,058,000 433,000 210,000 5,095,800 360,000 8,156,800

Washington 1,811,000 381,000 185,000 4,625,500 360,000 7,362,500

West Virginia 759,000 112,000 87,500 2,178,600 360,000 3,497,100

Wisconsin 1,693,000 336,000 173,000 4,399,400 360,000 6,961,400

Wyoming(7) 650,000 –0– –0– 1,482,600 360,000 2,492,600

U.S. Territories:

American Samoa 108,000 33,000 15,000 446,391 N/A 602,391

Guam 118,000 33,000 15,000 676,350 N/A 842,350

Northern Mariana

 Islands 104,000 33,000 15,000 229,959 N/A 381,959

Palau†(8) 4,300 N/A –0– N/A N/A 4,300

Puerto Rico 1,456,000 307,000 149,000 3,944,900 N/A 5,856,900

Virgin Islands(9) 113,000 –0– 15,000 1,246,700 N/A 1,374,700

Total $94,473,500 $18,600,000 $9,825,500 $232,250,000 $18,360,000 $373,509,000

Note: State population figures are based on Bureau of Census estimates as of July 1, 1996. Territories are based on the 1990

Census (April 1, 1990).

* Distribution is based on population of youth by maximum age of original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction.

† Public Law 99–658 (amendment to Public Law 99–239) established a 3-year orderly reduction of U.S. programs and services not specifically authorized by the

Compact of Free Association for the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. Effective in FY 1990, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia were

eliminated for eligibility to receive funds. FY 1998 starts the third and final year reduction for Palau.

(1)Funds on hold: Formula, Prevention, and Challenge.

(2)Funds on hold: Formula, Prevention, and Challenge.

(3)Formula grant reduced 25 percent due to Jail Removal violations.

(4)Formula grant reduced 25 percent due to Jail Removal violations.

(5)Formula grant on hold.

(6)Nonparticipating State: Formula grant allocation for South Dakota was made available to local public and private nonprofit agencies pursuant to provisions of

the JJDP Act; no Prevention or Challenge funds awarded.

(7)Nonparticipating State: Formula grant allocation for Wyoming was made available to local public and private nonprofit agencies pursuant to provisions of the

JJDP Act; no Prevention or Challenge funds awarded.

(8)Declined State Challenge award.

(9)Declined Prevention award.

OJJDP FY 1998 Formula-Based Awards (Continued)

(as of September 30, 1998)

Formula Incentive State Juvenile Combating Total

Grants Grants Challenge Accountability Underage

for Local Grants Incentive Block Drinking

Delinquency Grants Grants

Prevention

Programs*
34 FY 1998

Annual Report

and nonoffenders (the DSO requirement), (2) separating adult and juvenile offenders in secure facilities,

(3) eliminating the practice of detaining or confining

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

the disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles

in secure facilities where such overrepresentation exists. Most States are now in full compliance or in full

compliance with de minimis exceptions with the first

three requirements. Most States are also making satisfactory progress in meeting the fourth requirement

concerning minority overrepresentation, which was

added as a core requirement when the JJDP Act was

amended in 1992.

The JJDP Act stipulates that if a State fails to

comply with one or more of the core requirements,

there will be a 25-percent reduction in the State’s

formula grant allocation for each requirement for

which noncompliance occurs, and the State must

agree to expend the remaining formula grant funds

(with the exception of planning and administration

funds, State Advisory Group funds, and Indian

tribe passthrough funds) on efforts to achieve

compliance. OJJDP is especially pleased that the

States’ progress in achieving and maintaining compliance with the core requirements, as documented

in the FY 1998 updates of comprehensive 3-year

plans, has enabled the States to use their formula

grants to fund a variety of activities addressing

delinquency prevention and other juvenile justice

issues.

The program area receiving the greatest amount of

funding in FY 1998 was delinquency prevention,

with States spending more than $17 million (more

than 24 percent of program dollars available from

the Formula Grants Program). Another area receiving significant attention in FY 1998 was systems

improvement, which received $5 million (nearly 7

percent of available funds). Systems improvement

projects include initiatives to improve systems, policies, or procedures at all stages of the juvenile justice

process, including arrest, detention, disposition, corrections, and aftercare. A full analysis of the allocation of FY 1998 formula grant funds by program

area is presented in the chart on page 35.

During FY 1998, 57 jurisdictions (States, 6 territories, and the District of Columbia) were eligible for

fund allocations under the Formula Grants Program. The States’ eligibility to receive FY 1998 formula grants was partially determined on the basis of

1996 monitoring reports compliance with JJDP Act

core requirements. Based on the 1996 monitoring

reports, all States except three demonstrated partial

or full compliance with the core requirements, and

were eligible to receive funds during FY 1998. Kentucky, South Dakota, and Wyoming did not meet

the requirements. (Kentucky’s FY 1998 Formula

Grant application was placed on hold per the State’s

request pending receipt of more current compliance

monitoring data.) Details of Formula Grants Program compliance status within the core requirements are presented in the following discussion and

in the charts on pages 36–40.

Each State’s annual monitoring report on three of

the four JJDP Act core requirements—DSO, separation, and removal from adult jails and lockups—is

based on data the State collects from both juvenile

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

and verification by a State agency, or a combination

of these methods. All State agencies administering

the JJDP Act Formula Grants Program are required to verify data that are self-reported by facilities or received from other State agencies.

The DSO provision of the JJDP Act stipulates that

status offenders and nonoffenders cannot be detained

or confined in secure detention or correctional facilities or adult jails or lockups. For 1998, 9 States had

no violations and were in full compliance with the

DSO provision, and 44 States were in full compliance

with de minimis exceptions (fewer than 29.4 violations per 100,000 persons under age 18 in the State).

The separation provision of the JJDP Act requires

that accused and adjudicated delinquent juveniles be

separated from incarcerated adults and that status

offenders and nonoffenders not be held securely in a

jail or lockup for any length of time. For 1998, 37

States had no violations and were in full compliance

with the separation provision, and 16 States were in
FY 1998 35

Annual Report

compliance based on regulatory substantive de minimis criteria.

The jail and lockup removal provision of the JJDP

Act stipulates that juveniles cannot be detained in

any adult jail or lockup (exceptions are specified by

statute and regulation). For 1998, 13 States had no

violations and were in full compliance with this provision, and 36 States were in full compliance with de

minimis exceptions (fewer than 9 violations per

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

Each State’s compliance with the fourth JJDP Act

core requirement—reduction of disproportionate

minority confinement—is based on information provided in the State’s FY 1998 Formula Grants Program comprehensive plan. This provision requires

States to determine whether minority juveniles are

disproportionately confined in secure detention

and correctional facilities and, if so, to identify and

programmatically address the underlying causes

that account for the situation. As of FY 1998, 41

States have completed the initial identification and

American Indian Tribes

Gangs

Compliance Monitoring

Serious Crimes

Deinstitutionalization of Status 

Offenders

Disproportionate Minority 

Confinement

System Improvement

ILLECP*

Other

Delinquency Prevention

Separation

Illegal Drugs and Alcohol

Jail Removal

0% 5% 10% 20% 25%

24.6%

13.5%

 11.2%

9.9%

 9.5%

6.9%

5.3%

5.3%

5.2%

4.5%

1.7%

1.5%

0.8%

15%

Allocation of Formula Grant Funds—FY 1998

by Program Areas

(as of September 30, 1998)

*Supplement designated to support Innovative Local Law Enforcement and Community 

Policing programs focused on juveniles.
36 FY 1998

Annual Report

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 9 44 3 1

Alabama ✦

Alaska ✦

Arizona ✦

Arkansas ✦

California ✦

Colorado ✦

Connecticut ✦

Delaware ✦

District of Columbia ✦

Florida ✦

Georgia ✦

Hawaii ✦

Idaho ✦

Illinois ✦

Indiana ✦

Iowa ✦

Kansas ✦

Kentucky* ✦

Louisiana ✦

Maine ✦

Maryland ✦

Massachusetts ✦

Michigan ✦

Minnesota ✦

Mississippi ✦

Missouri ✦

Montana ✦

Nebraska ✦

Nevada ✦

New Hampshire ✦

New Jersey ✦

New Mexico ✦

State Compliance Based on 1996 Reports

Formula Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 1998)

Formula Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 1998)

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—

de minimis exceptions (1)Not participatingFunds withheld pendingadditional compliance data

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF

STATUS OFFENDERS (DSO)

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

Full compliance—

zero violationsFull compliance—de minimis exceptions (1)Not participatingFunds withheld pendingadditional compliance data

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

in the State.

*Kentucky‘s FY 1998 formula grant application was placed on hold per

State’s request pending receipt of more current compliance monitoring

data.

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF

STATUS OFFENDERS (DSO)

Sec. 223(a)(12)(A)
FY 1998 37

Annual Report

Alabama ✦

Alaska ✦

Arizona ✦

Arkansas ✦

California ✦

Colorado ✦

Connecticut ✦

Delaware ✦

District of Columbia ✦

Florida ✦

Georgia ✦

Hawaii ✦

Idaho ✦

Illinois ✦

Indiana ✦

Iowa ✦

Kansas ✦

Kentucky* ✦

Louisiana ✦

Maine ✦

Maryland ✦

Massachusetts ✦

Michigan ✦

Minnesota ✦

Mississippi ✦

Missouri ✦

Montana ✦

Nebraska ✦

Nevada ✦

New Hampshire ✦

New Jersey ✦

New Mexico ✦

New York ✦

North Carolina ✦

North Dakota ✦

Ohio ✦

Oklahoma ✦

Oregon ✦

Pennsylvania ✦

Rhode Island ✦

South Carolina ✦

South Dakota ✦

Tennessee ✦

Texas ✦

Utah ✦

Vermont ✦

Virginia ✦

Washington ✦

West Virginia ✦

Wisconsin ✦

Wyoming ✦

Amer. Samoa ✦

Guam ✦

N. Marianas ✦

Palau ✦

Puerto Rico ✦

Virgin Islands ✦

TOTALS 37 16 3 1

State Compliance Based on 1996 Reports

Formula Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 1998)

Formula Grant

Participants

Full compliance—

zero violationsFull compliance—exception provision (2)Not participatingFunds withheld pendingadditional compliance data

(as of September 30, 1998)

SEPARATION OF JUVENILE

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 (substantive de minimis).

*Kentucky‘s FY 1998 formula grant application was placed on hold per

State’s request pending receipt of more current compliance monitoring data. Full compliance— zero violations Full compliance— exception provision (2) Not participating Funds withheld pending additional compliance data

SEPARATION OF JUVENILE

AND ADULT OFFENDERS

Sec. 223(a)(13)
38 FY 1998

Annual Report

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 36 2 3 3

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—

de minimis exceptions (3)Not in complianceNot participatingFunds withheld pendingadditional compliance data

JAIL AND LOCKUP REMOVAL

Sec. 223(a)(14)

Formula Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 1998)

Alabama ✦

Alaska ✦

Arizona ✦

Arkansas ✦

California ✦

Colorado ✦

Connecticut ✦

Delaware ✦

District of Columbia ✦

Florida ✦

Georgia ✦

Hawaii ✦

Idaho ✦

Illinois ✦

Indiana ✦

Iowa ✦

Kansas ✦

Kentucky* ✦

Louisiana ✦

Maine ✦

Maryland ✦

Massachusetts ✦

Michigan ✦

Minnesota ✦

Mississippi ✦

Missouri ✦

Montana ✦

Nebraska ✦

Nevada ✦

New Hampshire ✦

New Jersey ✦

New Mexico ✦

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

*Kentucky‘s FY 1998 formula grant application was placed on hold per

State’s request pending receipt of more current compliance monitoring data.

State Compliance Based on 1996 Reports

Full compliance—zero violationsFull compliance—

de minimis exceptions (3)Not in complianceNot participatingFunds withheld pendingadditional compliance data

JAIL AND LOCKUP REMOVAL

Sec. 223(a)(14)

Formula Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 1998)
FY 1998 39

Annual Report

Alabama ✦

Alaska ✦

Arizona ✦

Arkansas ✦

California ✦

Colorado ✦

Connecticut ✦

Delaware ✦

District of Columbia ✦

Florida ✦

Georgia ✦

Hawaii ✦

Idaho ✦

Illinois ✦

Indiana ✦

Iowa ✦

Kansas ✦

Kentucky* ✦

Louisiana ✦

Maine ✦

Maryland ✦

Massachusetts ✦

Michigan ✦

Minnesota ✦

Mississippi ✦

Missouri ✦

Montana ✦

Nebraska ✦

Nevada ✦

New Hampshire ✦

State Compliance

Based on FY 1998 Formula Grants Program Comprehensive Plan

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 41 2 1 8 3 1 1

*Kentucky‘s FY 1998 formula grant application was placed on hold per State’s

request pending receipt of more current compliance monitoring data.

Completed identificationand assessment/implementingintervention phaseCompleted identification andassessment/agreed to submit timelimited plan for completinginterventionCompleted identification/submittedtime-limited plan for assessmentCompleted identification phase—no DMC problem in the StateNot participatingConducting the identification phaseDMC status under review

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC)

Sec. 223(a)(23)

Formula Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 1998)

Completed identificationand assessment/implementingintervention phaseCompleted identification andassessment/agreed to submit timelimited plan for completinginterventionCompleted identification/submittedtime-limited plan for assessmentCompleted identification phase—no DMC problem in the StateNot participatingConducting the identification phaseDMC status under review

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC)

Sec. 223(a)(23)

Formula Grant

Participants

(as of September 30, 1998)
40 FY 1998

Annual Report

Number of Jurisdictions

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)

Full compliance—zero violations 9

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 44

Not participating 3

Funds withheld pending additional compliance data 1

Separation of Juvenile and Adult Offenders

Full compliance—zero violations 37

Full compliance—exception provision 16

Not participating 3

Funds withheld pending additional compliance data 1

Jail and Lockup Removal

Full compliance—zero violations 13

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 36

Not in compliance 2

Not participating 3

Funds withheld pending additional compliance data 3

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)

Completed identification and assessment phase and now 41

implementing intervention phase

Completed identification and assessment phase, and agreed 2

to submit time-limited plan for completing intervention phase

Completed identification phase and submitted time-limited 1

plan for assessment phase

Completed identification phase—no DMC problem 8

exists in State

Not participating 3

Conducting the identification phase 1

DMC status under review 1

Core Requirements Compliance Summary Totals*

(as of September 30, 1998)

*States’ eligibility to receive FY 1998 formula grants was initially determined on the basis of 1996 monitoring reports for compliance with JJDP Act

core requirements regarding DSO, separation, and jail and lockup removal and on the basis of information in FY 1998 Formula Grants Program

comprehensive plans for compliance with the DMC core requirement.
FY 1998 41

Annual Report

assessment phases for this provision and are implementing the intervention phase; 8 States, after completing the identification phase, have determined that

minority youth are not disproportionately detained or

confined in their facilities.

Community Prevention Grants

Program

In 1992, Congress established the Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program

(more commonly known as the Community Prevention Grants Program) to encourage communities to

design and implement programs that prevent juvenile delinquency. OJJDP awards these discretionary grants to States based on the size of the juvenile

population (persons below the age of original jurisdiction of the juvenile court) in each State. The

States, in turn, award the funds to qualified units

of general local government (any city, county, town,

borough, parish, village, or other general purpose

political subdivision of a State, and any Indian tribe

that performs law enforcement functions as determined by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior) to

implement local delinquency prevention plans. To

receive funds, communities must base the programs

identified in their plans on an assessment of community risk factors associated with the development of

delinquent behavior. This risk-focused prevention

strategy underscores the idea that to prevent a problem from occurring, the factors that contribute to

the development of the problem must be identified

and addressed.

The Community Prevention Grants Program is the

only Federal funding source dedicated solely to delinquency prevention. To date, results are promising.

Communities across the country have received

Title V grants to create programs and services that

strengthen families and help children develop into

law-abiding, productive members of society.

Since 1995, Congress has appropriated $20 million

annually for the Community Prevention Grants Program. (Funding for FY 1994, the initial year, was

$13 million.) Each State, the District of Columbia,

and five territories are currently eligible to apply for

Community Prevention Grant funds. (Palau is not

eligible for Community Prevention Grant funds.)

For FY 1998, 52 of the 56 eligible jurisdictions participated in the program (3 nonparticipating States

were ineligible and 1 territory declined); grants

ranged from $100,000 to $2,354,000 (the allocation

for the District of Columbia is on hold).

Since OJJDP implemented the program in 1994, 619

communities in 49 States, 5 U.S. territories, and the

District of Columbia have received Community Prevention Grants. Of the 136 total Title V subgrants for

FY 1998, 33 were awarded to communities receiving

Title V subgrants for the first time. As of December 31,

1998, 29 States had not yet awarded their FY 1998

Title V funds, and another 13 States had awarded

some but not all of their FY 1998 funds. Overall, 17

States had indicated that they are planning to award

new subgrants to 116 communities, which would bring

the number of communities nationwide that have received funding under the Community Prevention

Grants Program to 735.

Communities vary in the extent to which their delinquency prevention efforts have progressed. Many

are just beginning to initiate prevention strategies,

whereas others have been implementing their programs for 2 or 3 years and have demonstrated early

evidence of positive changes. These communities

have initiated an array of prevention activities, ranging from early child development strategies (such as

nurse home visitation, preschool, and parent training programs) to youth development initiatives

(such as mentoring, afterschool activities, tutoring,

truancy and dropout reduction programs, and substance abuse and gang prevention initiatives).

One of the strengths of the Community Prevention

Grants Program is the requirement that each community receiving a grant appoint a prevention policy

board that includes representatives from law enforcement, juvenile justice, education, recreation, social

services, private industry, health and mental health

agencies, churches, civic organizations, and other

youth and family service organizations. As a result,

police officers, family court judges, and probation
42 FY 1998

Annual Report

officers are sitting down at the same table with teachers, social workers, clergy, recreation specialists, child

advocates, other professionals, parents, and youth to

discuss the needs of children and their families and to

develop and implement prevention plans to address

these needs. In some cases, the prevention policy

board planning effort is the first time these various

groups have worked together to find common ground

and collaborative solutions to prevent delinquency.

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 success of the Title V program. Many

communities contribute more than 90 percent of the

cost of the program.

To help communities monitor their delinquency

prevention efforts and track their progress, OJJDP

published the Title V Community Self-Evaluation Workbook in 1996. The Workbook includes easy-to-complete

forms and step-by-step instructions to guide communities in documenting their delinquency prevention

activities, monitoring programs, and collecting statistics. The Workbook has been so well received that 13

States now require Community Prevention Grant recipients to use it. Several States have integrated the

Workbook forms into their application and reporting

processes, and some States have encouraged other

delinquency prevention service providers to use the

Workbook and related tools for their programs.

OJJDP also incorporated evaluation mechanisms

into the Community Prevention Grants Program

to ensure that communities track program outcomes

and systems changes and determine whether prevention efforts are having the desired effects on risk

factors and delinquency. Although this task is challenging, many communities have developed and

implemented evaluation plans and are monitoring

outcomes and risk factors. These communities are

learning that change can, and does, occur when

comprehensive prevention efforts are implemented.

In FY 1998, OJJDP’s evaluation management contractor, Caliber, Inc., of Fairfax, VA, began to implement a long-term, nationwide evaluation of the effectiveness of the Community Prevention Grants

Program. This evaluation will examine two broad

areas: (1) program impacts on community planning,

service delivery, risk factors, protective factors, and

juvenile problem behaviors; and (2) factors and activities that help communities effectively implement

the program model and lead to positive outcomes.

Evaluators will examine the Community Prevention

Grants Program implementation in six States: Hawaii, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Vermont,

and Virginia. These States, which have a combined

juvenile population of nearly 8 million, are geographically and demographically diverse and also vary in

their methods of implementing the Community Prevention Grants Program. By focusing the evaluation

on these States, OJJDP will be able to conduct the

When I first met with the prevention team, I said,

”Whether or not we get this grant, it’s time for this

community to start looking at how we can keep

these kids from getting into trouble.“ In that regard, this was a great process.

Title V Program Director

South Carolina

OJJDP’s extensive training and technical assistance

program, which helps local planners assess their community risk factors and design and implement prevention strategies, also has contributed to the success of

the Community Prevention Grants Program. OJJDP

provides this training and technical assistance at no

cost to help communities organize key leaders and establish a comprehensive 3-year delinquency prevention

plan. The training includes two workshops: a 1-day

workshop for key policymakers, business leaders, and

agency executives; and a 3-day workshop, with handson exercises and risk and resource assessment activities, for local prevention policy board members and

staff. The training is provided by an OJJDP contractor, Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., of

Seattle, WA. In 1998, 920 individuals attended the

training for key leaders, and 120 participated in risk

and resource assessment training.
FY 1998 43

Annual Report

research cost effectively, produce statistically valid

results, and fully investigate research questions by

examining a variety of implementation methods and

outcome factors. OJJDP expects the evaluation to

be completed by 2002.

vices personnel, prosecutors, juvenile defenders,

and probation officers.

Congress initially responded to these problems in

1992 by enacting the State Challenge Activities Program, which has been funded at $10 million each

year beginning with FY 1994. The State Challenge

Activities Program provides financial incentives for

States to improve their juvenile justice systems by

addressing 1 or more of 10 program areas specified

by Congress. State agencies may carry out Challenge Activities or award subgrants to public and

private agencies to develop and implement activities.

The State Challenge Activities Program, however, is

designed to go beyond making grants to specific

communities and individuals—it is intended to improve States’ juvenile justice systems by stimulating

positive systemic change.

Only those States participating in the Formula

Grants Program are eligible to receive State Challenge grants. In FY 1998, 52 jurisdictions received

State Challenge allocations. Allocations for States

and the District of Columbia ranged from $87,500

to $1,142,000; American Samoa, Guam, and the

Northern Mariana Islands each received $15,000.

The 10 State Challenge Activities include the following: basic system services, access to counsel,

community-based 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.

The 10 Challenge Activities are further described

on page 45. Activities in these 10 areas move States

toward juvenile justice systems that support, in

a consistent and collaborative manner, the development and implementation of programs that build

on youth strengths, empower parents and strengthen

families, ensure gender equity, and deliver communitybased services (including prevention, intervention,

and aftercare) to youth and their families.

Under the different Challenge areas, a multitude of

programs have been implemented. Some affect a relatively small number of youth and families. On the

We have used the funding from the Title V Program to act as a catalyst to initiate new responses

to old problems. It is truly amazing what $25,000

(per year) can do in a small city or village when

properly accounted for.

Prevention policy board member

from Nebraska

It takes time to mobilize a community. It takes

even longer to achieve a long-term community

commitment to a delinquency prevention model

focused on risk factors and protective factors, to

measure these factors, and to verify reductions

in delinquency rates. By facilitating a strong

Federal-State-local partnership, the Community

Prevention Grants Program advances these worthy ends.

The success of the Community Prevention Grants

Program is discussed in greater detail in OJJDP’s

1998 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs, available from

the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (see page 13,

under “How To Access Information From JJC”).

State Challenge Activities

For the past several years, practitioners and policymakers alike have called for an overhaul of State

juvenile justice systems. They point to a variety of

problems, including moderately crowded, understaffed, and dilapidated detention and correctional

facilities; insufficient services for young people with

significant health, emotional, and education needs;

overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile

justice system; high recidivism because of inadequate programs and community aftercare services;

and overburdened judges, court staff, pretrial ser-
44 FY 1998

Annual Report

other hand, many States have used the unique opportunities presented by State challenge funds to effect

far-reaching systemic changes in their juvenile justice

systems. During FY 1998, nearly all of the participating States addressed at least 2 activities (as has been

the case in past years); 12 States addressed 3 activities; and 1 State addressed 4 activities.

The Challenge Activities most often addressed during FY 1998 were alternatives to suspension and

expulsion (23 States), community-based alternatives (20 States), and aftercare services (20 States).

The Challenge Activities least often addressed in

FY 1998 were violent juvenile offender facilities

(1 State), State ombudsman offices (1 State), and

State agency coordination/case review systems

(3 States). The same three Challenge Activities

have been the least frequently chosen in each year

since FY 1995. Related charts summarizing State

Challenge Activities appear on page 46.

States have taken a variety of approaches to

implementing State Challenge Activities. In

spring 1998, OJJDP invited each State to submit

descriptions of its State Challenge initiatives and

products that have resulted from them; 24 States

and 1 territory responded. Eleven different

themes of system change efforts emerged from

a study of the materials submitted. The themes

are not an exhaustive list of every attempted State

Challenge effort, but they do illustrate the wide

variety of approaches adopted by States. The 11

themes are:

✦ Using data to produce policy changes and legislative reforms.

✦ Using research to guide reforms in service

delivery.

✦ Increasing public awareness and professional

competence through training conferences, publications, and technical assistance.

✦ Developing curriculums on gender-specific issues

for juvenile justice personnel and service providers.

✦ Developing curriculums on gender-specific issues

for female offenders.

✦ Drafting program regulations, policies, and/or

procedures for statewide use by drawing on

recent and specific program experience.

✦ Developing screening instruments to guide

service planning.

✦ Implementing demonstration programs at additional sites.

✦ Filling a significant service gap in a substantial

way.

✦ Forming ongoing and sustained partnerships to

provide coordinated services.

✦ Developing capacity in the private sector in order

to increase the overall capacity of the service

system.

An OJJDP Bulletin, System Change Through State

Challenge Activities: Approaches and Products, will describe these themes in greater detail and provide

examples of systems change approaches adopted to

date. The Bulletin will be available from JJC in the

near future.

Florida examined 11 programs providing alternatives to school suspension and expulsion. The purpose of the study was to determine which factors

were consistently associated with program success. The State recruited a graduate student to collect data and conduct interviews about program

implementation, services, staffing, target population, community involvement, data collection,

and staff and participant satisfaction. The Florida

Department of Juvenile Justice plans to use findings from this project to provide funding opportunities for model alternatives to suspension and

expulsion. Florida’s use of graduate students to

conduct program evaluation and other research

projects through a partnership with its university

system is a cost-effective way to gather useful information for guiding systems change.
FY 1998 45

Annual Report

State Challenge Activities

Challenge Activity A. Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide basic health,

mental health, and educational services to youth

in the juvenile justice system.

Challenge Activity B. Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide all juveniles in

the justice system access to counsel.

Challenge Activity C. Increasing community-based

alternatives to incarceration by establishing programs

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

criteria for the appropriate placement of juveniles in

detention and secure confinement.

Challenge Activity D. Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide secure settings for

violent juvenile offenders by closing down traditional training schools and replacing them with secure settings that have capacities of no more than

50 youth and staff-youth ratios sufficient to permit

close supervision and effective treatment.

Challenge Activity E. Developing and adopting

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

ensure female youth access to the full range of

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

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

Challenge Activity F. Establishing and operating,

either directly or by contract, a State Ombudsman

office for children, youth, and families to investigate and resolve complaints relating to actions,

inactions, or decisions of those providing out-ofhome care to children and youth.

Challenge Activity G. Developing and adopting

policies and programs to remove status offenders

from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, when

appropriate.

Challenge Activity H. Developing and adopting

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

Challenge Activity I. Increasing aftercare services

by establishing programs and developing and

adopting policies to provide comprehensive

health, mental health, education, family, and vocational services to youth upon release from the

juvenile justice system.

Challenge Activity J. Developing and adopting

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

children with emotional or behavioral problems

and their families. The structure would coordinate

the activities of major child-serving systems and

implement a statewide case review system.
46 FY 1998

Annual Report

FY 1998 Challenge Activities by State

A Basic System Services

B Access to Counsel

C Community-Based Alternatives

D Violent Juvenile Offender

Facilities

Note: District of Columbia and Kentucky—on hold pending resolution of formula grants; South Dakota and Wyoming—ineligible

because State is not participating in Formula Grants Program; Palau—declined allocation.

Alabama H

Alaska H,I

Arizona G,H,I

Arkansas C,I

California C,E,I

Colorado B,G

Connecticut A,H

Delaware A,H

District of Columbia —

Florida E,H

Georgia I

Hawaii C,H

Idaho C,I

Illinois A,C

Indiana B,H

Iowa E,J

Kansas C,G

Kentucky —

Louisiana J

Maine A,C,H

Maryland A,C,I

Massachusetts C,E,I

Michigan E,I

Minnesota E,I

Mississippi C

Missouri A,B,C

Montana C,H

Nebraska C,E,I

Nevada A,I

New Hampshire A,H

New Jersey D,E

New Mexico C,G

New York A,E,I

North Carolina E

North Dakota H,I

Ohio C,E,J

Oklahoma C,I

Oregon A,H,I

STATE ACTIVITIES STATE ACTIVITIES STATE ACTIVITIES

Pennsylvania A,H

Rhode Island E,H

South Carolina G,I

South Dakota —

Tennessee B,F

Texas A,H

Utah E,H

Vermont A,C

Virginia A,C,I

Washington B,H

West Virginia H,I

Wisconsin A,C,E,H

Wyoming —

Amer. Samoa A,E

Guam C,H

N. Marianas E,H

Palau —

Puerto Rico B,H,I

Virgin Islands G

E Gender Bias Policies and

Programs

F State Ombudsman

G Deinstitutionalization of Status

Offenders and Nonoffenders

H Alternatives to Suspension and

Expulsion

I Aftercare Services

J State Agency Coordination/Case

Review System

A Basic System Services 16

B Access to Counsel 6

C Community-Based Alternatives 20

D Violent Juvenile Offender Facilities 1

E Gender Bias Policies and Programs 16

F State Ombudsman 1

G Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders and Nonoffenders 6

H Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion 23

I Aftercare Services 20

J State Agency Coordination/Case Review System 3

1998 State Challenge Activity Summary

NUMBER OF STATES

CHALLENGE ACTIVITY CHOOSING THE ACTIVITY IN 1998
FY 1998 47

Annual Report

Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grants

Program

In FY 1998, OJJDP began administering a new

$250 million block grant program designed to encourage States and communities to develop reforms

that hold young offenders accountable for their

actions. Congress created the JAIBG program in

the FY 1998 Appropriations Act. OJJDP allocated

$5.25 million for program administration; $7.5 million for research, evaluation, and demonstration

programs; $5 million for training and technical assistance; and $232.25 million for block grants to

State and local governments. (This chapter discusses only the block grants portion of the program.

Other JAIBG activities are discussed in chapters 1

and 6.)

Demonstrating a strong commitment to working

with States and local communities in efforts to ensure that young offenders are held accountable at

every stage of the juvenile justice system, OJJDP

moved quickly to implement the JAIBG program

and to award FY 1998 block grants. During FY

1998, each of the 56 eligible jurisdictions (States,

five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia)

received JAIBG funds. (Palau is not eligible to receive funds.) Allocations ranged from $1.2 million

(Virgin Islands) to $22.5 million (California). Absent a waiver, the States are required to distribute

at least 75 percent of their block grants to local

jurisdictions.

To qualify for a block grant, States must certify that

they have considered (or have adopted or will consider within 1 year) State laws, policies, or procedures that address four specific accountabilitybased system changes that would:

✦ Authorize prosecutors to charge youth age 15

or older who are accused of committing serious

violent crimes as if they were adult criminal

offenders.

✦ Establish graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders for every delinquent act (including probation

violations) and escalate these sanctions for each

subsequent more serious delinquent offense or

probation violation.

✦ Treat juvenile delinquency records for felony

adjudications in the same manner as adult

records, including submitting such records to

the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

✦ Ensure that juvenile court judges are not prohibited from issuing court orders that require parents

or guardians to supervise juvenile offenders.

In addition to considering these four changes, each

State or local government receiving a JAIBG award

must adopt a policy for drug testing appropriate

categories of youth in the juvenile justice system.

States can use JAIBG funds for 12 purpose areas:

✦ Purpose Area 1: Building, expanding, renovating, or operating temporary or permanent juvenile correction or detention facilities, including

training of personnel.

✦ Purpose Area 2: Developing and administering

accountability-based sanctions for juvenile

offenders.

✦ Purpose Area 3: Hiring additional juvenile

judges, probation officers, and court-appointed

defenders, and funding pretrial services for juveniles, to ensure the smooth and expeditious administration of the juvenile justice system.

✦ Purpose Area 4: Hiring additional prosecutors so

that more cases involving violent juvenile offenders can be prosecuted and backlogs reduced.

✦ Purpose Area 5: Providing funding to enable

prosecutors to address more effectively problems

related to drugs, gangs, and youth violence.

✦ Purpose Area 6: Providing funding for technology, equipment, and training to assist prosecutors

in identifying violent juvenile offenders and expediting their prosecution.
48 FY 1998

Annual Report

✦ Purpose Area 7: Providing funding to enable

juvenile courts and juvenile probation offices to

be more effective and efficient in holding juvenile

offenders accountable and in reducing recidivism.

✦ Purpose Area 8: Establishing court-based juvenile justice programs that target young firearms

offenders through the creation of juvenile gun

courts for the adjudication and prosecution of

these offenders.

✦ Purpose Area 9: Establishing drug court programs to provide continuing judicial supervision

over juvenile offenders with substance abuse

problems and to integrate administration of other

sanctions and services.

✦ Purpose Area 10: Establishing and maintaining

interagency information-sharing programs that

enable the juvenile and criminal justice systems,

schools, and social services agencies to make

more informed decisions regarding the early identification, control, supervision, and treatment of

juveniles who repeatedly commit serious delinquent or criminal acts.

✦ Purpose Area 11: Establishing and maintaining

accountability-based programs that work with

juvenile offenders who are referred by law enforcement agencies, or programs that are designed (in cooperation with law enforcement

officials) to protect students and school personnel from problems related to drugs, gangs, and

youth violence.

✦ Purpose Area 12: Implementing a policy of controlled substance testing for appropriate categories of youth in the juvenile justice system.

To assist States and units of local government in applying for, receiving, allocating, and administering

JAIBG funds, OJJDP developed and published the

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program

Guidance Manual. The Manual can be downloaded

from OJJDP’s Web site (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org), and

printed copies are available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse (see page 13, under “How To Access

Information From JJC”).

States have been very active in establishing State

plans and priorities for the JAIBG program and in

helping units of local government to qualify for

subgrant awards. The first year of implementation

for any new program is full of obstacles at the Federal, State, and local levels. These obstacles must be

overcome before the program becomes fully operational. Within the first 6 to 8 months of receiving

JAIBG awards, States have made excellent progress

in facilitating funding to units of local government,

as demonstrated in the following status summary:

✦ Planning Stage: 12 States are still in the process

of planning and organizing their policies and

procedures for program implementation.

✦ Early Stage: 7 State coordinators have developed

plans for proceeding and are mailing notifications

to local units of government regarding the availability of funds.

✦ Awaiting Responses: 15 State coordinators have

mailed information to eligible local units of government and are awaiting responses regarding

their participation and/or proposed use of funds.

Most of the jurisdictions in this category expected

responses by March 1999.

✦ Reviewing Responses: 11 State coordinators

have received proposals from units of local government and are in the process of reviewing them

in accordance with the guidelines established for

the JAIBG program.

✦ Funds Allocated: 10 State coordinators have

indicated that their States have made awards to

fund JAIBG programs at the local level.

Combating Underage

Drinking Program

The problem of underage drinking continues to

plague the country. The use of alcohol by minors has

tragic consequences. When juveniles drink, they often

indulge in behavior that is both illegal and dangerous.

Recognizing the magnitude of this problem, Congress

established the Combating Underage Drinking (CUD)
FY 1998 49

Annual Report

Program in FY 1998 and appropriated $25 million to

OJJDP for implementation. (In FY 1999, Congress

changed the name of the program to Enforcing the

Underage Drinking Laws.)

OJJDP moved quickly to implement CUD, awarding $18,360,000 in block grants to 50 eligible States

and the District of Columbia, $5 million in discretionary assistance awards, and $1,640,000 for training

and technical assistance. (This chapter describes only

block grants awarded under the program; the remaining CUD activities are described in chapter 1.)

Each State and the District of Columbia were

awarded a block grant of $360,000. States used the

funds to support activities in one or more of the following three priority areas identified by Congress:

✦ Enforcement: 35 States implemented enforcement activities, such as creating statewide law

enforcement and prosecution task forces to target

establishments suspected of consistently selling

alcohol to minors.

✦ Public education: 29 States initiated public education activities, ranging from sponsoring media

contests to creating billboard messages.

✦ Program innovation: 33 States developed innovative programs designed to reduce underage drinking, such as creating youth task forces to examine

community norms and the messages that young

people are receiving and hiring individuals to act as

liaisons between youth and other members of communities in matters related to alcohol consumption.

To be eligible to receive a CUD block grant, each

jurisdiction was required to designate an agency to

serve as the point of contact to apply for, receive,

and administer the block grant. The designated

agency was required to design a comprehensive approach to address the problem of underage drinking

and to describe how Federal funds would be used to

implement that approach. OJJDP encouraged

States to collaborate with existing public and private

efforts, including those of foundations and national

organizations.
FY 1998 51

Annual Report

Chapter 6

Juveniles Taken Into Custody

As part of the annual report, OJJDP includes information on the number of juveniles taken into custody. This information reveals much about how the

Nation is responding to the issues of juvenile offending. In many respects, juvenile detention and corrections facilities are the heart of the juvenile justice

system. It is in these residential facilities that juvenile justice agencies attempt to change patterns of

behavior in juveniles so that they can become responsible members of society. At the same time,

these facilities must maintain a secure environment

to protect both the residents and the community at

large.

Juvenile detention and corrections facilities face a

daunting problem. The twin goals of security and

rehabilitation often conflict in practice; the most apparent clash is in the crowding problems many residential facilities face today. Although the juvenile

justice system has determined that residents in the

facilities pose a threat to people or property if left

in the community, crowded conditions significantly

strain the facilities, leaving them unable to focus on

such activities as education, substance abuse treatment, or therapeutic treatment.

OJJDP has been collecting information for more

than 20 years on the number of juveniles held in detention and other facilities. Until 1997, these data

were gathered through the biennial Census of Public

and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and

Shelter Facilities, better known as the Children in

Custody (CIC) Census. After consulting a variety

of experts and determining that CIC was not meeting the needs of the field, OJJDP, with the help of

the U.S. Bureau of the Census and a technical advisory board, developed a new survey. This chapter

summarizes information from the new Census of

Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), which

was conducted in October 1997. It also includes information about other corrections-related OJJDP

activities.

Juvenile Arrests in 1997

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program

shows that, in 1997, law enforcement agencies made

an estimated 2.8 million arrests of persons under the

age of 18, a decline of 1 percent from 1996. Over the

10-year period from 1988 through 1997, arrests of

persons in this age group increased 35 percent, but

the number peaked in 1994 and has been declining

since then. In 1997, there were an estimated 123,400

arrests of persons under the age of 18 for Violent

Crime Index (VCI) offenses (including murder,

rape, robbery, and assault), a decline of 4 percent

from 1996, but still an increase of 49 percent since

1988. VCI offenses accounted for 4 percent of all

arrests of persons under the age of 18 in 1997.

It is important to distinguish between persons under

the age of 18 and persons legally considered juveniles. The former refers solely to the age of a person

at a given time; arrest data from law enforcement

agencies provide information in this manner. Depending on the law in the State in which an offense

was committed, a youth may or may not be legally

considered a juvenile subject to the jurisdiction of

the juvenile court. Further, many States have enacted transfer legislation that removes particular

types of offenders from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and places them in the criminal court.

Thus, some young offenders may be considered

juveniles by virtue of their age but considered adults

for trial and disposition purposes.
52 FY 1998

Annual Report

Census of Juveniles in

Residential Placement

OJJDP conducted the CJRP for the first time

on October 29, 1997. Each facility, secure or nonsecure, that holds or can hold alleged or adjudicated

juvenile delinquent or status offenders was asked to

complete a form that collected information on each

juvenile offender in residence on that date. More

than 94 percent of all facilities responded to the

census.

The census determined that 125,805 youth resided in

1,121 public and 2,310 private residential facilities on

October 29, 1997. Of these 3,431 public or private

residential facilities, 2,844 had at least one juvenile

who met the four criteria for inclusion in CJRP’s

person-level reporting section. Of the residents in

these facilities, 105,790 (84 percent) were under the

age of 21, assigned a bed in a facility, charged with

or court-adjudicated for an offense, and placed at the

facility because of the offense. (The remaining 16 percent were in such facilities for reasons other than an

offense.)

On the census reference date, the majority of young

offenders (72.2 percent) resided in 1,108 public

facilities—those owned and operated exclusively by

State or local government agencies. The remaining

27.8 percent resided in 1,736 private facilities—

those owned and operated by nongovernmental

organizations that provide services to juvenile

offenders.

More minority than white offenders were in residential placement. Forty percent of the offenders were

black; 37.5 percent were white; 18.5 percent were

identified as Hispanic; and a small percentage were

classified as American Indian (1.5 percent), Asian

(1.8 percent), or Pacific Islander (0.3 percent).

The vast majority of offenders in custody (86.5 percent) were male; females made up less than 14 percent of the residential population. Females in custody were, on average, younger than males. The

mean age of males in residential placement was 16,

compared with 15.4 for females. Ten percent of

females were age 13 or younger, compared with 6

percent of males; and 14 percent of males were ages

18–20, compared with 4 percent of females. The

largest percentage of females (21 percent) were

age 13, the smallest percentage (2.9 percent) were

age 20.

Black males age 16 were the largest group of young

offenders in residential placement, accounting for

nearly 10 percent of the total. This group is followed

in descending order by white males age 16, black

males age 17, and white males age 17.

Most young offenders (42.4 percent) were in residential facilities for a serious personal or property

offense. Nearly one-fourth were charged with or

adjudicated for aggravated assault, violent sexual

assault, kidnaping, or robbery. Approximately onefifth were charged with or adjudicated for serious

property offenses, including arson, auto theft, and

burglary. Almost 2 percent were charged with or

adjudicated for homicide or murder. Only 6.5 percent of youth in custody were charged with a status

offense. Status offenses include running away, underage drinking, truancy, curfew violations, and

other activities that are illegal for juveniles but not

for adults. Classification of status offenses varies

by State. For example, many States no longer consider running away an adjudicable offense. In these

States, runaways would not be counted by the census. Only those juveniles who committed acts subject to juvenile court action were included for each

State.

The juveniles in custody on the census date differed

in their status in the justice system. Some were detained pending an initial or adjudicatory hearing.

Others were detained after being adjudicated delinquent and pending placement elsewhere. Some were

held pending action in the criminal court. The majority of juveniles in residential facilities on the census date, however, were in the facilities where they

were serving their disposition.

Because the CJRP collected information on each

offender in residential placement (including age,

race, sex, and offense), it provides a more comprehensive base for analyzing this population than was
FY 1998 53

Annual Report

provided by the earlier CIC Census. The significant

changes in data collection methodology introduced

in the CJRP, however, mean that direct comparisons

between the CJRP and the CIC Census are dubious

at best. Therefore, this chapter does not provide

trend information on the number of youth in custody. OJJDP will publish a broad range of information based on CJRP data in the coming months.

Deaths in Custody

Death of a juvenile in custody is relatively rare. In

1994 (the most recent year for which data are available), 45 juveniles died while in the legal custody of

a juvenile facility. In 1992, 40 juveniles died while in

custody. The majority of deaths in both years resulted from suicide.

Cause of Death 1992 1994

Illness/Natural Causes1 2 9

Suicide 13 20

Homicide by Other Residents 2 0

Other Homicide 6 3

Other/Unknown 17 13

TOTAL 40 45

1 AIDS was the cause of one death in 1994, none in 1992.

OJJDP realizes these data on deaths in custody are

outdated, but with the end of the CIC Census, there

was no longer a mechanism for collecting national

data on such events. The CJRP was designed solely

to collect indepth information on the juvenile population in custody as of the census date; the only

facility-level information collected by the CJRP is

the total population and some description of the facility type. To fill the resulting gap in information,

OJJDP inserted several questions about deaths of

juveniles in custody into the new Juvenile Residential Facility Census described on page 54. The data

collected by the new Facility Census should be comparable to data collected previously in the CIC Census, allowing OJJDP to provide trend data in future annual reports. OJJDP anticipates fielding the

new Facility Census in October 2000 and making

the data from it available in 2001. OJJDP also is

supporting a field-initiated research project that will

examine juvenile suicide in confinement by surveying residential facilities around the Nation. The

research will be conducted by the National Center

on Institutions and Alternatives in Alexandria, VA.

Performance-Based Measures

In addition to the CJRP, OJJDP funds a number

of other detention- and corrections-related activities.

In 1994, OJJDP released the results of the Conditions of Confinement study, which pointed out the

need for measurable goals in several areas of residential juvenile placement including security, order,

safety, and programming. In response to this need,

OJJDP initiated the Performance-Based Standards

for Juvenile Correction and Detention Facilities

Program, a multisite, multiyear program designed

to develop objective measures of facility performance. These measures can help a facility determine

its most pressing problems and begin efforts to remedy the problems. In FY 1995, OJJDP awarded

a grant to the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) of Boston, MA, to develop and

test performance-based measures for both long-term

corrections and short-term detention. CJCA developed a list of six critical areas—security, order,

safety, programming, health and mental health, and

justice—and a set of standards for each area that reflect expected performance generally accepted by

experts in the field. These standards were translated

into objective, measurable outcomes. For each outcome, CJCA developed a set of specific measures

and defined the data sources for each measure. By

1997, CJCA had developed a complete set of standards and outcome measures. OJJDP then selected

18 sites to test the data collection instruments, protocols, and procedures. Based on these tests, CJCA

revised the tools and processes and included a commitment to automated data collection.

In 1998, the project began full implementation of the

performance-based standards in the 18 test sites and

12 additional sites. Using funds from the Juvenile

Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG)
54 FY 1998

Annual Report

program, OJJDP made financial assistance available to support activities and services designed to

improve facility performance. Also, an independent

evaluation was funded. This project will continue for

several years as OJJDP increases the number of

implementing facilities and revises the data collection and analysis processes.

Upcoming Surveys

OJJDP has designed a statistical system covering

juvenile detention and corrections so that local, State,

and Federal policymakers and practitioners can monitor this field. The CJRP, which will be conducted every 2 years, is already providing significant information

on the population of juvenile offenders in custody.

Effective monitoring of juvenile detention and corrections, however, requires information in addition to that

available from the CJRP. OJJDP will devote considerable time and resources to ensuring that this information is available in the future.

The first project of note is the new Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which will routinely collect information on how facilities operate. The JRFC

is still in the development phase. OJJDP anticipates

that it will include detailed and specific questions on

facility security, crowding, deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. It will also ask about

specific services for mental and physical health care,

substance abuse, and education. OJJDP will administer the JRFC every 2 years beginning in October

2000. The CJRP and the JRFC, which will be administered in alternating years, will complement

each other. The CJRP will provide detailed information on the juveniles in the facilities, while the JRFC

will provide detailed information on the facilities

themselves.

OJJDP also recognizes the value and importance

of interviewing youth in juvenile justice system facilities. Such interviews can provide a wealth of information on past offending behavior, pathways to

delinquency, family and social environments, and

experiences in custody. Using JAIBG funds in

1998, OJJDP awarded a cooperative agreement

to Westat, Inc., of Rockville, MD, to develop a new

Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP).

OJJDP anticipates conducting SYRP on a routine

basis. The survey will complement other OJJDP research concerning delinquent careers and offending

behavior and will also serve to monitor the range of

residential placements used for juvenile offenders.

The SYRP will support the goal of OJJDP’s JAIBG

program, which Congress funded so that State juvenile justice systems can hold each juvenile accountable for his or her delinquent acts. The SYRP will

provide data for monitoring such systems by tracking

the number and types of offenses committed by juveniles in placement and the types of sanctions they

received for previous offenses.

Beyond routine data collection, OJJDP has a

strong interest in and responsibility for researching

specific policy-related aspects of juvenile detention

and corrections. For example, in FY 1998, OJJDP

funded the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Juvenile Justice Programs. This initiative will examine in detail

the costs associated with juvenile corrections and

probation and will compare the costs with the benefits (both tangible and intangible) of each sanction.

The program will make it possible for OJJDP to

compare the benefits of corrections with those of

probation. While the program will not provide national information, it will provide significant insight

into how such analyses can be accomplished in other

jurisdictions. The analysis is being conducted by the

University of Texas at Dallas and the Dallas County

Juvenile Department.

To help determine the number of juveniles under

some form of community supervision, OJJDP is

funding the Survey of Juvenile Probation. This survey will estimate the number of juveniles on probation nationally at a specific time, the nature of their

offenses (to the extent possible), and the conditions

of their probation. In a very real sense, the numbers

and types of juveniles in residential placement depend on the availability of alternative sanctions.

While some juveniles clearly need residential placement for the safety of the community or the juvenile,

others might be handled more appropriately within
FY 1998 55

Annual Report

the community. This survey will attempt to routinely

gather sufficient information about juveniles on probation to make possible comparisons between these

youth and juveniles in custody. The Survey of Juvenile Probation is being conducted by the Bureau of

the Census through an interagency agreement with

OJJDP.

Emerging Issues in Juvenile

Detention and Corrections

Juvenile justice is changing rapidly. As States transfer or exclude juveniles from juvenile court jurisdiction, the composition of the population in juvenile

detention facilities will change, often in unanticipated ways. For example, many States can now

blend juvenile and criminal sentences so that an individual will serve a sentence in juvenile corrections

until reaching the age of majority and then be transferred to an adult facility. In the past, most juveniles

stayed in juvenile facilities a relatively short time,

about 9 to 12 months. Although the population serving blended sentences is relatively small, these youth

usually stay in juvenile facilities longer than youth

serving dispositions from juvenile courts and therefore consume a disproportionate share of facility resources. Also, juveniles detained while awaiting

hearings for transfer to criminal court may be detained much longer than other juveniles processed

in juvenile court.

Criminal corrections will also feel the results of the

changing juvenile transfer policies. Several States

already are struggling to deal with the increased

youth population in their prison and jail systems.

These systems are not equipped to handle the special needs of young offenders, including educational

services, nutritional requirements, and separation

from adult criminals. Some States (such as Colorado) have set up separate corrections systems for

young offenders, defined as those persons in the

criminal justice system who are younger than age

21. As this population increases, States face the task

of developing programs to prepare these individuals

for release to the community. States also need to

train corrections staff, who generally deal only with

adults, to work with youth. The administrators and

directors of corrections systems are looking to other

States and the Federal Government for assistance

and guidance in dealing with young offenders.

OJJDP has a history of supporting and funding

innovative programs to strengthen juvenile correction systems. As demonstrated by the initiatives discussed in this chapter, OJJDP is continuing this

support. The variety of funded programs is designed

to help improve the management of juvenile residential facilities, help States use their resources effectively and efficiently, protect the public, and meet

the needs of juvenile offenders.
FY 1998 57

Annual Report

Conclusion

Although national statistics continue to point to a

decrease in juvenile crime, OJJDP recognizes this

is not the time to let up on national efforts to prevent

juvenile victimization and respond swiftly and appropriately to juvenile delinquency. During FY

1998, OJJDP continued to work aggressively to

develop and fund programs and activities that prevent and intervene in delinquency, strengthen the

juvenile justice system, protect children and the

public, and enhance law enforcement.

The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,

and Chronic Juvenile Offenders guided much of

OJJDP’s work during the past year. This strategy

calls for community-based prevention programs to

reduce risk factors for juvenile crime and provide

buffering protective factors. The Office also implemented four major new programs established by

Congress: Combating Underage Drinking (CUD),

which provides funds to help communities develop

comprehensive approaches to the problem of underage drinking, with an emphasis on increasing law

enforcement activity; Drug-Free Communities Support, which helps community-based coalitions fight

juvenile drug use; Juvenile Accountability Incentive

Block Grants (JAIBG), which is encouraging

accountability-based reforms in State and local jurisdictions; and Training and Technical Assistance for

a Drug Prevention Program, which will help jurisdictions implement a proven drug prevention program. Other accomplishments include the continued

support of the Balanced and Restorative Justice

program, which recognizes the restoration of both

victims and offenders as critical goals of community

justice; the Juvenile Mentoring Program; a variety

of gang initiatives; and the Model Court program,

which is helping courts improve how they handle

child abuse and neglect cases.

OJJDP’s Missing and Exploited Children’s Program (MECP) also had many accomplishments. The

program launched a Web site in 1998 that features

Tips for Kids, which tell children where they should

go if they are scared, lost, or need help. OJJDP

also created a major new program and awarded

grants to 10 jurisdictions to help State and local law

enforcement agencies implement regional task forces

to address and combat Internet crimes against children. The MECP continued to fund the National

Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The

center operates a 24-hour toll-free hotline and established a CyberTipline in 1998 to collect and forward

to law enforcement agencies information from citizens about computer-facilitated sexual exploitation

of children. MECP also continued to provide a variety

of training and technical assistance to law enforcement,

prosecutors, and health and family services professionals. Research activities supported by MECP include

the second National Incidence Studies of Missing,

Exploited, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway

Children; a study of effective community-based

approaches for dealing with missing and exploited

children; an analysis of more than 550 missing

child homicide cases; and expanded research to

broaden law enforcement’s understanding of how

homicidal pedophiles select and lure victims, plan

activities, and elude prosecution.

Recognizing the importance of keeping juvenile

justice practitioners and policymakers informed

about OJJDP activities and of providing information about promising programs, OJJDP continued

to make dissemination a priority during FY 1998.

The Office developed and distributed more than

70 publications, hosted a national conference, and

sponsored several satellite videoconferences. The

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, which offers tollfree telephone and online access to information,

remained OJJDP’s major vehicle for distributing

information.

A major portion of OJJDP’s annual appropriation

supports five formula and block grant programs that

provide funds directly to the States, U.S. territories,

and the District of Columbia. These programs are

the Formula Grants Program, Title V Incentive
58 FY 1998

Annual Report

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program,

State Challenge Activities Program, JAIBG, and

CUD. The Formula Grants Program has spurred

State and local reforms of the juvenile justice system

and has resulted in States deinstitutionalizing status

offenders and nonoffenders, separating juveniles

from adults in institutional settings, removing juveniles from adult jails and lockups, and addressing

the disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles in secure facilities. It is especially encouraging

that States are spending a large portion of their formula grants on delinquency prevention programs.

The Title V Program continues to help communities

by providing funds to develop comprehensive and

coordinated delinquency prevention strategies that

focus on risk and protective factors. The State

Challenge Activities Program encourages States to

improve their juvenile justice systems by addressing

1 or more of 10 program areas specified by Congress. During FY 1997, most States addressed at

least 2 activities; 12 States addressed 3; and 1 State

addressed 4. OJJDP moved quickly to implement

the new JAIBG program in FY 1998 and awarded

block grants to 56 eligible jurisdictions (States, five

U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia). The

States are using the funds to address four specific

system changes that hold young offenders accountable at every stage of the juvenile justice system.

Finally, the CUD Program provided block grants

to each State and the District of Columbia to fund

activities to curb underage drinking and encourage

enforcement of underage drinking laws.

OJJDP also supported a number of new and continuation activities related to juvenile detention and

corrections. One of these, the Census of Juveniles in

Residential Placement, was conducted for the first

time on October 29, 1997. The census determined

that 125,805 youth resided in 1,121 public and 2,310

private residential facilities on that date. The census

also provided information about the race, gender,

and age of offenders and about the types of offenses

they were charged with or adjudicated for. OJJDP

is developing several new surveys to help local,

State, and Federal policymakers and practitioners

monitor the juvenile detention and corrections field.

The new Juvenile Residential Facility Census will

routinely collect information on how facilities operate; the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement

will provide information about youth in juvenile

justice facilities, including past offending behavior,

pathways to delinquency, family and social environments, and experiences in custody; and the Survey

of Juvenile Probation will estimate the number of

juveniles on probation nationally at a specific time,

the nature of their offenses, and the conditions of

their probation.

The variety of activities OJJDP undertook in FY

1998 illustrates the continuum of programming called

for in the Comprehensive Strategy. Such programs

are necessary to address serious juvenile crime and

build on the declining juvenile crime rate. Many of

OJJDP’s programs also are designed to help States

and localities assess their needs and problems and

develop solutions targeted specifically at those needs.

These programs and OJJDP’s other efforts in FY

1998 represent OJJDP’s commitment to provide

national leadership to prevent and intervene in juvenile delinquency.
FY 1998 59

Annual Report

Appendix

OJJDP Publications Released in FY 1998

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of Confinement for

Youth in Custody (Report), NCJ 164727

Capacity Building for Juvenile Substance Abuse Treatment

(Bulletin), NCJ 167251

Coaches Playbook Against Drugs (Portable Guide),

NCJ 173393

Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in Schools (Bulletin), NCJ 167888

Combating Underage Drinking (Fact Sheet), FS–9875

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders (Brochure), BC 596

Conflict Resolution and the Arts (Fact Sheet), FS–9880

Counting What Counts: The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (Fact Sheet), FS–9874

Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Courts, 1995 (Fact Sheet),

FS–9879

Developmental Pathways in Boys’ Disruptive and Delinquent Behavior (Bulletin), NCJ 165692

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997 Update

(Bulletin), NCJ 170606

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile Justice

System (Report), NCJ 167889

Drug Offense Cases in Juvenile Court, 1986–1995 (Fact

Sheet), FS–9881

Exciting Internships: Work Today for a Better Tomorrow

(Bulletin), NCJ 171696

Expert Panel Issues Report on Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offenders (Fact Sheet), FS–9768

Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

(Fact Sheet), FS–9878

Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Working With

Children, the Elderly, and Individuals With Disabilities in

Need of Support (Summary), NCJ 167248

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program

(Fact Sheet), FS–9876

Juvenile Arrests 1996 (Bulletin), NCJ 167578

Juvenile Arrests for Driving Under the Influence, 1995

(Fact Sheet), FS–9767

Juvenile Court Statistics 1995 (Report), NCJ 170607

Juvenile Justice Journal, Volume IV, Number 2 (Journal), NCJ 166823

Juvenile Justice Journal, Volume V, Number I (Journal), NCJ 170025

Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives (Program Report),

NCJ 165697

Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century (Bulletin),

NCJ 169276

Mental Health Disorders and Substance Abuse Problems

Among Juveniles (Fact Sheet), FS–9882

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1995 (Bulletin),

NCJ 167885

OJJDP Annual Report (Report), NCJ 177606

Performance Measures: What Works? (Fact Sheet),

FS–9771

Person Offenses in Juvenile Court, 1986-1995 (Fact

Sheet), FS–9877
60 FY 1998

Annual Report

Planning A Successful Crime Prevention Project

(Bulletin), NCJ 170024

1997 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for

Local Delinquency Prevention Programs (Report),

NCJ 170605

Responsible Fatherhood (Fact Sheet), FS–9773

SafeFutures (Brochure), BC 596

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders (Bulletin),

NCJ 170027

States at a Glance: Juveniles in Public Facilities, 1995

(Fact Sheet), FS–9769

The National Youth Network (Fact Sheet), YFS–9801

Update on the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,

and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Fact Sheet), FS–9883

Welfare-to-Work Grants and Juvenile Justice Agencies

(Fact Sheet), FS–9770

What About Girls? (Fact Sheet), FS–9884

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide

(Report), NCJ 170022

Youth Gangs (Fact Sheet), FS–9772

Youth Gangs: An Overview (Bulletin), NCJ 167249

To stay informed about OJJDP, join 4,500

of your colleagues in subscribing to

JUVJUST–OJJDP’s

E-mail Information Resource

Discover JUVJUST and access the latest juvenile justice information from the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the field, including announcements of

newly released publications, grants and funding opportunities, and upcoming conferences.

Announcements are posted by OJJDP several times a week.

JUVJUST is a free service that is available to anyone with Internet e-mail.

Subscribe now by completing the following steps:

• Send an e-mail message to listproc@ncjrs.org.

• Leave the subject line blank.

• Type subscribe juvjust your name in the body of the message.

Need technical assistance? Please send an e-mail to askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

OJJDP wants to hear from you!

Tell us what you think about JUVJUST.

Please send your comments and suggestions to askncjrs@ncjrs.org.
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 p.m. ET)

Fax:

301–519–5212

Online:

OJJDP Home Page:

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

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 placed in a database, which is searchable

online (www.ncjrs.org/database.htm). You are

also welcome to submit materials to JJC for

inclusion in the database.

The following list highlights popular and recently published OJJDP documents and videotapes, grouped by topical areas.

The OJJDP Publications List (BC000115) offers

a complete list of OJJDP publications and is

also available online.

In addition, the OJJDP Fact Sheet Flier

(LT000333) offers a complete list of OJJDP

Fact Sheets and is available online.

OJJDP also sponsors a teleconference initiative, and a flier (LT116) offers a complete list of

videos available from these broadcasts.

Corrections and Detention

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of

Confinement for Youth in Custody. 1998,

NCJ 164727 (116 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997

Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement:

Lessons Learned From Five States. 1998,

NCJ 173420 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 1997. 1999, NCJ 173938

(12 pp.).

Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare. 1999, NCJ 175715 (24 pp.).

Courts

Innovative Approaches to Juvenile Indigent

Defense. 1998, NCJ 171151 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1996. 1999,

NCJ 168963 (113 pp.).

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1996. 1999,

NCJ 175719 (12 pp.).

RESTTA National Directory of Restitution

and Community Service Programs. 1998,

NCJ 166365 (500 pp.), $33.50.

Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court:

An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions. 1998,

NCJ 172836 (112 pp.).

Youth Courts: A National Movement Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171149 (120 min.), $17.

Delinquency Prevention

1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile Mentoring

Program (JUMP). 1999, NCJ 173424 (65 pp.).

1998 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. 1999, NCJ 176342 (58 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.).

Effective Family Strengthening Interventions.

1998, NCJ 171121 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

Strategic Planning Guide. 1999, NCJ 172846

(62 pp.).

Parents Anonymous: Strengthening America’s

Families. 1999, NCJ 171120 (12 pp.).

Prenatal and Early Childhood Nurse Home

Visitation. 1998, NCJ 172875 (8 pp.).

Treatment Foster Care. 1999, NCJ 173421

(12 pp.).

Gangs

1996 National Youth Gang Survey. 1999,

NCJ 173964 (96 pp.).

Gang Members on the Move. 1998,

NCJ 171153 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998, NCJ 167249

(20 pp.).

The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connection. 1999, NCJ 171152 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs in America Teleconference

(Video). 1997, NCJ 164937 (120 min.), $17.

General Juvenile Justice

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice in State

Legislatures Teleconference (Video). 1998,

NCJ 169593 (120 min.), $17.

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 V, Number 1. 1998,

NCJ 170025 (32 pp.).

A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century.

1998, NCJ 169726 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National

Report. 1999, NCJ 178257 (232 pp.).

OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for

Juveniles. 1999, NCJ 177602 (52 pp.).

Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence.

1999, NCJ 173950 (253 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

Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse

(13-title series).

Protecting Children Online Teleconference

(Video). 1998, NCJ 170023 (120 min.), $17.

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

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

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998,

NCJ 173393 (20 pp.).

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile

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

Preparing for the Drug Free Years. 1999,

NCJ 173408 (12 pp.).

Violence and Victimization

Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in

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

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders. 1995, NCJ 153681

(255 pp.).

Report to Congress on Juvenile Violence

Research. 1999, NCJ 176976 (44 pp.)

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. 1998,

NCJ 170027 (8 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk

Factors and Successful Interventions Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171286 (120 min.), $17.

State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile

Crime: 1996–97 Update. 1998, NCJ 172835

(16 pp.).

White House Conference on School Safety:

Causes and Prevention of Youth Violence

Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 173399

(240 min.), $17.

Youth in Action

Community Cleanup. 1999, NCJ 171690 (6 pp.).

Cross-Age Teaching. 1999, NCJ 171688 (8 pp.).

Make a Friend—Be a Peer Mentor. 1999,

NCJ 171691 (8 pp.).

Plan a Special Event. 1999, NCJ 171689

(8 pp.).

Planning a Successful Crime Prevention

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

Stand Up and Start a School Crime Watch.

1998, NCJ 171123 (8 pp.)

Two Generations—Partners in Prevention.

1999, NCJ 171687 (8 pp.).

Wipe Out Vandalism and Graffiti. 1998,

NCJ 171122 (8 pp.).

Youth Preventing Drug Abuse. 1998,

NCJ 171124 (8 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

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 178892 Report