U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

OJJDP

2001

Office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies the

pathways to delinquency and the best methods to

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

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides

juvenile justice training and technical assistance to

federal, state, and local governments; law enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel; and private

agencies, educational institutions, and community

organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to develop and support programs and

replicate tested approaches to delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in such pertinent areas as 

mentoring, gangs, chronic juvenile offending, and

community-based sanctions.

State and Tribal Assistance Division provides funds

for state, local, and tribal governments to help them

achieve the system improvement goals of the JJDP

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

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

are implementing OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy

for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Information Dissemination and Planning Unit

produces and distributes information resources on

juvenile justice research, statistics, and programs and

coordinates the Office’s program planning and competitive award activities. Information that meets the

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

videotapes, CD–ROMs, electronic listservs, and the

Office’s Web site. As part of the program planning

and award process, IDPU identifies program priorities,

publishes solicitations and application kits, and facilitates peer reviews for discretionary funding awards.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes

interagency cooperation and coordination among 

federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of

juvenile justice. The Program primarily carries out

this responsibility through the Coordinating Council

on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an

independent body within the executive branch that

was established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

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

to violence. The Division provides leadership and

funding to promote effective policies and procedures to

address the problems of missing and exploited children,

abused or neglected children, and children exposed to

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

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

families; developing and demonstrating effective child

protection initiatives; and supporting the National

Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

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

Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415,

as amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is

to provide national leadership in addressing the issues of preventing and controlling juvenile delinquency and

improving the juvenile justice system.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, demonstration, and training initiatives to improve state and local

juvenile programs and to benefit private youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by seven

components within OJJDP, described below.

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

juvenile offending and child victimization. OJJDP accomplishes its mission by supporting states, local communities, and tribal jurisdictions in their efforts to develop and implement effective, multidisciplinary prevention

and intervention programs and improve the capacity of the juvenile justice system to protect public safety, hold

offenders accountable, and provide treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of individual juveniles and their families.
OJJDP Annual Report 2001

J. Robert Flores, Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

March 2003

This Report covers activities undertaken by the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention during 

Fiscal Year 2001.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

J. Robert Flores

Administrator
FY 2001 iii

Annual Report

Foreword

America’s communities have worked hard to reduce juvenile crime and violence, and research

findings attest to the positive results of their labors. Arrests for violent offenses committed by

juveniles, which peaked in 1994, have declined dramatically in recent years. During 2000—

the most recent year for which juvenile arrest statistics are available—the juvenile arrest rate

for violent offenses dropped for the sixth consecutive year to its lowest level in 14 years. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to combating violent juvenile crime, reducing delinquency, strengthening the juvenile justice system,

and enhancing public safety. The activities described in OJJDP Annual Report 2001 reflect that

commitment. During fiscal year 2001, OJJDP supported a cycle of activities—research and

statistics; program testing, development, and replication; training and technical assistance;

and information dissemination—that enabled practitioners and policymakers to better serve

their states and communities.

Those activities are described herein in the hope that they may assist those working on behalf

of America’s children and their families.

J. Robert Flores

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Table of Contents

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

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

Background........................................................................................................................................................1

Mission ..............................................................................................................................................................1

Activities and Organization ..............................................................................................................................1

For Further Information ..................................................................................................................................2

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

A Focus on Research ........................................................................................................................................3

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

Priority Program Areas ....................................................................................................................................5

Information Dissemination................................................................................................................................5

Program Solicitations and Peer Reviews ........................................................................................................6

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................................6

Chapter 2: Promoting Early Intervention and Delinquency Prevention Efforts..........................................7

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

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

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

Intergenerational Transmission of Antisocial Behavior ..................................................................................9

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

SafeFutures ......................................................................................................................................................10

Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative ......................................................................................................12

Title V Community Prevention Grants Program ..........................................................................................13

Truancy Reduction Activities..........................................................................................................................14

Understanding and Monitoring the “Whys” Behind Juvenile Crime Trends ............................................14

Very Young Offenders Study Group..............................................................................................................15

Youth Violence Research Series ....................................................................................................................16

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

Chapter 3: Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System ................................................................................19

Accountability-Based Training for Staff in Juvenile Correctional Facilities ..............................................19

Assessing Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Disorders Among Juvenile Detainees ............................................19

Community Assessment Centers ....................................................................................................................20

Formula Grants Program................................................................................................................................22

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program ..........................................................................23

National Training and Technical Assistance Center......................................................................................30

Performance-based Standards Project ..........................................................................................................31

Planning of New Institutions for Juveniles ..................................................................................................32

State Challenge Activities................................................................................................................................33

On the Horizon................................................................................................................................................36

FY 2001 v

Annual Report
Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 4: Enhancing Public Safety and Law Enforcement ........................................................................37

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program........................................................................................37

Juvenile Sex Offenders ..................................................................................................................................39

Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program ..................................................................40

Partnerships To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence Program ..........................................................................41

Chapter 5: Reducing the Victimization of Children ......................................................................................43

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

Crimes against Children Research Center ....................................................................................................44

ICAC Task Force Program ............................................................................................................................44

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ..................................................................................45

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)..................................................................................46

Parents Anonymous® ......................................................................................................................................46

Safe Start Initiative..........................................................................................................................................47

Chapter 6: Addressing Youth Gangs ..............................................................................................................49

Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, 

Intervention, and Suppression Program ........................................................................................................49

Gang-Free Schools and Communities ............................................................................................................50

Gang Prevention and Intervention Through Targeted Outreach With Boys & Girls Clubs ....................50

National Youth Gang Center ..........................................................................................................................51

Publications......................................................................................................................................................51

Research ..........................................................................................................................................................52

Socialization to Gangs in an Emerging Gang City ....................................................................................52

Survey of School-Based Gang Prevention and Intervention Programs ..................................................52

Tribal Youth and Gangs ..............................................................................................................................52

Women in Gangs: A Field Research Study ................................................................................................53

Youth Gangs in Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities................................................................53

Rural Gang Initiative ......................................................................................................................................53

Chapter 7: Improving Conditions for Tribal Youth ......................................................................................55

Tribal Youth Program......................................................................................................................................56

TYP Mental Health Project............................................................................................................................56

Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement Project ....................................57

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

Research and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................58

vi FY 2001

Annual Report
Table of Contents (continued)

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

Juvenile Arrests in 2000 ................................................................................................................................59

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement ..............................................................................................60

Juvenile Residential Facility Census..............................................................................................................61

Assessing the Need for Juvenile Corrections Space ....................................................................................61

Deaths in Custody ..........................................................................................................................................62

Upcoming Surveys ..........................................................................................................................................62

Chapter 9: Getting the Word Out ..................................................................................................................65

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse......................................................................................................................65

Web Sites..........................................................................................................................................................66

Publications......................................................................................................................................................66

OJJDP’s Journal ........................................................................................................................................67

Juvenile Offenders and Victims National Report Series ..........................................................................67

Satellite Videoconferencing ............................................................................................................................67

On the Horizon................................................................................................................................................68

Appendix: OJJDP Publications Produced in FY 2001 ................................................................................69

FY 2001 vii

Annual Report
viii FY 2001

Annual Report

How To Access Information From OJJDP’s 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

All OJJDP publications mentioned in this Report are available from

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

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

Telephone: 800–638–8736

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

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

Fact Sheets and Bulletins only)

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

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

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

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) was created by Congress in

1974 to help States and communities prevent and

control delinquency and improve their juvenile justice systems.1 A component of the U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, OJJDP is

the primary Federal agency responsible for addressing juvenile crime and delinquency and the problems

of abused, neglected, missing, and exploited children

and for coordinating Federal agency efforts in these

areas.

Although the nature and extent of delinquency and

abuse have changed considerably since OJJDP

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

that help States, tribal jurisdictions, communities,

and local governments meet the many juvenile justice challenges facing them. These challenges include preparing juvenile offenders for returning to

their communities following release from secure corrections facilities; dealing with the small percentage

of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders;

holding offenders accountable for their unlawful actions; combating alcohol and drug abuse; addressing

gang and juvenile gun violence; and helping children

victimized by crime and child abuse.

Mission

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

respond to juvenile offending and child victimization.

OJJDP accomplishes its mission by supporting

States, local communities, and tribal jurisdictions

in their efforts to develop and implement effective,

multidisciplinary prevention and intervention programs and improve the capacity of the juvenile justice system to protect public safety, hold offenders

accountable, and provide treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of individual juveniles and their families.

Activities and Organization

OJJDP sponsors a range of research and evaluation efforts, statistical studies, and demonstration

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

products containing reliable and relevant information about juvenile justice topics; manages programs that address situations involving missing and

exploited children; and administers formula, block,

and discretionary grant programs. These activities

are carried out by seven components within OJJDP:

the Research and Program Development Division,

the Training and Technical Assistance Division, the

Special Emphasis Division, the State and Tribal

Assistance Division, the Information Dissemination

and Planning Unit, the Concentration of Federal

Efforts Program, and the Child Protection Division.

This Report describes OJJDP’s major activities

and accomplishments in these areas during FY

2001. Together, they reflect the Office’s continuing

commitment to programs that have the greatest

potential for reducing juvenile delinquency and

the victimization of children and for improving the

juvenile justice system.

FY 2001 1

Annual Report

An Introduction to the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention

1 The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of

1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq. (JJDP Act).
2 FY 2001

Annual Report

For Further Information

More information about OJJDP is available on

the agency’s Web site at ojjdp.ncjrs.org or from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (see information

on page viii). An OJJDP Fact Sheet entitled An

Overview of the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (FS–200009) provides

additional information about the agency.
After increasing sharply during the late 1980s and

early 1990s and peaking in 1994, arrests for juvenile

violent offenses have declined dramatically in recent

years. The juvenile arrest rate for violent offenses

dropped for the sixth consecutive year during 2000

(the most recent year for which juvenile arrest statistics are available) to its lowest level in 14 years.

The number of juvenile arrests in every category

tracked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in

its Violent Crime Index (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) fell during 2000.2 Although OJJDP is encouraged by the significant

decrease in juvenile arrests for violent crime in recent years, it remains strongly committed to combating violent juvenile crime. The Office’s activities,

areas of focus, and accomplishments during fiscal

year (FY) 2001 reflect this commitment.

A Focus on Research

OJJDP performs its role of national leadership in

juvenile justice and delinquency prevention through

a cycle of activities that include data collection,

research, evaluation, demonstration, training and

technical assistance, and information dissemination.

OJJDP, for example, collects and disseminates

critical statistics about juvenile arrests, offenders,

and victimization. These statistics provide the Office and the juvenile justice field a better understanding of issues affecting juveniles, and they also help

OJJDP identify new areas for research.

OJJDP funds short-term and longitudinal research

studies, and findings from these studies often lead

to the development of demonstration programs,

many of which involve community-based, comprehensive juvenile justice strategies. To ensure that

these strategies are effective, OJJDP funds scientifically rigorous evaluations—the Office currently

supports 19 program evaluations and plans to increase this number to target funding on programs

that work. When a strategy or program is proven to

be effective, OJJDP sponsors training and technical assistance to help communities replicate the approach. Training and technical assistance are available to policymakers and practitioners on a broad

range of juvenile justice topics.

OJJDP also provides seed money to State and

local governments through formula and block

grants to implement programs, projects, and reform

efforts. The Office provides training and technical

assistance to help States and local governments implement programs effectively and maintain the integrity of model programs being replicated.

OJJDP has an aggressive information dissemination strategy that incorporates a Web site and print

and electronic documents and products designed to

inform the field about the most recent statistical and

research findings, program developments, funding

availability, and other OJJDP news.

Research represents a specific agenda for OJJDP

and is central to its overall program delivery.

Research activities will continue to be stressed in

coming years as OJJDP’s leadership recognizes the

critical role of research in identifying and developing programs to prevent and reduce juvenile crime

and delinquency. Critical first steps in assisting juvenile offenders toward successful reentry into society are determining what factors place them at risk

FY 2001 3

Annual Report

Chapter 1

An Overview of Major Accomplishments

2 OJJDP’s upcoming Bulletin Juvenile Arrests 2000 will include

a detailed summary and analysis of national and State juvenile

arrest data. The Bulletin will be available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse. (See box on page viii for information

on how to request publications and access other information

from the Clearinghouse via telephone, fax, e-mail, and the

Internet.)
for delinquency, identifying patterns of offending,

and developing effective strategies to respond to

their needs and behaviors. Committing to a research agenda is, therefore, one of the most important ways in which OJJDP can respond to the

needs of children at risk of delinquency, their families, and their communities. Knowledge gained

through research of what works increases OJJDP’s

ability to form and wisely fund programs that will

result in well-crafted solutions and interventions

to address the problems of juvenile crime and

violence.

Programs that promote protective factors and help

reduce the risk factors that lead to juvenile crime

are among the best investments a community can

make to lower its rate of delinquency. Evaluation

and testing are vital for the identification of effective programs that keep juveniles from being arrested and entering the juvenile justice system in the

first place. At the same time, communities need to

identify corrections treatment and aftercare that

will reduce the likelihood of recidivism. To aid these

efforts, OJJDP’s Research and Program Development Division (Research Division) is committed

to maximizing the impact of OJJDP’s diverse research by disseminating its findings to practitioners

and policymakers who work with juveniles and juvenile offenders.

The ultimate goal of OJJDP’s Research Division is

to prevent at-risk youth from pursuing a delinquent

career and to help youth who are already in the juvenile system turn away from future delinquency and

criminal behavior and become productive citizens.

OJJDP’s cycle of activities demonstrates the need to

use what researchers have learned to craft solutions

and interventions that address the problems of juvenile crime and violence. Together, OJJDP divisions

and program units provide a continuum of activity

that fully supports the efforts of researchers, policymakers, courts, schools, juvenile justice facilities,

practitioners, parents, and juveniles.

Yet, despite the knowledge OJJDP has gained, it

recognizes that much work still remains to be done.

Over the years, OJJDP’s Research Division has

developed strong partnerships with the many highly

skilled researchers in the field of juvenile justice

and risk behavior. These partnerships—including

those conducted in collaboration with a number of

Federal agencies—will continue to be strengthened

and many new ones will be formed. Through these

activities, OJJDP will continue to support a meaningful array of research studies, evaluations, and

statistical activities. With the help of researchers in

the field, OJJDP will use what it has learned to develop programs and solutions that will make a difference to juveniles, their families, and communities.

OJJDP’s research activities and program development and delivery will continue to expand to improve juvenile justice knowledge of what works and

what does not. As this Report details, in fulfilling

its role of national leadership in juvenile justice and

delinquency prevention, OJJDP demonstrated an

increased emphasis on research in 2001, and this

focus will continue to be stressed in coming years.

OJJDP’s research agenda stands at the center of

its overall program development, statistics, evaluation, and funding activities to determine what the

roots of delinquency are, what policies and programs can help protect youth and families from

risk factors, and how communities can assist and

support these efforts. 

Collaboration

For the past several years, OJJDP has emphasized

the need for State and local agencies, communities,

and components of the juvenile justice system to

work together to address juvenile crime and victimization. Collaboration, therefore, guided a number

of OJJDP programs in FY 2001, including programs to address drug use, juvenile gun violence,

gang violence, truancy, offender reentry, and Internet crimes against children. In addition, OJJDP is

collaborating with other Federal agencies on several

critical programs, such as the Safe Schools/Healthy

Students Initiative, a joint effort of the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services,

and Justice to reduce school violence, and the Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and

4 FY 2001

Annual Report
Law Enforcement (CIRCLE) Project, which (with

the help of Federal partner agencies from the U.S.

Department of Justice and the assistance of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs)

helps tribal communities develop comprehensive

planning and funding infrastructures to more effectively fight crime, violence, and substance abuse.

Priority Program Areas 

OJJDP administered several new program activities during FY 2001. Priority areas in FY 2001 included the following:

✦ Intervention and prevention efforts. Aggressive

and immediate steps to stop delinquency before

it starts can prevent juveniles from entering the

juvenile justice system and lower the number of

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.

The research, prevention, and early intervention

programs described in chapter 2 (see pages 7–17)

reflect OJJDP’s continued commitment to combating juvenile violence and delinquency and

intervening early and effectively.

✦ Gang programs. The National Youth Gang Survey documents the persistence of a serious youth

gang problem in the United States and describes

changes in the scope and nature of the problem.

Through research, evaluation, training and technical assistance, and dissemination activities,

OJJDP supports communities in their gang

prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts.

Chapter 6 (see pages 49–53) highlights OJJDP’s

recent gang-related activities.

✦ Tribal youth programs. Although rates of juvenile violent crime have been declining throughout the Nation for several years, juvenile crime

continues to rise in Indian Country. OJJDP is

working to prevent and reduce juvenile crime in

tribal communities through its continued support

of several broad program areas, including the

Tribal Youth Program (TYP) and the TYP

Mental Health Project. The Office’s efforts to

help tribal communities prevent and control

juvenile delinquency and address other problems

facing tribal youth are described in chapter 7

(see pages 55–58).

✦ Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program. During FY 2001, OJJDP’s Enforcing the

Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) Program continued to work with States to address the problem of underage drinking through an approach

that included block grants, discretionary funding,

and training and technical assistance. EUDL is

discussed in chapter 4 (see pages 37–39).

✦ Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC)

Task Force Program. During FY 2001, the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task

Force Program, created in 1998, continued to

assist State and local law enforcement agencies

in developing effective responses to Internet exploitation and child pornography cases. The program includes forensic and investigative components, training and technical assistance, victim

services, and community education. Chapter 5

provides information on the background, purpose, and activities of the ICAC Task Force

Program (see pages 44–45).

Information Dissemination

Providing a full spectrum of information (about research, statistics, promising practices, and emerging

concerns and issues) to juvenile justice practitioners, policymakers, and the public remained a high

priority at OJJDP during FY 2001. The Office,

for example, developed two new Web sites—OJP’s

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative site

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry), and a Web site for

OJJDP’s Title V Community Prevention Grants

Program (ojjdp.ncjrs.org/titlev/index.html). The Office also produced more than 80 new publications,

established electronic and printed products, and

used a range of vehicles (e.g., print publications;

electronic products such as CD–ROMs, listservs,

and Web sites; and satellite videoconferences) to

convey information to the field. These activities

are highlighted in chapter 9 (see pages 65–68).

FY 2001 5

Annual Report
6 FY 2001

Annual Report

Although OJJDP continues to disseminate up-todate information to a broad audience of juvenile

justice practitioners and policymakers and the general public, it recently began to change its approach

to information dissemination, relying more on the

OJJDP Web site (ojjdp.ncjrs.org) to disseminate

information and exploring the advantages of electronic publishing. In addition, OJJDP is beginning

to target its mailings of publications and solicitations to more carefully defined audiences. Electronic versions of all publications and solicitations are

still available (for viewing and downloading) on the

OJJDP Web site, and a limited number of print

copies are available on request from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse. All new publications will

continue to be announced on OJJDP’s Web site

and through the JUVJUST listserv as well. (For

more information on JUVJUST, see page 66).

OJJDP is also considering online publication as

an alternative to print for certain categories of information. For example, for statistics and other

time-sensitive materials, online publication may

allow the information to be made available sooner,

updated more easily and more frequently, and presented without the physical constraints of print.

A shift to online publication will enable OJJDP to

provide up-to-date and comprehensive information

to the field. Although the volume of OJJDP’s mailings will decrease, the agency’s overall information

dissemination activity should expand—particularly

when the economies of electronic dissemination are

fully realized.

Program Solicitations and

Peer Reviews

Many of the programs that OJJDP supported

in FY 2001 were funded through a competitive

application process. It was, in fact, a busy year, as

OJJDP issued solicitations for 7 discretionaryfunded programs and received 724 applications in

response. Several program announcements resulted

in hundreds of applications: for example, the DrugFree Communities Support Program received 385

applications in response to its program announcement and the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative received more than 200. To ensure that only

the highest quality programs are funded, OJJDP

conducts an intense peer review of all eligible applications for competitive discretionary funding. Peer

reviewers include practitioners, researchers, and

academicians from the public and private sectors.

During FY 2001, the Office convened 61 peer review panels to evaluate applications for funding for

7 programs. A total of 170 reviewers served on the

panels. (Typically, a panel consists of 3 reviewers

and considers 10 applications.)

Conclusion

As described throughout this Report, OJJDP

programs and activities during FY 2001 have

sought to combat juvenile violent crime and

violence and keep communities safe. Through its

continued support of a cycle of activities—research

and statistics; program development, testing, and

demonstration; replication; training and technical

assistance; and information dissemination—the

Office in FY 2001 was able to help practitioners

and policymakers identify programs and services

that would best serve their States and communities.
OJJDP has long supported the development of

early intervention and delinquency prevention programs. Early, aggressive intervention reduces delinquency before it starts, preventing juveniles from

entering the juvenile justice system and lowering

the number of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

offenders. These interventions create opportunities

for positive youth development and allow juveniles

at high risk of delinquency to participate in activities designed to reduce the likelihood of subsequent

juvenile offending.

The early intervention and prevention programs

supported by OJJDP range from longitudinal

studies to mentoring programs to truancy reduction

efforts. OJJDP also recognizes the importance of

coordinated efforts to prevent delinquency and provide early intervention, as shown by its work with

other Federal agencies on initiatives such as Safe

Schools/Healthy Students, a collaborative effort of

the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and

Human Services, and Justice. The research, prevention, and early intervention programs described

in this chapter reflect OJJDP’s strong commitment

to combating juvenile violence and delinquency and

intervening early and effectively—before delinquency becomes a pattern of behavior and juveniles find

themselves on a path to chronic delinquency.

Causes and Correlates of Delinquency

Since 1986, OJJDP has sponsored three major

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

Delinquency—that examine how juveniles develop

within the context of family, school, peers, and

community. Researchers are studying samples of

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

and Rochester, NY. Findings from the research are

providing valuable information about the causes of

delinquency. Many of the program’s findings confirm earlier beliefs and knowledge about the roots

of delinquency and violence—for example, that

maltreatment in childhood is associated with later

behavioral problems and that less serious problem

behaviors precede more serious delinquency. Since

1986, OJJDP has published Bulletins on risk factors, such as family disruption, child maltreatment,

and gang involvement, that can lead to delinquency.

Recent OJJDP releases continue to explore these

themes.

As part of the Causes and Correlates Program, in

July 2001 OJJDP released the Bulletin Gun Use by

Male Juveniles: Research and Prevention (NCJ 188992),

which describes a study on patterns of juvenile gun

ownership and use. The Bulletin included findings

drawn from the Rochester Youth Development

Study, which tracked the growth of delinquent behavior, drug use, and related behaviors in a sample

of 1,000 adolescents who have been interviewed in

12 waves since 1987. During the survey period,

participating adolescents were asked whether they

owned a gun and, if they did, their motivation for

doing so. The findings from this study, combined

with those from previous research, suggest that to

reduce illegal gun carrying and firearm violence,

law enforcement agencies and communities must

work together to build trust and cooperation.

Specifically, the research indicates that rates of

violent crime are lower in urban communities where

police and residents have a high level of mutual trust

and where residents in high-crime neighborhoods

are willing to intervene on behalf of the common

FY 2001 7

Annual Report

Chapter 2

Promoting Early Intervention and Delinquency Prevention Efforts
good. Research also shows that illegal firearm use

by juveniles is a relatively small and localized problem and that gun carrying among juveniles tends to

be transitory. Such findings suggest that illegal gun

carrying by juveniles can be deterred by focusing

interventions on “hot spots” of gun problems.

In August 2001, OJJDP released another Bulletin

based on research from Causes and Correlates sites,

Juvenile Delinquency and Serious Injury Victimization

(NCJ 188676). Using data from Denver and Pittsburgh, researchers examined the prevalence of serious injury victimization in the general population,

factors associated with becoming a victim who sustains a serious injury, and risk factors or combinations of risk factors that most accurately predict

victimization involving serious injury. The Bulletin

focuses on victims of assaults and robberies who

sustained serious injuries as a result of the victimization. The research shows that a sizable percentage of youth and young adult males and females are

victimized. In Pittsburgh, 11 percent of males between the ages of 16.5 and 18.5 reported suffering

a serious injury during an assault or robbery. In

Denver, 20 percent of males and 10 percent of females ages 13 to 17 reported being seriously hurt

during an assault or robbery. At both sites, minorities, especially African American males, were more

likely to have been victims. Risk factors for victimization included participating in gang or group

fights, carrying a weapon, committing a serious assault, selling drugs, and associating with delinquent

peers. Although not all victims had these risk

factors, the majority of victims (66 percent in Pittsburgh and 87 percent of males and 72 percent of

females in Denver) were involved in behaviors or

activities that might be associated with sustaining

serious injuries. Because most victims are involved

in assaultive behaviors, sell drugs, and/or have delinquent peers, avoidance of these risky behaviors

could result in the lowering of risk for victimization.

For more information on the Causes and Correlates

Program and a complete list of publications resulting

from this research, visit the Causes and Correlates

site (ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ccd/index/html), accessible

from the “Programs” page of the OJJDP Web site.

Coordinating Council

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Council) is an independent body within the Executive branch of the Federal Government. Its primary functions are to identify

and develop policies, objectives, and priorities for

Federal programs and activities relating to juvenile

delinquency, juvenile victimization, and missing and

exploited children. The Council also examines how

programs can be better coordinated at different levels of government to serve at-risk youth, makes recommendations to the President and Congress, and

reviews the programs and practices of Federal

agencies to assess their compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The

Attorney General chairs the Council, and the Administrator of OJJDP serves as its vice chair. The

Council also includes the Secretaries of the U.S.

Departments of Education, Health and Human

Services, Housing and Urban Development, and

Labor; the Director of the White House Office of

National Drug Control Policy; the Commissioner

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and

the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for

National and Community Service, in addition to

nine practitioner members appointed by the President, the Senate majority leader, and the Speaker

of the House.

During fiscal year (FY) 2001, the Council focused

on reducing childhood exposure to violence and

protecting children online. The Council’s March

2001 quarterly meeting, for example, was devoted

to a discussion of how to better protect children

from violence, improve the prosecution of child

abuse cases, and stem the growing number of online

child predators. The Council also addressed the

need to prevent and eliminate youth gangs and

met to discuss the coordination of faith- and

community-based organizations and initiatives.

As part of a Federal interagency collaboration to

prevent youth crime, the Deputy Attorney General

led a discussion on preventing and controlling juvenile gang crime at the Council’s July 2001 meeting.

The meeting’s discussion centered on research,

8 FY 2001

Annual Report
training, and programs to combat youth gangs; a

survey of tribal youth gangs; and the difficulty of

defining what constitutes a “youth gang.”

During 2001, the Council also continued to maintain and update two Web sites it launched in 2000.

The Parenting Resources for the 21st Century Web

site (parentingresources.ncjrs.org) links parents

and others responsible for the care of children with

information on issues covering the full spectrum

of parenting—from caring for a newborn to finding

information about college scholarships. The Children With Disabilities Web site (www.children

withdisabilities.ncjrs.org) addresses an array of

developmental, physical, and emotional disabilities

and offers families, service providers, and other interested individuals information on advocacy, education, employment, health, housing, recreation,

technical assistance, and transportation.

For additional information on the Council’s activities and responsibilities, readers may request a copy

of the OJJDP Fact Sheet Coordinating Council Promotes Federal Collaboration (FS–200021) from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Drug-Free Communities

Support Program

The Drug-Free Communities Support Program

(DFCSP) provides grants to more than 450 community coalitions across the Nation and strengthens

local efforts to prevent and reduce young people’s

illegal use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. The

White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) oversees the program, and OJJDP

awards and administers DFCSP grants. Participating coalitions are made up of youth and parents;

business and media representatives; school and law

enforcement officials; youth services, religious, and

other community organizations; and health professionals and government agencies with expertise in

the field of substance abuse. Effective projects have

included teen courts, alcohol and drug abstinence

pledge programs, charter schools, peer mentoring

programs, and prevention and outreach activities.

Now in its fourth year of funding, DFCSP added

nearly $15 million in new grants to 157 sites in FY

2001. The program also includes technical assistance

and evaluation components. In April 2001 (before

funds were awarded), OJJDP and ONDCP sponsored a series of regional workshops to explain

the application process to prospective applicants.

Detailed information on DFCSP, such as descriptions of program history and current activities,

lists of grantees, funding updates, training and

technical assistance opportunities, and additional

resources, is available on the OJJDP Web site at

ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dfcs/index.html. The Drug-Free Communities Support Program, a Fact Sheet released in

April 2001 (FS–200108), presents a brief overview

of DFCSP, and a related Fact Sheet released the

same month, Promising Practices: Drug-Free Communities Support Program (FS–200111), highlights innovative antidrug strategies developed by community

coalitions participating in the program. Both are

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Intergenerational

Transmission of Antisocial

Behavior

Researchers at the University at Albany, State University of New York, continue to examine the causes and consequences of antisocial behavior through

the intergenerational component of the Rochester

Youth Development Study (RYDS). The focal

subjects of this intergenerational study are the oldest biological children of the original adolescent

participants in RYDS (begun in 1986 with funding

from OJJDP as part of the Program of Research

on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency).

Through interviews and videotaped observations

with the child, the parent (the original RYDS study

participant as an adolescent), and the child’s other

major caregiver, researchers can study continuity

and discontinuity in antisocial behavior as well as

the causes and consequences of these behaviors. Information about a wide range of topics (e.g., family,

friends, neighborhood, school, beliefs, and behaviors)

FY 2001 9

Annual Report
is collected in an effort to construct a picture of these

children’s development that is as complete as possible. In addition, data are being collected from

schools and social services and criminal justice

agencies. Using these data in combination with

the data collected from the original study of the

Rochester participants and their parents allows

researchers to examine the development of antisocial behavior in a high-risk sample across three

generations.

Three years of data collection for this 5-year study

are now complete. Data collection for the fourth

year of the study has just begun, and more than

400 families are currently enrolled. Cooperation

and retention rates are excellent. Most efforts have

focused on creating developmentally specific measurement strategies (both interviews and observations), collecting data, and processing the data

for use in analyses. Results have been presented at

a number of professional conferences, and several

manuscripts in progress will be submitted for publication in scientific journals. One paper focuses on

whether parenting behaviors mediate the level of

intergenerational continuity in antisocial behavior;

another focuses on important antecedent factors in

determining parenting styles. The results will contribute to the field’s understanding of the development of antisocial behavior and allow researchers,

policymakers, and practitioners to make informed

decisions about the development of appropriate intervention programs. OJJDP is funding the program under an interagency agreement with the

National Institute of Mental Health.

Juvenile Mentoring Program

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

risk of failing in school, dropping out of school, or

becoming involved in delinquent behavior, including gang activity and substance abuse. Through

JUMP, more than 2,500 at-risk young people in

20 States and Puerto Rico receive one-to-one mentoring to help keep them in school and away from

drugs and crime. Participating young people are

drawn from first grade through high school. Participating mentors are recruited from a variety of

sources. Many JUMP sites use law enforcement

officers as mentors; others rely on college students,

senior citizens, military personnel, business people,

clergy members, doctors, lawyers, teachers, tribal

leaders, and government employees to serve as volunteer mentors.

In January 2001, OJJDP awarded more than $5.8

million in grants to support mentoring programs in

28 sites, including Atlanta, GA; Detroit, MI; Jacksonville, FL; and Oakland, CA. OJJDP competitively selected the 28 sites from a pool of 534 applicants, with awards ranging from $190,000 to

$210,000 for use over a 3-year grant period. Ten

sites focus on minority youth, two target girls, and

five projects are specifically designed for courtinvolved youth. The JUMP sites represent a crosssection of every region in the Nation: 8 are predominantly rural, 16 are urban, 2 include both rural and

urban areas, 1 is suburban, and 1 is on an Indian

reservation. All sites will participate in the continuing national evaluation of JUMP.

Some programs emphasize tutoring and academics,

whereas others focus on vocational counseling and

job skills. All sites are required to coordinate their

activities with local schools. The varied mentoring

programs selected for funding share three important goals: improved academic performance, reduced school dropout rates, and prevention of

delinquent behavior.

Persons interested in serving as a mentor may call

the National Mentoring Center at 800–547–6339 to

receive a list of nearby JUMP sites and other mentoring programs that need volunteers. Additional

information on JUMP is available on the JUMP

Web site (ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jump/index.html).

SafeFutures

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

initiative since 1995. Each year, the six communities

(four urban, one rural, and one tribal) awarded

10 FY 2001

Annual Report
funding under the initiative have each received a

demonstration grant of approximately $1.4 million

to assist with existing efforts to reduce youth violence and delinquency. The SafeFutures grantees—

Boston, MA; Contra Costa County, CA; Fort Belknap Indian Community, MT; Imperial County,

CA; St. Louis, MO; and Seattle, WA, which

were selected through a competitive solicitation

process—were chosen based on their substantial

progress toward community assessment and strategic planning to address delinquency.

SafeFutures emphasized the importance of providing a continuum of care at all developmental stages

for delinquent youth and those at risk of becoming

delinquent. Goals of the initiative included preventing and controlling violence and delinquency in selected communities, building communities’ capacity

to institutionalize and sustain a continuum of services by expanding and diversifying funding sources,

and determining the success of project implementation and outcomes. During FY 2001, SafeFutures

sites made significant progress in the areas of systems improvements, innovations in services and

sanctions, and sustainability.

Sites have put in place integrated systems of care

that link juvenile justice, behavioral health, education, youth development, and other services to meet

the needs of youth and their families. For example:

✦ Boston’s Day Reporting Center has brought

together the services of parole and probation

agencies, neighborhood and faith-based organizations, schools, and employment agencies for

youth returning to the community from secure

confinement.

✦ Contra Costa County’s Summit Center is a collaborative effort of the probation department,

mental health agencies, the County Office of

Education, and various community service

providers.

✦ Contra Costa’s “core team” in West County

formed a combined case management group of

probation, law enforcement, and community

agencies to provide integrated supervision and

service plans for serious offenders.

✦ Imperial County’s Family Resources Center,

located in a public high school, is a one-stop

shop of social services, behavioral health, and

probation services for a previously underserved

community.

Seattle also has made systems change a priority

activity through involvement in larger initiatives affecting youth and its own key programs. The SafeFutures project in Seattle influenced the planning

and decisionmaking process of local officials and

encouraged closer examination of the continuum

of care approach and alternatives to incarceration

through its work on King County’s Juvenile Justice

Operational Master Plan. This work, in turn, led to

Reinvesting in Youth, a feasibility study to address

juvenile justice and youth services in Seattle/King

County funded by The Annie E. Casey Foundation

and SafeFutures. Phase 2 of the study began in

May 2001 and focuses on developing an implementation plan and funding strategy.

In FY 2001, the innovative approaches to services

and sanctions of the SafeFuture sites effectively engaged hard-to-reach, underserved youth and families.

For example:

✦ St. Louis strengthened street outreach to ganginvolved youth through a team of neighborhood

residents and a partnership with a neighborhood

church.

✦ Seattle’s SafeFutures Youth Center involved

Southeast Asian and East African immigrant

youth in positive community activities.

✦ The Fort Belknap Tribal Walkers program

brought together youth who had considered or

attempted suicide, service providers, and faith

leaders to educate the community, support youth,

and coordinate community responses to suicides

and suicide attempts.

✦ Contra Costa County’s gang intervention strategy provided youth with job readiness training,

initial placements in subsidized jobs, and support to make the transition to nonsubsidized

employment.

FY 2001 11

Annual Report
SafeFutures communities went beyond developing

collaborative relationships to establish partnerships

among public agencies that influenced the financing, organization, and delivery of services. The

Imperial County Interagency Steering Committee,

for example, permitted juvenile justice, behavioral

health, education, and social services department

heads to establish policy, plan programs, and blend

funds across agencies and categories. Boston’s resident governance board similarly established standards and priorities for neighborhood services and

guided the allocation of city resources.

In FY 2001, OJJDP also continued to fund a national evaluation of SafeFutures being conducted

by The Urban Institute of Washington, DC, to

determine the success of the initiative and to track

lessons learned at each site. Since FY 1995, The

Urban Institute has received semiannual data submissions from each of the six SafeFutures sites

for the Client Indicator Data Base (CIDB). Submissions contain individual-level data on SafeFutures youth clients and their caregivers, including

demographic information, indicators of risk and resiliency, service referrals and utilization data, and

education and juvenile justice outcomes. The most

recent CIDB submission, which covered January–

July 2001 and contained data for more than 5,000

youth and their adult caregivers, revealed thousands of youth receiving services, many at high risk

of delinquency or already involved in the justice

system.

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

the SafeFutures Initiative (NCJ 183841), which

draws on information gathered through visits to

each SafeFutures site during the first 3 years of the

initiative, followup discussions with selected participants, and analyses of secondary documents. The

publication is available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.

Safe Schools/Healthy Students

Initiative

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

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

Human Services (HHS), and Justice (DOJ) that

began in 1999. The initiative helps students develop

the skills they need to promote positive mental

health, engage in prosocial behavior, and avoid

violent behavior and drug use. Another goal of the

initiative is to help grantees create an infrastructure

that will institutionalize and sustain the services

developed.

Research shows that violence prevention efforts

that build on children’s strengths and promote

healthy development produce more positive results

and are more cost-effective than strictly punitive

measures. Grantees were urged to intervene with

children early and to adopt programs that had been

shown to be effective, such as life skills development,

mentoring, conflict resolution, support for families,

professional development for staff, truancy prevention, afterschool activities, teen courts, and alternative education.

Through a cooperative agreement with the Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle, NC,

OJJDP is collaborating with ED and HHS to

conduct a national evaluation that will document

the process and outcomes of the SS/HS Initiative.

The National Mental Health Association of Alexandria, VA, through a cooperative agreement funded

by OJJDP, ED, and HHS, has established the

Safe Schools/Healthy Students Action Center to

provide training and technical assistance to SS/HS

sites and to provide other local education agencies,

communities, and families with access to resources

that can enhance their efforts to make schools safe.

Information about the Action Center is available at

www.sshsac.org.

12 FY 2001

Annual Report
Title V Community Prevention

Grants Program

The Title V Community Prevention Grants Program, established by the 1992 reauthorization of

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(JJDP) Act of 1974, is a Federal grants program

that funds collaborative, community-based delinquency prevention efforts. The Title V Program

integrates six fundamental principles—community

control and decisionmaking, comprehensive and

multidisciplinary approaches, research foundation

for planning, leveraging of resources and systems,

evaluation to monitor program progress and effectiveness, and a long-term perspective—that

combine to form a strategic approach to reducing

juvenile delinquency. The program provides communities with funding and a framework within

which to develop and implement comprehensive

juvenile delinquency prevention plans. The 3-year

prevention plans are designed to reduce risk factors

associated with juvenile delinquency and decrease

the incidence of juvenile problem behaviors.

From 1994 to 2001, 1,246 communities in 49 States,

the District of Columbia, and 5 territories (referred

to collectively herein as “States”) received Title V

subgrants to mobilize resources and implement

comprehensive delinquency prevention plans. In

FY 2001, OJJDP awarded more than $37.3 million

under the Title V Program, with allocations ranging

from a minimum of $100,000 to a maximum of

$4,765,000. Four of the five territories received

$33,000; Puerto Rico received $616,000, based on

the size of its juvenile population.

In conjunction with the Title V funding process,

OJJDP continues to provide training and technical

assistance to help States and communities build

their capacity to plan and implement effective prevention strategies. A core component of this assistance is the Title V training curriculum. OJJDP

awarded funds to a new Title V training and technical assistance provider, Development Services

Group, Inc. (DSG), on April 1, 2000. Since then,

DSG has developed a training curriculum that

emphasizes theory-based and evidence-based planning and includes three training sessions: Community Team Orientation, Community Data Collection

and Analysis, and Community Plan and Program

Development. DSG also maintains a Title V listserv and produces a Title V newsletter, Community

Prevention: Title V Update, for States and local subgrantees. Other OJJDP-supported training activities in 2001 were designed to increase both the pool

of certified Title V trainers and the geographic, linguistic, and ethnic diversity of the training team,

with particular attention to Native Americans and

rural communities.

During 2001, OJJDP also continued to support

communities in selecting promising and effective

prevention programs. The Promising and Effective

Practices (PEP) Guide, developed in 2001, is designed

to help communities select research-based prevention programs.

The seventh annual Report to Congress on Title V

(2000 Report to Congress: Title V Community Prevention

Grants Program) will be released in 2002. In addition

to presenting the activities and accomplishments of

the Title V Program, the Report to Congress will

describe how States and communities across the

Nation implemented the Community Prevention

Grants Program in FY 2000 and examine their experiences and accomplishments. A copy of the Report to Congress will be available from the Juvenile

FY 2001 13

Annual Report

Juvenile Justice Focuses on School

Violence

Recognizing the importance of addressing school

violence, OJJDP in June 2001 devoted an issue

of its journal, Juvenile Justice, to this subject. The

issue’s three articles examine the extent and nature of school violence and review promising approaches to creating safe schools and resolving

conflicts peacefully. Copies of Juvenile Justice

(Volume VIII, Number 1, NCJ 188158) are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.
14 FY 2001

Annual Report

Justice Clearinghouse. The 2001 Report to Congress will be published during 2002.

Truancy Reduction Activities 

The goal of OJJDP’s Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program (TRDP) is to encourage communities to develop comprehensive approaches that

involve schools, parents, the justice system, law enforcement, and social services agencies in identifying and tracking truant youth. The program is a

collaborative effort of OJJDP, ED’s Safe and

Drug-Free Schools Program, and DOJ’s Weed and

Seed program, which supports communitywide

efforts to “weed out” violent crime, gang activity,

drug trafficking, and drug use and “seed in” social

programs.

TRDP includes seven projects in six States (California, Florida, Hawaii, New York, Texas, and

Washington) and serves more than 2,000 youth and

more than 1,100 families. Communities in these

sites are implementing programs that link truant

youth with community-based services and programs. The sites vary in size—serving anywhere

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

makeup, and community-based leadership; however, all of the sites have a large number of minority

students and families and a significant number of

students and families living in poverty. Most programs also have strong family collaboration as a

component.

Truancy reduction services vary among projects

and include court diversions such as community

truancy boards, truancy workshops, community

awareness campaigns, and collaboration among

community agencies. Truancy case managers usually work directly with youth and families, making

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

community agencies as needed.

During 2001, OJJDP brought the funded sites together to participate in training on evaluation activities and maintaining collaborative partnerships and

to share strategies on program implementation and

sustainability. OJJDP staff also have been involved

in several major conferences to provide information

to the field on program development and evaluation. In addition to funding sites, OJJDP is funding a national evaluation of the project by the Colorado Foundation for Families and Children.

Additional information on OJJDP’s truancy reduction efforts appears in Truancy Reduction: Keeping

Students in School, an OJJDP Bulletin released in

September 2001 (NCJ 188947) that explores the

link between truancy and serious delinquent activity in youth and significant negative behavior and

characteristics in adults. Truancy Reduction highlights

major research findings concerning truancy and explains why schools and communities should work

to prevent and reduce the incidence of truancy. The

Bulletin also discusses OJJDP’s truancy reduction

efforts. The Bulletin is available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse.

Understanding and Monitoring the “Whys” Behind

Juvenile Crime Trends

Recognizing the need to understand unprecedented

recent declines in the national rate of youth violence, OJJDP in August 2000 invited applications

for a 5-year study, Understanding and Monitoring

the “Whys” Behind Juvenile Crime Trends. The

purpose of the research project is to develop theoretically sound, empirically grounded tools that can

be used at the local level to explain and monitor

trends in juvenile delinquency and violence. Applicants from qualified public and private agencies and

organizations with demonstrated research abilities

were eligible to apply for funding; applications were

due in October 2000.

After reviewing the eight applications that were

submitted, OJJDP selected the University of

Pennsylvania Jerry Lee Center of Criminology to

conduct the study of recent trends in juvenile crime

and violence to better understand factors correlated
with these trends and to predict future trends in

delinquency and youth violence. During the first

year, the research team, including the University

of Maryland and the National Center for Juvenile

Justice, began conducting a thorough review of the

literature, identifying plausible theories to explain

the trends. The project also undertook an indepth

analysis of national statistical trends to examine

various underlying patterns that may confirm or

rebut some of the theories suggested in the literature review. The project focuses on national and

local juvenile crime trends and is exploring a range

of factors, including demographics; economics; public policy; Federal, State, and local programmatic

and community initiatives; and spiritual and cultural trends and values, that may help explain the

trends. The project’s ultimate goal is to build local

capacity to better understand the “whys” behind

juvenile crime trends by analyzing existing local

data and/or collecting additional data. This data,

in turn, will provide policymakers with valuable

information about trends in juvenile crime.

FY 2002 funding will support the completion and

dissemination of the analytical work begun in the

first year of the project. In 2002, the study team

will complete the review of the literature, examine

national data on the reasons for changes in crime

trends, and support developmental work to test hypotheses about the reasons for change at the local

level in selected jurisdictions. The researchers will

also carry out the research design, based on the results of the feasibility analysis, including plans for

recruitment of sample sites for retrospective and

prospective data collection, as appropriate.

Very Young Offenders Study Group

Juvenile courts today are challenged by an increase in the number of child delinquents (offenders

younger than age 13) coming before them. In 1997,

for example, juvenile courts handled more than

180,000 child offenders. Compared with youth who

first become involved in delinquency in their teens,

child delinquents are far more likely to become

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.

OJJDP’s Study Group on Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offenders found that most chronic juvenile offenders begin their criminal careers before

age 12 and some begin as early as age 10. The discovery that minor problem behavior leading to

delinquency often begins at a very young age was

a major basis for OJJDP’s decision to assemble its

Study Group on Very Young Offenders (Study

Group), a distinguished panel of 39 researchers

who began work in 1998.

The Study Group was formed to explore what is

known about the prevalence and frequency of

very young offending; investigate how very young

offenders are handled by the juvenile justice, mental

health, and social services systems; and determine

what methods can effectively prevent very young

offending. Focusing on the delinquent behavior of

offending children ages 7 to 12 and on their persistently disruptive and precociously deviant behavior

from the toddler years through adolescence, the

Study Group has reviewed existing research,

undertaken many special analyses, secured input

from more than 100 practitioners, and identified

specific risk and protective factors that are critical

to developing early intervention and protection programs for very young offenders.

The Study Group’s final report was completed in

2001 and subsequently published by Sage Publications as Child Delinquency: Development, Intervention,

and Service Needs (edited by Rolf Loeber and David

P. Farrington). The report draws on hundreds of

research studies to provide information on child

delinquency and its developmental course. Key

findings include the following:

✦ The number of child delinquents (ages 7 to 12)

handled in the Nation’s juvenile courts increased

33 percent during the past decade. This increase

concerns researchers because offense patterns

show more serious crimes among these youth

and because very young offenders are more

likely to continue their involvement in crime.

FY 2001 15

Annual Report
✦ Child delinquents are two to three times more

likely to become serious, violent, and chronic

offenders than adolescents whose delinquent

behavior begins in their teens. (Chronic offenders are those with at least four referrals to juvenile court.)

✦ Between 1988 and 1997, the arrest rate of child

delinquents for violent crimes increased 45 percent (paralleling the increase in violence for all

juveniles). Arrests of child delinquents for drug

abuse violations, however, increased 156 percent.

✦ Child delinquents account for one-third of all juvenile arrests for arson, one-fifth of juvenile arrests for sex offenses and vandalism, one-eighth

of juvenile arrests for burglary and forcible rape,

and one-twelfth of juvenile arrests for violent

crime.

The Study Group’s final report also describes key

risk and protective factors for delinquency. Many of

the risk factors and predictors for child delinquency

differ from those for offending by older youth. According to the Study Group’s report, risk factors for

offending at a very young age are more likely to be

biological, individual, and family factors. Individual

risk factors include physical aggressiveness and

hyperactive or impulsive behavior at a young age.

Family risk factors include antisocial parents,

substance-abusing parents, a history of family

violence, and poor parenting practices. Peer and

school/community risk factors and protective factors are also described in the final report.

In addition to determining risk and protective factors for child delinquency, the Study Group identified several effective and promising prevention and

intervention programs. These programs not only

help to reduce the incidence of delinquency but also

provide significant cost savings to society.

The final report of OJJDP’s Study Group on Very

Young Offenders will be summarized in Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention, an upcoming

Bulletin in OJJDP’s Child Delinquency Bulletin

Series. All Bulletins in the series will draw on

information from the Study Group’s final report.

OJJDP encourages parents, educators, and practitioners to use information in the Bulletins to deal

with young offenders more fairly and consistently.

Three other Bulletins in the series—Treatment, Services, and Intervention Programs for Child Delinquents;

Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency; and

Prevalence and Development of Child Delinquency—will

also be published in this series. 

Youth Violence Research Series

OJJDP and the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Injury

Prevention and Control have formed a strong

partnership to reduce youth violence. Part of that

partnership involves promotion of Blueprints for

Violence Prevention, an initiative that identifies and

disseminates information about violence prevention

and intervention programs that have been found to

be effective. The OJJDP–CDC partnership also

recently introduced the Youth Violence Research

Bulletin Series to present the most recent research

findings on topics related to youth violence. The

first Bulletin in the series (Short- and Long-Term

Consequences of Adolescent Victimization) will be

released in February 2002. 

On the Horizon

In FY 2002, OJJDP will make a significant

amount of funding available for programs designed

to promote early intervention in juvenile crime and

to prevent delinquency.

✦ Drug-Free Communities Support Program. In

FY 2002, DFCSP will make available approximately 70 grants of up to $100,000 each through

a competitive grant process. Eligible applicants

will include community coalitions whose principal mission is reducing substance abuse among

youth. Coalitions must represent the targeted

community and include at least one representative from each of the following groups: youth;

parents; business community; media; schools;

youth-serving organizations; law enforcement

agencies; religious or fraternal organizations;

16 FY 2001

Annual Report
civic and volunteer groups; healthcare professionals; State, local, or tribal governmental

agencies with expertise in the field of substance

abuse; and other organizations involved in reducing substance abuse.

✦ Juvenile Mentoring Program. JUMP will

award funding in FY 2002 to grantees interested

in developing and sustaining effective mentoring

programs for at-risk youth. Applications will be

invited from local education agencies, public

agencies, private for-profit and nonprofit organizations, and tribal nations. Faith-based organizations also will be encouraged to apply. Applicants

will be required to demonstrate knowledge of

and/or experience with mentoring programs, volunteers, and at-risk youth. National organizations

(i.e., those serving a population that extends

across the country) are not eligible to receive

JUMP funds, and grantees or collaborative entities that have received JUMP funds previously

will not be eligible for JUMP funding under this

solicitation.

✦ Promising Programs for Substance Abuse Prevention: Replication and Evaluation Initiative.

During FY 2002, OJJDP also plans fund the

Promising Programs for Substance Abuse Prevention: Replication and Evaluation Initiative.

The purpose of this initiative is to replicate and

test the effectiveness of two juvenile substance

abuse prevention program models. In replicating

these programs, OJJDP seeks to determine

whether positive outcomes found in previous

program evaluations can be replicated and sustained in other sites. Identifying programs that

can be replicated and sustained in other sites enhances the field’s knowledge about “what works”

in youth substance abuse prevention and helps

communities make effective choices in allocating

resources available for substance abuse prevention activities. 

FY 2001 17

Annual Report

Strengthening the capacity of juvenile justice systems to prevent and respond to delinquency is an

ongoing challenge for all States and communities.

Supporting their efforts to address this challenge is

a longstanding priority at OJJDP. Each year, the

Office’s core Formula Grants program funds a variety of State and local juvenile justice activities—

from prevention to corrections—throughout the

Nation. Other major programs sponsored by

OJJDP encourage States and communities to improve their juvenile justice systems by implementing accountability-based reforms and responding

to specific challenge areas.

By strengthening the corrections component of the

juvenile justice system, States and communities enhance public safety, ensure that court sanctions are

implemented appropriately and effectively, and take

advantage of an important opportunity to help offending juveniles make better choices and lead productive lives. OJJDP continues to develop and

fund a variety of programs to strengthen all components of the juvenile justice system. The programs

highlighted in this chapter illustrate the types of

activities that are underway and on the horizon.

Accountability-Based

Training for Staff in Juvenile

Confinement Facilities

The Accountability-Based Training for Staff in Juvenile Confinement Facilities program offers stateof-the-art training to direct-care staff in juvenile

confinement facilities around the Nation to help

them better handle and care for confined youth.

The program, funded by OJJDP for 6 years, is

administered by the National Juvenile Detention

Association’s (NJDA’s) Center for Research and

Professional Development (CRPD). Through the

program, CRPD has provided more than 101,600

training hours to line staff in juvenile justice facilities and programs in 33 States. NJDA also offers

comprehensive technical assistance to State and

local juvenile detention centers experiencing problems with their operations.

During FY 2002, CRPD will add a new 40-hour

curriculum (BARJ-ing Into Juvenile Confinement: Practical Application of BARJ Principles for Line Staff) to its

existing materials and curriculums. CRPD will also

develop and pilot advanced training curriculums on

suicide prevention and the management of mentally

ill residents and revise its curriculum for juvenile

detention caseworkers.

In addition, NJDA will make intensive technical

assistance available to jurisdictions having problems

with overcrowding in their juvenile confinement facilities. NJDA also will assist facilities experiencing

difficulties with operations, staffing, or planning.

NJDA maintains a consultant pool of experts who

understand the problems faced by overcrowded

facilities and can provide alternatives to secure detention. During FY 2002, NJDA will conduct at

least six jurisdictional Team Trainings to combat

overcrowding and address other problems relating

to the general operations of a juvenile confinement

facility.

Assessing Alcohol, Drug, and

Mental Disorders Among

Juvenile Detainees

Between 1987 and 1996, the volume of cases handled by juvenile courts increased 49 percent. As

a result, more youth than ever before became

FY 2001 19

Annual Report

Chapter 3

Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System
involved in the juvenile justice system. Mental

health professionals believe, based on limited data,

that a high percentage of these youth have alcohol,

drug, and mental disorders and that many fail to

receive necessary mental health and substance

abuse services. The Northwestern Juvenile Project

(at the Northwestern University Medical School

in Chicago, IL) is exploring this problem.

Since November 1995, the Northwestern Juvenile

Project has been studying alcohol, drug, and mental

disorders among a large sample of youth—1,829

juveniles (1,172 males and 657 females) held in the

Cook County (Chicago) Juvenile Temporary Detention Center. The project’s investigators have conducted psychiatric interviews of youth in detention

and collected extensive archival data to assess the

extent of alcohol, drug, and mental disorders in the

sample and determine whether the youth are receiving necessary services. The study also explores the

development and interrelationship of high-risk behaviors related to violence, substance abuse, and

HIV/AIDS.

A longitudinal component was added to the study

in November 1998 and is funded by OJJDP, other

Federal agencies, and private foundations. This

component allows researchers to assess the developmental course of substance abuse and mental disorders among juvenile detainees; examine service

availability, service use, and barriers to service access among juvenile detainees; and identify longer

term patterns of risky behavior in the areas of

violence, substance use, and HIV/AIDS.

Investigators have used extensive and thorough

procedures to track youth and have repeatedly reinterviewed virtually all members of the original sample, regardless of whether the youth have returned

to the community, remained incarcerated, or left the

immediate area. The large sample size provides sufficient statistical power for the researchers to study

rare disorders (including co-occurring conditions),

patterns of drug use, and risky, life-threatening

behaviors.

Assessing Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Disorders in Juvenile

Detainees, an OJJDP Fact Sheet (FS–200102) published in January 2001, describes the goals and status of the Northwestern Juvenile Project, suggests

some preliminary findings, and discusses the findings’ implications for the juvenile justice system.

The Fact Sheet is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Publication of an OJJDP Bulletin on the Northwestern Juvenile Project that

compares subjects’ self-reported substance use with

the results of urine screens conducted shortly after

arrest is planned.

Community Assessment Centers

Many communities are searching for more effective

and efficient ways to identify and intervene with

juveniles at risk of becoming serious, violent, and

chronic offenders. Research shows that delinquent

youth often face multiple risk factors and that, as

risk factors accumulate, higher levels of delinquency

and other problem behaviors result. Consequently,

youth with multiple risk factors often are involved

with several different systems (e.g., juvenile justice,

mental health, and/or alcohol and other drug treatment) that may not communicate adequately with

one another. OJJDP’s Community Assessment

Center (CAC) program currently is helping two

communities—Denver County, CO, and Orange

County, FL—test the CAC model’s ability to address these problems. OJJDP originally funded

four CAC sites: two planning sites (Denver County,

CO, and Lee County, FL) and two implementation/

enhancement sites (Jefferson County, CO, and

Orlando, FL).

A CAC’s main purpose is to facilitate earlier and

more efficient delivery of prevention and intervention services. The CAC model includes four key

elements that, when implemented properly, have

the potential to positively affect youth and divert

them from the path of serious, violent, and chronic

delinquency:

20 FY 2001

Annual Report
FY 2001 21

Annual Report

✦ A centralized point of intake and assessment for

youth who have come or are at risk of coming

into contact with the juvenile justice system.

✦ Immediate and comprehensive assessments of

youth’s circumstances and treatment needs.

✦ A management information system to manage

and monitor youth served, which ensures the

provision of appropriate treatment and rehabilitation services and prevents the duplication of

services.

✦ Integrated case management for youth, including

service recommendations, improved access to

services, followup, and periodic reassessments.

In 1997, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) began a national evaluation of

assessment centers at the four sites originally funded by OJJDP. NCCD’s report on the evaluation

covers 1997 through mid-1999.

NCCD’s evaluation examined five factors:

✦ Context (the environment in which CACs

operate).

✦ Identification (techniques, procedures, and criteria used to identify, screen, assess, and refer

youth).

✦ Intervention (the range of programs or reforms

in system processing used to meet a CAC’s

objectives).

✦ Linkages (formal and informal relationships and

agreements that affect the establishment of a new

CAC or the modification of an existing facility).

✦ Goals (the measurable outcomes of CACs).

NCCD’s data collection methods included a review

of information in official records and reports; interviews of key leaders, youth, and parents; surveys

of individuals involved in CAC operations but not

interviewed in the key leader interviews (e.g., patrol

officers and case managers); a random sample of

cases in the two enhancement sites; and an analysis

of information on assessment, services, and recidivism extracted from the enhancement sites’ automated management information systems.

NCCD’s evaluation revealed several reasons for

developing CACs, including rising problems of juvenile crime and deficiencies in the way that delinquent and at-risk youth are handled by the juvenile

justice system. Jefferson County pointed to highly

publicized juvenile crimes, lengthy delays in case

processing, crowded detention facilities, and the

need for more prevention services for at-risk youth

as reasons for its decision to develop a CAC. In

Denver County and Lee County, fragmented juvenile justice systems and a lack of effective prevention and intervention services for youth led to CAC

planning.

NCCD also examined sites’ goals for the assessment

centers, which may include:

✦ Preventing delinquency.

✦ Providing comprehensive services for youth and

their families.

✦ Improving information sharing and communication between agencies.

✦ Providing a cost-effective response to juvenile

crime.

✦ Reducing the length of time between arrest and

treatment by expediting case processing.

In terms of overall lessons learned, comments that

NCCD gathered from key leaders in Denver County and Lee County centered on three themes: the

need for collaborative and inclusive planning, the

value of beginning small and having definite timelines, and the importance of clearly identifying goals

and educating new players and the public about

such goals. Information from Orange County revealed that the CAC approach has led to substantial savings in law enforcement officers’ time, the

availability of more information (thus contributing

to faster case processing), and greater collaboration

and cooperation. NCCD’s examination of rearrest
rates showed little difference in the recidivism rates

of youth who received assessments and those who

did not. The data reveal slightly lower rearrest rates

for a matched sample of assessed youth.

In sum, NCCD’s preliminary evaluation shows that

the assessment center concept is promising and that

the collaboratives overseeing the centers’ development and functioning are working hard to meet ambitious goals. CACs have had positive effects on integration, collaboration, and juvenile justice system

functioning, but several issues remain. For example,

many youth and families interviewed by NCCD did

not fully understand the nature of voluntary consent. Due process, legal representation, access to

files, and the need for clear confidentiality standards are also important concerns.

An OJJDP Bulletin published in March 2000, The

Community Assessment Center Concept, describes challenges faced by the four communities chosen to be

part of OJJDP’s CAC demonstration effort and

discusses the CAC model and its key elements.

The Bulletin is available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.

Formula Grants Program

The Formula Grants program, established by the

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(JJDP) Act of 1974, provides funds directly to

States, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia to help them implement comprehensive State

juvenile justice plans based on detailed studies of

needs in their jurisdictions. (The term “States,” as

used throughout this section, refers to the 50 States,

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

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana

Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.)

During FY 2001, OJJDP awarded more than

$76 million to the States under the Formula Grants

program to support a variety of juvenile justice

activities, from prevention efforts to incarceration.

Allocations are based on the number of juveniles

in a State and in FY 2001 ranged (other than for

territories) from $635,000 (Washington, DC) to

$8.366 million (California). The Governor of each

State designates a State agency to implement the

Formula Grants program. Contact information for

each State’s administering agency for Formula

Grants and other grants can be found at www.ojp.

gov/state.htm. Although the awards go to this

agency, the JJDP Act requires that two-thirds of

all Formula Grants funds be passed through to programs of units of general local government, local

private agencies, and Indian tribes that perform law

enforcement functions.

To participate in the Formula Grants program, a

State must address 25 State planning requirements

set forth in the JJDP Act and comply with 4 core

protections for juveniles involved in the justice

system:

✦ Deinstitutionalizing status offenders and

nonoffenders (DSO).

✦ Separating adult and juvenile offenders in secure

institutions (separation).

✦ Eliminating the practice of detaining or confining

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

✦ Addressing the disproportionate confinement of

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

overrepresentation exists (DMC).

Under OJJDP’s leadership, States continue to

make significant progress in achieving or maintaining compliance with these core protections. The majority of the 54 States participating in the Formula

Grants program (South Dakota and Wyoming are

not participating)3 are now in full compliance (or

in full compliance with de minimis exceptions) with

the first 3 requirements and are making satisfactory

progress in meeting the DMC requirement (added

as a core protection when the JJDP Act was

amended in 1992). Most States have completed the

22 FY 2001

Annual Report

3 In these States, funds were awarded to nonprofit agencies

working to help the States attain compliance and regain

eligibility. 
initial identification and assessment phases for this

provision and are implementing the intervention

phase. Three States, in addition to completing the

identification and assessment phases in earlier

years, continue to monitor DMC trends each year

and have updated assessment studies, implemented

intervention strategies to address identified contributing factors to DMC, and conducted evaluations of their DMC efforts. Thirteen States have

submitted updated DMC data, evidencing ongoing

monitoring efforts. More detail on individual States’

compliance with the core protections of the JJDP

Act is presented in the tables on pages 24–28.

Research and Evaluation Associates (REA) is one

of several OJJDP grantees responsible for supporting States’ efforts to determine whether the

proportion of minorities in confinement exceeds

their proportion in the population and, if so, to

demonstrate efforts to reduce it. In FY 2001, REA

developed a set of strategic tools and materials to

help jurisdictions address DMC and was responsible for delivery of intensive technical assistance to

five States. In working with the States, project staff

established a protocol for the delivery of technical

assistance in response to DMC issues. This protocol

will help States identify and prioritize interventions

that have both immediate and long-term effects on

DMC. In FY 2002, REA’s activities will include

identifying and training consultants to support the

expansion of intensive technical assistance, evaluating the use of the protocol in delivering technical

assistance, and continuing to develop strategies and

approaches that will help States address DMC.

Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grants

Program

OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block

Grants (JAIBG) program strengthens the juvenile

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

Under the program, OJJDP awards block grants

to States, which, in turn, distribute funds to local

jurisdictions. JAIBG also supports program-related

research, demonstration, evaluation, training, and

technical assistance activities.

During FY 2001, 56 eligible jurisdictions (including

all 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia) received JAIBG awards totaling $231 million.

The awards can be used to fund programs in 12

purpose areas, including construction of juvenile

detention and corrections facilities; development of

accountability-based sanctions programs for juvenile offenders; hiring of prosecutors, public defenders, and judges to address drug, gang, and youth

violence more effectively; and the establishment and

maintenance of interagency information-sharing

programs to promote more informed decisionmaking in the control, supervision, and treatment of

juvenile offenders (see complete list of Program

Purpose Areas on page 29).

To help States and local jurisdictions implement

JAIBG programs, OJJDP provides training and

technical assistance through Development Services

Group, Inc. (DSG), of Bethesda, MD, and 11 other

training and technical assistance providers. During

FY 2001, the training program featured six regional

training sessions for State and local JAIBG grantees and six Web-based training sessions and two

regional training sessions for JAIBG coordinators

and juvenile justice specialists. OJJDP and the

Bureau of Justice Statistics also established the

JAIBG Technical Support Center to help States

calculate the amount of JAIBG funds to be allocated to local jurisdictions.

DSG coordinates a JAIBG Training and Technical

Assistance Alliance, which consists of 11 providers

(including the American Correctional Association,

the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges, the American Probation and Parole Association, and the National Institute of Corrections)

that deliver various services to States and localities

implementing JAIBG programs. Since its inception

in 1998, the Alliance has provided technical assistance in response to more than 3,750 requests. To

FY 2001 23

Annual Report
24 FY 2001

Annual Report

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Number of Jurisdictions

Full compliance—zero violations 7

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 44

Not in compliance 3

Not participating 2

Separation of Juvenile and Adult Offenders

Full compliance—zero violations 46

Full compliance—exception provision 8

Not participating 2

Jail and Lockup Removal

Full compliance—zero violations 13

Full compliance—de minimis exceptions 40

Not in compliance 1

Not participating 2

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) 

Completed identification and assessment, 3

implementing intervention, monitoring, and evaluation 

Completed identification and assessment, 15

Completed identification and assessment, implementing

intervention and planning to update data and/or assessment studies

8

Completed identification and assessment,

implementing intervention

13

Completed identification/implementing intervention, 1

4

Core Protections Compliance Summary Totals

(as of September 30, 2001)

Note: States’ eligibility to receive FY 2001 formula grants was initially determined on the basis of 1999 monitoring reports for compliance with JJDP Act

core protections regarding DSO, separation, and jail and lockup removal and on the basis of information in FY 2001 Formula Grants program

comprehensive plans for compliance with the DMC core protection.

implementing intervention and monitoring

conducting formal assessment

Completed identification/implementing intervention,

Conducting identification 2

planning formal assessment

Planning to conduct identification 2

Exempt from DMC requirement or no DMC problem found 5

DMC status under review 1

Not participating 2
FY 2001 25

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2001)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotab

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingb

Amer. Samoa

Guam

N. Mariana Is.

Puerto Rico

Virgin Is.

TOTALS

Full compliance—

de minimis exceptionsa ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Not in compliance

State Compliance Based on 1999 Reports: Deinstitutionalization of 

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

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2001)

Full compliance—

de minimis exceptionsa ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Not in compliance

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

7 44 3

a

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

b

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2001 Formula Grants program.
26 FY 2001

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2001)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotab

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingb

Amer. Samoa

Guam

N. Mariana Is.

Puerto Rico

Virgin Is.

TOTALS

Full compliance—

exception provisiona

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

State Compliance Based on 1999 Reports: Separation of 

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

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2001)

Full compliance—

exception provisiona

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

46 8

a

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

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

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

b

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2001 Formula Grants program.

✦

✦
FY 2001 27

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2001)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakotab

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingb

Amer. Samoa

Guam

N. Mariana Is.

Puerto Rico

Virgin Is.

TOTALS

Full compliance—

de minimis exceptionsa ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Not in compliance

State Compliance Based on 1999 Reports: Jail and 

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

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2001)

Full compliance—

de minimis exceptionsa ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

Full compliance—

zero violations

Not in compliance

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

13 40 1

a

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

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

b

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2001 Formula Grants program.
28 FY 2001

Annual Report

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2001)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizonaa

Arkansas

Californiaa

Colorado

Connecticut

Delawareb

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentuckyc

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusettsc

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexicoc

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolinac

South Dakotad

Tennesseea

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyomingd

Amer. Samoae

Guame

N. Mariana Is.e

Puerto Ricof

Virgin Is.e

TOTALS

Completed identification and 

assessment/implementing 

intervention and conducting

or planning monitoring

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

3 23 13 5 4 5 1

Completed identification

and assessment/implementing

intervention, monitoring,

and evaluation

Completed identification and 

assessment/implementing

intervention

Completed identification/

implementing intervention/

conducting or planning formal

assessment

Conducting or planning 

identification phase

Exempt from DMC requirement

or no DMC problem found

Completed identification and 

assessment/implementing 

intervention and conducting

or planning monitoring

Completed identification

and assessment/implementing

intervention, monitoring,

and evaluation

Completed identification and 

assessment/implementing

intervention

Completed identification/

implementing intervention/

conducting or planning formal

assessment

Conducting or planning 

identification phase

Exempt from DMC requirement

DMC status under review

or no DMC problem found

DMC status under review

Formula 

Grant 

Participants

(as of September 30, 2001)

a

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

b

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

c

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

d

South Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2001 Formula Grants program.

e

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

f

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

State Compliance Based on FY 2001 Formula Grants Program Comprehensive Plan:

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

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦
support the JAIBG program, the Alliance has conducted 618 training events, workshops, presentations, and videoconferences reaching more than

51,270 practitioners, including juvenile justice specialists, judges, probation officers, law enforcement

officers, court and school personnel, prosecutors,

and detention staff. By directly training State and

local practitioners on best practices in juvenile accountability and graduated sanctions, OJJDP helps

State and local governments improve their juvenile

justice systems’ capacity to address accountability.

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

MA, began a 48-month national evaluation of the

JAIBG program that focuses on its administration,

including how grants are used by State and local

recipients and what types of programs are funded.

The study is also documenting State and local programs’ access to and use of training and technical

assistance, practitioners’ and policymakers’ attitudes toward the JAIBG program, and States’ responses to the JAIBG purpose areas. In addition,

evaluators are conducting a mail survey of State

FY 2001 29

Annual Report

JAIBG Program Purpose Areas

Purpose Area 1: Building, expanding, renovating, or

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

personnel.

Purpose Area 2: Developing and administering

accountability-based sanctions for juvenile offenders.

Purpose Area 3: Hiring additional juvenile judges,

probation officers, and court-appointed defenders

and funding pretrial services for juveniles to ensure

the smooth and expeditious administration of the

juvenile justice system.

Purpose Area 4: Hiring additional prosecutors so

that more cases involving violent juvenile offenders

can be prosecuted and backlogs reduced.

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

to drugs, gangs, and youth violence.

Purpose Area 6: Providing funding for technology,

equipment, and training to assist prosecutors in

identifying violent juvenile offenders and expediting their prosecution.

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

more effective and efficient in holding juvenile

offenders accountable and in reducing recidivism.

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

for the adjudication and prosecution of these

offenders.

Purpose Area 9: Establishing drug court programs to

provide continuing judicial supervision over juvenile

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

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

the juvenile and criminal justice systems, schools,

and social services agencies to make more informed

decisions regarding the early identification, control,

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

Purpose Area 11: Establishing and maintaining

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

agencies or programs that are designed (in cooperation with law enforcement officials) to protect students and school personnel from problems related

to drugs, gangs, and youth violence.

Purpose Area 12: Implementing a policy of controlled substance testing for appropriate categories of youth in the juvenile justice system.
and local practitioners and policymakers to assess

their attitudes about the JAIBG program and their

perceptions of how it was implemented in their jurisdictions. The national evaluation is expected to

be completed by late 2002.

OJJDP continues to publish its series of JAIBG

Bulletins, which present up-to-date information

about one or more specific JAIBG program purpose areas. During FY 2001, OJJDP published

the following Bulletins in the JAIBG series:

✦ Increasing School Safety Through Juvenile

Accountability Programs (NCJ 179283).

✦ Juvenile Drug Court Programs (NCJ 184744).

Increasing School Safety describes activities that reflect OJJDP’s commitment to promoting school

safety by holding students accountable for their behavior. In particular, it describes common features

and key elements of effective programs and recommends a comprehensive, collaborative approach

that involves students, parents, and school officials.

Juvenile Drug Court Programs discusses juvenile drug

courts—intensive treatment programs established

within and supervised by juvenile courts to provide

specialized services for eligible drug-involved youth

and their families. Since 1995, more than 100 juvenile drug courts have been established in the United

States, and another 100 are being planned. By providing local officials the experience and perspective

of juvenile justice policymakers and practitioners

who have been involved with juvenile drug court

programs during the past several years, this Bulletin facilitates the development of constructive,

well-conceived programs that improve juvenile justice systems’ ability to hold youthful offenders accountable for their behavior while enhancing public

safety and strengthening existing State and local

programs.

Both Bulletins are available from the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse.

The final two Bulletins in the series, Juvenile Gun

Courts: Promoting Accountability and Providing Treatment

and Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability: Overview,

will be published in 2002.

National Training and

Technical Assistance Center

Practitioners in the field of juvenile justice and

delinquency prevention face enormous challenges

in their efforts to change existing practices in ways

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

such efforts, OJJDP established the National

Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC)

in 1995 to facilitate the systematic coordination of

OJJDP’s T&TA resources. In particular, NTTAC

was established to increase responsiveness to consumer needs, promote the use of best practices in

the provision of T&TA, and assist in the overall enhancement of OJJDP’s T&TA service delivery system. Operated by Caliber Associates of Fairfax, VA,

the Center coordinates the services of more than 60

OJJDP T&TA providers. The Center also identifies and assesses T&TA resources in the field, collects and provides access to the best available

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

and disseminates model T&TA protocols and

guides.

During FY 2001, NTTAC responded to more than

500 T&TA requests from throughout the United

States. Using a customized online data management

tool for collecting and cataloging information, the

Center developed a protocol for updating the

OJJDP Training and Technical Assistance Resource Catalog. NTTAC also revamped its marketing and outreach strategy and created a “family of

products” look for the Center’s marketing materials.

As part of its new marketing and outreach strategy, NTTAC expanded and enhanced its Web site

(www.nttac.org) by developing an online bulletin

board and a monthly “Web Sites to Watch” series—

increasing its usership approximately 40 percent.

30 FY 2001

Annual Report
During FY 2002, NTTAC plans to:

✦ Disseminate the core performance standards and

a tool kit series of fact sheets and bulletins to

facilitate implementation of the standards.

✦ Continue to develop an Information Resource

Management System that will include a mechanism for tracking T&TA requests and coordination, a consultant repository, a training delivery

repository, a provider directory, and a media resource repository. 

✦ Finish developing a T&TA product and curriculum review process.

✦ Convene the annual OJJDP T&TA grantee and

contractor meeting.

✦ Update and disseminate the OJJDP Training

and Technical Assistance Resource Catalog and

continue to broker quality T&TA services on

behalf of the OJJDP provider network.

✦ Help State juvenile corrections training academies facilitate the reoccurring revisions and updates of basic job descriptions and serve as a

repository of training materials developed by

academies for dissemination to academies.

Performance-based

Standards Project

In 1995, OJJDP launched a major initiative, now

known as the Performance-based Standards (PbS)

project, to improve the conditions of confinement

and the services provided in juvenile corrections

and detention facilities. OJJDP initiated the project in recognition of the need for national performance standards for such facilities and in response

to findings from OJJDP’s 1994 congressionally

mandated Conditions of Confinement Study, which

revealed that then-existing standards failed to protect the health and safety of youth and staff. The

study found that several factors—such as high rates

of suicidal behavior among youth in residential

placement, few timely and professionally conducted

health and mental health screenings, and pervasive

overcrowding—were related to high rates of injury

to youth and staff and high levels of staff turnover

in juvenile corrections facilities.

In response to these findings, OJJDP issued a request for proposals to develop and implement a set

of standards that would improve conditions and

services for confined youth. OJJDP competitively

selected the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) of South Easton, MA, to develop and implement performance-based standards.

The support CJCA has received from agency directors across the nation has advanced the initiative

significantly.

During its 7 years of development and implementation, PbS has grown into a system for continuous

improvement that includes the following elements:

✦ A set of performance-based standards that address seven areas—safety, order, security, programming, health/mental health services, the

justice of facility operations, and reintegration.

Each standard is linked to an overarching goal,

and performance is assessed by one or more outcome measures that count occurrences, measure

rates, and reflect changes over time.

✦ Data collection tools used to gather and organize

the information required to produce the outcome

measures.

✦ Reports that provide a graphic representation

of a facility’s results for each outcome measure,

compared with both the group average and the

individual site’s results over time.

✦ A range of resources, including the consulting

expertise of recognized experts and staff from

participating facilities, research reports, studies,

and relevant organizations and Web sites.

As of the end of FY 2001, 96 facilities in 29 States

and localities were implementing the PbS system.

Thirteen States had adopted PbS agencywide,

which has enabled them to facilitate systemic implementation and improve performance in all of

FY 2001 31

Annual Report
their facilities. Detailed information on participating facilities is available on the PbS Web site

(www.performance-standards.org).

In 1998, CJCA began implementing performancebased standards and data collection tools at 32 juvenile facilities across the nation. These facilities

have completed five rounds of data collection

(June 1998, August 1999, April 2000, October

2000, and April 2001). Since the project’s inception,

OJJDP has identified several opportunities to enhance and expand the project. Enhancements have

included demonstration program funding, improvement of the PbS Web site, publication of resource

guides, support of additional facilities, and a national evaluation. The PbS Web site is currently being

redesigned and improved for the next round of data

collection, scheduled for May 2002.

Experience to date confirms that PbS makes a difference for youth and staff. Juvenile corrections

and detention facilities have made measurable improvements, including reducing the use of isolation

and room confinement, increasing the number of

youth who receive health and mental health screenings, reducing assaults on youth and staff, and decreasing staff turnover. One facility, Connecticut’s

Long Lane School, which joined the project in

1997—following a youth suicide at the facility and

major criticism from the media, policymakers, and

the public—has showed dramatic improvements.

For example, in August 1999 (just 1 year after implementing PbS), April 2000, October 2000, and

April 2001, 100 percent of the youth sampled at

Long Lane had received an intake screening for

risk of suicide before being assigned housing (compared with only 1 of 30 youth sampled in June

1998). Long Lane’s data between June 1998

and April 2001 also show a considerable decline

in the number of youth injured at the facility and

a decrease in the number of occurrences involving

the use of restraints. Over the same period, the facility’s use of isolation and room confinement was

cut in half, and fewer escapes occurred. Each of

these areas had been the subject of public criticism

and targeted for improvement.

OJJDP is supporting a formative evaluation of the

PbS project through an interagency agreement with

the U.S. Department of Commerce. The evaluation

is being conducted by the National Academy of

Public Administration of Washington, DC. Recent

survey results from the evaluation have been positive, in terms of both the adoption of PbS and improvements in facility outcomes. Even though

nearly one-third of participating facilities reported

significant difficulties with the initial implementation of PbS, they felt strongly that the standards

would ultimately be accepted and benefit youth

corrections and detention facilities. Researchers

confirmed that PbS goals are widely shared by

facility administrators and staff.

While working with facilities to implement PbS,

the project team recognized the need to expand the

standards that addressed the reintegration of youth

back into their communities. In response to this

need, the PbS team in FY 2000 began working

with representatives of OJJDP’s Intensive Aftercare Program to develop standards on how to prepare youth for reintegration into their community

following release from a confinement facility. The

draft standards and outcome measures were created

in FY 2001 and are now being tested. Data collection will begin in selected jurisdictions in 2002. The

standards will subsequently be revised and incorporated into the PbS system.

Performance-based Standards: A System of Continuous

Improvement, an OJJDP Bulletin on the PbS project and its history, achievements, and future direction, is planned for release in FY 2002. It will be

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Planning of New Institutions

for Juveniles

As a result of widespread crowding and substandard conditions, many juvenile detention and corrections facilities across the nation need to be replaced

or renovated. Before renovating or replacing facilities, however, jurisdictions should engage in careful

planning to ensure that alternatives to confinement

32 FY 2001

Annual Report
have been considered and that new or expanded

facilities are constructed only when necessary. Recognizing the need to help jurisdictions plan for the

construction or renovation of juvenile facilities,

OJJDP and the U.S. Department of Justice’s

Corrections Program Office (CPO) approached

the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) about

developing workshops for officials planning to build

or renovate juvenile facilities. The resulting Planning of New Institutions for Juvenile Facilities

(Juvenile PONI) workshop program helps jurisdictions make well-informed planning decisions

about building new secure juvenile facilities or

about renovating or expanding existing facilities.

OJJDP and CPO fund the program, and NIC

oversees the development and presentation of the

training workshop.

Jurisdictions participating in the Juvenile PONI

program select six-person teams to attend the 5-day

workshop. Each team must include officials with

statutory responsibility for funding, operation, and

administration of the facility to be constructed or

renovated. A team may also include judges, program administrators, citizens, financial officers,

and/or architects and planners under contract to

the jurisdictions. Since the first Juvenile PONI

workshop in November 1998, the sponsoring agencies have offered three workshops each year at the

NIC Academy in Longmont, CO. Five to six jurisdictions have participated in each session. Jurisdictions that attend workshops may also request followup technical assistance.

The curriculum for the 5-day Juvenile PONI

workshop consists of 16 modules. Several of the

modules—including a historical overview of

juvenile justice management and attitudes, an

overview of the facility development process, and

aspects of direct supervision—use a traditional

lecture-discussion format. Others—such as clarifying team roles, framing a vision statement, developing functional space programs, and relating staffing

plans to facility plans—use break-out sessions that

involve hands-on activities and teamwork and require participants to create and present their own

work product. All of the modules present information as part of a real-life case study of a facility near

the Academy. Toward the end of the workshop,

participants have an opportunity to tour the facility

and participate in a question-and-answer session

with the facility director and staff.

In response to the success of the initial Juvenile

PONI workshops, OJJDP and CPO allocated

funds to continue the program through 2002. In

addition, OJJDP will contract with NIC to develop a Transition and Activation curriculum to provide training to jurisdictions that will be opening

new juvenile confinement facilities. The HONI

(How to Open a New Institution) Training will be

piloted in August 2002.

An OJJDP Fact Sheet, Planning of New Institutions:

Workshops for Juvenile Facilities (January 2001), describes the Juvenile PONI program and identifies

considerations that should guide jurisdictions’ renovation, expansion, and new construction projects.

The Fact Sheet is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

State Challenge Activities

OJJDP’s State Challenge Activities Program

(State Challenge), established by the 1992 reauthorization of the JJDP Act of 1974, provides incentives for States participating in the Title II, Part B,

Formula Grants program to improve their juvenile

justice systems by developing, adopting, or improving policies and programs in 1 or more of 10 specific State Challenge program activities. (See sidebar

on page 34 for a complete list of the State Challenge

activities.) Only States participating in the Formula

Grants program are eligible to receive State Challenge grants.

In FY 2001, OJJDP awarded nearly $9 million in

State Challenge grants to 48 States, the District of

Columbia, and 5 territories (see table on page 35

for a list of participating States). The State Challenge activities most often addressed were alternatives to suspension and expulsion (24 States),

FY 2001 33

Annual Report
gender bias policies and programs (20 States), aftercare (reentry) services (19 States), communitybased alternatives (17 States), and basic system

services (17 States). The State Challenge activities

least often addressed were violent juvenile offender facilities (no States), State agency coordination/

case review (one State), State Ombudsman (three

States), and access to counsel (four States). Detailed

information on State Challenge activities during

FY 2001 appears in the table and figure on page 35.

States have used State Challenge funds to bring

about far-reaching systemic changes in their juvenile justice systems. Over the past several years,

34 FY 2001

Annual Report

State Challenge Activities

Challenge Activity A: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide basic health,

mental health, and education services to youth

in the juvenile justice system.

Challenge Activity B: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide all juveniles in

the justice system access to counsel.

Challenge Activity C: Increasing community-based

alternatives to incarceration by establishing programs

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

criteria for the appropriate placement of juveniles in

detention and secure confinement.

Challenge Activity D: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to provide secure settings

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

secure settings that have capacities of no more than

50 youth and staff-youth ratios sufficient to permit

close supervision and effective treatment.

Challenge Activity E: Developing and adopting

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

ensure female youth access to the full range of

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

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

Challenge Activity F: Establishing and operating,

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

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

out-of-home care to children and youth. 

Challenge Activity G: Developing and adopting

policies and programs to remove status offenders

from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, when

appropriate.

Challenge Activity H: Developing and adopting

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

Challenge Activity I: Increasing aftercare services

by establishing programs and developing and

adopting policies to provide comprehensive

health, mental health, education, family, and

vocational services to youth upon their release

from the juvenile justice system.

Challenge Activity J: Developing and adopting

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

children with emotional or behavioral problems

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

and implement a statewide case review system.
FY 2001 35

Annual Report

FY 2001 Challenge Activities by State

A Basic System Services

B Access to Counsel

C Community-Based Alternatives

D Violent Juvenile Offender

Facilities

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

Alabama H,I

Alaska H,I

Arizona G

Arkansas A,H

California C,G,H,I

Colorado A,H

Connecticut B,F

Delaware C,I

District of Columbia A,E

Florida E,H

Georgia E,F

Hawaii E,H

Idaho A,E

Illinois B,C

Indiana A,H

Iowa E,J

Kansas C,G

Kentucky A,H

Louisiana

Maine C,H

Maryland A,C,I

Massachusetts H,I

Michigan C,E

Minnesota E,I

Mississippi I

Missouri C,G

Montana A,B,C

Nebraska A,C

Nevada E,I

New Hampshire E,H

New Jersey A,E,I

New Mexico C,E

New York A,H,I

North Carolina E,H

North Dakota H,I

Ohio C,I

Oklahoma H,I

Oregon E,H

STATE ACTIVITIES STATE ACTIVITIES STATE ACTIVITIES

Pennsylvania A,E

Rhode Island E,H

South Carolina C,H

South Dakota —

Tennessee B,F

Texas A,H

Utah A,I

Vermont E,H

Virginia A,G

Washington E,H

West Virginia C,I

Wisconsin E,I

Wyoming —

American Samoa A,C

Guam C,I

N. Mariana Islands E,H

Puerto Rico C,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

FY 2001 Challenge Activity Summary

Number of States selecting each activity

0 5 15 20 25

17

4

17

0

20 

3 

6

19 

1

A: Basic System Services

B: Access to Counsel

C: Community-Based Alternatives

D: Violent Juvenile Offender Facilities

E: Gender Bias Policies and Programs

F: State Ombudsman

G: Deinstitutionalization of Status 

 Offenders and Nonoffenders

H: Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion

I: Aftercare Services

J: State Agency Coordination/Case Review 

 System 10

A,H

24 
36 FY 2001

Annual Report

States generally have focused their efforts on the

following broad categories of activities:

✦ 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 to increase the overall capacity of the service system.

Such State Challenge activities have generated

many publications and other useful products that

can help jurisdictions across the nation improve juvenile justice systems. An FY 2000 OJJDP Bulletin, System Change Through State Challenge Activities:

Approaches and Products, defines characteristics and

requirements of system change and summarizes and

discusses the categories of system change approaches mentioned above. The Bulletin is available from

the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. To further help

States implement system change, OJJDP developed

the State Challenge Activities Program Monitoring

Checklist to help State Juvenile Justice Specialists

focus on system change as an essential goal of this

grants program.

On the Horizon

In FY 2001, OJJDP initiated work on a variety of

programs designed to help strengthen the juvenile

justice system, including the following:

✦ Evaluation of Teen Courts Project. OJJDP

awarded a grant to The Urban Institute in Washington, DC, in 1998 to conduct a national evaluation of the effectiveness and characteristics of

teen courts. Such courts, also known as youth

courts, generally target younger juveniles (ages

10–15), juveniles with no prior arrests, and juveniles charged with less serious violations. These

juveniles are usually offered participation in teen

court instead of the traditional juvenile justice

system. OJJDP initiated the Evaluation of Teen

Courts Project to assess the impact of teen courts

on nonserious juvenile offenders. The project is

the first national, multisite evaluation of this

emerging diversion strategy for at-risk youth.

The evaluation was structured to determine the

impact of teen courts on subsequent delinquency

and recidivism, perceptions of justice among

youth referred to teen courts, and the commitment of youth to prosocial norms and normative

institutions (e.g., school). The evaluation includes three components—an impact evaluation,

a process evaluation, and a new enhancement

that will employ a random assignment design in

new teen court sites. The impact evaluation will

examine teen court programs’ effect on youth—

in particular, what happens to youth who participate in teen courts and whether their experiences

differ from those of youth handled in the traditional juvenile justice system. The process evaluation will determine what happens in teen court

programs, what they do, and how well they do it.
FY 2001 37

Annual Report

After sharp increases in the mid-1980s and early

1990s, arrests for juvenile violent offenses dropped

for the sixth consecutive year during 2000. The juvenile arrest rate for violent crime in 2000 was 41

percent lower than its peak in 1994, reaching its

lowest level in 14 years. The juvenile arrest rate for

murder declined 74 percent from its peak in 1993 to

its lowest level since the 1960s. Indeed, the number

of juvenile arrests in each category tracked by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in its Violent Crime Index (murder, forcible rape, robbery,

and aggravated assault) fell during 2000. Although

OJJDP is encouraged by the continued and steady

drop in juvenile arrests for violent crime in recent

years, it remains strongly committed to protecting

the public from violent juvenile crime and to improving law enforcement’s ability to respond immediately and effectively to juvenile violence. The

agency’s programs and activities during FY 2001

reflect this commitment.

Among OJJDP’s most important activities in the

area of protecting the public and enhancing law

enforcement are its continued efforts to combat underage drinking. Through its Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program (EUDL) (see below),

OJJDP has worked with States since 1998 to address underage drinking. The agency’s multifaceted

approach to this serious problem includes block and

discretionary grants, training and technical

assistance, and a national evaluation.

OJJDP also supports programs to manage and

treat juvenile sexual offenders. Through research

and publications on juvenile sex offending, OJJDP

provides juvenile justice practitioners and policymakers, professionals in other fields, the news

media, and the general public accurate and up-todate information about the nature and scope of this

problem.

OJJDP also provides a range of training and

technical assistance to State, local, and tribal law

enforcement professionals through its Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program.

By helping leaders throughout the juvenile justice

system better implement juvenile crime prevention

strategies, this program helps protect the public and

address violent juvenile crime. 

OJJDP’s efforts to prevent and reduce juvenile

gun violence further reflect the agency’s strong

commitment to public safety and the reduction of

juvenile violent crime. Recognizing the severity of

gun violence in the United States, OJJDP continues to assist communities through its Partnerships

To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence Program,

launched in 1997.

This chapter highlights programs in the areas described above—all of which are designed to help

protect the public from serious juvenile crime and

improve law enforcement efforts. Such programs,

together with early intervention and delinquency

prevention strategies (see chapter 2, pages 7–17),

represent a continuum of programs and services.

Such a continuum is needed to enhance public safety and help communities and law enforcement agencies keep the public safe and respond immediately

and effectively to juvenile violence.

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program

Since 1998, OJJDP’s EUDL Program has worked

with States to address the problem of underage

drinking through an approach that includes block

grants, discretionary funding, and training and

technical assistance. The program also includes a

national evaluation designed to assess States’ and

Chapter 4

Enhancing Public Safety and Law Enforcement
38 FY 2001

Annual Report

local communities’ use of EUDL grants and the impact of the program in a sample of communities.

Through EUDL, OJJDP helps the 50 States, the

District of Columbia, and the territories to develop comprehensive and coordinated initiatives to

enforce State laws that prohibit the sale of alcoholic

beverages to minors and prevent the purchase or

consumption of alcoholic beverages by underage

persons. This section provides details on EUDL

block grant and discretionary funding awards in FY

2001, training and technical assistance provided in

FY 2001, and the ongoing national evaluation of the

program that began in 1999.

The EUDL block grant program enables States

to improve their responses to underage drinking.

In FY 2001, OJJDP awarded block grants of

$360,000 each to every State and the District of

Columbia for activities in one or more of three

areas: enforcement, public education, and innovative programs.

While the EUDL block grant program is intended

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

to address the problem through State-local partnerships. Since the EUDL Program began in 1998,

OJJDP has competitively awarded a total of 8

discretionary grants to 24 States to implement the

EUDL Program at the local level. These States, in

turn, have provided subgrants to 200 local communities to implement a variety of programs in concert

with State agencies. Local jurisdictions have used

EUDL discretionary funds for activities such as developing community coalitions; encouraging youth

leadership and participation in EUDL Program activities; designing needs assessments and strategic

plans; increasing enforcement efforts; reviewing and

improving policies, regulations, and laws that govern underage drinking; and increasing prevention

and public awareness efforts. In FY 2001, OJJDP

competitively selected eight States to receive discretionary EUDL grants: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine,

Maryland, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and

Virginia.

In FY 1998, OJJDP began funding an extensive

training and technical assistance program for State

EUDL coordinators and representatives from State

and local alcoholic beverage control, law enforcement, traffic, health and human services, education,

and other agencies. This program is provided by the

Center for Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws at

the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

(PIRE) of Calverton, MD, and its partners, which

include Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

of Dallas, TX; American Indian Development Associates of Albuquerque, NM; the National Crime

Prevention Council of Washington, DC; the Police

Executive Research Forum of Washington, DC;

and the National Liquor Law Enforcement Association of Raleigh, NC.

During FY 2001, PIRE provided training and

technical assistance to more than 4,000 individuals.

PIRE also continued to operate the Underage

Drinking Enforcement Training Center, which

helps EUDL grantees focus their efforts on prevention, intervention, and enforcement. The Training

Center is funded by OJJDP to provide sciencebased, practical, and effective training, technical

assistance, and resource materials to States as they

implement the EUDL initiative. In addition to helping States enforce laws that govern access to and

use of alcohol, PIRE’s Training Center hosts an annual national leadership conference and develops

publications to assist States and communities in the

enforcement of underage drinking laws. During FY

2001, PIRE developed the following new documents:

✦ Comparison of Drinking Rates and Problems: European

Countries and the United States.

✦ Finding Common Ground To Address Underage Drinking on Campus.

✦ Law Enforcement Guide to False Identification.

✦ Drinking in America: Myths, Realities, and Prevention

Policy.
FY 2001 39

Annual Report

These publications can be downloaded from PIRE’s

Web site (www.udetc.org) or ordered at no cost

from PIRE at 11710 Beltsville Drive, Suite 300,

Calverton, MD 20705–3102.

During FY 2001, OJJDP continued to support a

national evaluation of the EUDL Program being

conducted by a multidisciplinary team at Wake

Forest University School of Medicine in WinstonSalem, NC. The evaluation is designed to provide

timely, scientifically sound evidence regarding the

implementation of the EUDL Program and its effects on law enforcement activities, youth alcohol

consumption, and alcohol-related problems in local

communities. It has two primary goals: to determine

what State and local programmatic activities are

being supported (through a process evaluation) and

to evaluate the impact of the program in a sample of

communities (through an impact evaluation). The

process evaluation has two data collection components: a key actor survey and indepth case studies

of program implementation in six States. The impact evaluation is based on a survey of law enforcement agencies in a sample of communities in States

receiving discretionary grants and a survey of youth

ages 16 to 20 in the same communities. The case

studies have been conducted twice (in 1999 and

2000), and the other data collection efforts were implemented in 1999 and repeated in 2000 and 2001.

Findings from the national evaluation underscore

the magnitude of the underage drinking problem.

In the 1999 youth survey, 43 percent of the youth

in the sample reported current (within the past 30

days) alcohol use, 24 percent reported use within

the past 7 days, and 18 percent reported binge

drinking. Substantial numbers of youth in the sample reported engaging in various risky behaviors

associated with alcohol use. Self-reported drinking

and driving was more common among males than

females and increased dramatically as males aged,

reaching 15.9 percent by age 19 and 23.0 percent

by age 20. Riding with a driver who had been

drinking was also common: 20 percent of the overall sample reported having done so in the 30 days

preceding the survey.

Findings from the national evaluation’s 1999 law

enforcement survey reveal a need for additional enforcement efforts. Less than half (46 percent) of

the survey respondents reported that enforcing laws

prohibiting underage persons from purchasing alcohol was one of their agency’s highest priorities. The

percentage was even lower for the enforcement of

laws prohibiting sales of alcohol to underage persons (44 percent) and laws prohibiting the furnishing of alcohol to underage persons (37 percent).

Data from the key actor survey showed that, in

1999, only 64 percent of the States reported that

their State initiative was “very involved” in enforcement efforts. The case studies, on the other hand,

revealed a strong commitment to enforcing underage drinking laws. All six case study States had

plans to implement, or already had implemented,

activities to strengthen enforcement of underage

drinking laws. Several case study States reported

using funds to pay overtime to enforcement personnel, and most are implementing Cops in Shops programs (which focus on deterring youth from trying

to buy alcohol at package stores and other alcohol

outlets) or have expressed a strong interest in doing

so. Several of the case study States are instituting

compliance check programs or strengthening existing efforts in this area.

The national evaluation of the EUDL Program reveals that a high percentage of States are involved

in strengthening coordination and public education

efforts. Results indicate that in many States, the

EUDL Program is bringing together groups that

have not previously worked closely together—

particularly law enforcement and substance abuse

prevention and treatment agencies. Ongoing data

collection efforts will continue to provide important

information on EUDL implementation, changes in

the program’s focus over time, and evidence of its

impact.

Juvenile Sex Offenders

One of the most difficult and complex issues facing

the juvenile justice system is how to manage and

treat juvenile sexual offenders. Juvenile justice
40 FY 2001

Annual Report

practitioners and policymakers, professionals in

other fields (e.g., child welfare, mental health, education), the news media, and the general public require accurate, empirically based, and up-to-date

information about the nature and scope of juvenile

sex offending. Such information can be used to support the development of effective plans for addressing this serious problem.

In FY 2001, OJJDP made a grant award for the

Juvenile Sex Offender Training and Technical Assistance Initiative to the University of Oklahoma

Health Sciences Center. The goal of this initiative is

to increase the accessibility and strategic use of accurate information about the nature, extent, and

impact of juvenile sex offending. Information provided through this initiative is designed to foster the

development of sound policies and procedures for

preventing, managing, and treating juvenile sex offenders. The project is expected to last 3 years and

will include a variety of public education, training,

technical assistance, information dissemination, and

collaborative activities. In addition, through its

Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Program,

OJJDP has made a grant award to the University

of Minnesota for a research project entitled “The

Unique Needs of Juvenile Sex Offenders,” which

focuses on understanding the ways in which adolescents who molest children differ from other delinquent youth. The project’s long-term goal is to determine the need for offender-specific treatment

and develop effective interventions for juvenile sex

offenders.

An OJJDP Report published in March 2001, Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended: A Review of the Professional Literature (NCJ 184739), reviews the research

literature on juveniles who have committed sex offenses and describes characteristics of these juveniles and the types of offenses they commit. The

Report also describes clinical assessment tools for

use with juvenile sex offenders, reviews treatment

approaches and settings, and examines program

evaluations. The Report is available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Law Enforcement Training

and Technical Assistance

Program

The Law Enforcement Training and Technical

Assistance Program was initially funded through

a competitive award in 1999 to the International

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) for a 3-year

project period. The purpose of the program is to

improve the capacity of law enforcement and other

allied juvenile justice professionals to address juvenile victimization, delinquency, and crime from

a holistic perspective. The curriculum development,

training implementation, and technical assistance

activities inherent in this program are designed to

strengthen existing multiagency teams and to facilitate the creation of new partnerships. Toward that

end, the program focuses on multiagency responses

to school violence in four topical areas: serious, violent, and chronic juvenile crime; juvenile-focused

collaborations; juvenile justice systems with tribal

law enforcement agencies; and juvenile gang activity.

In FY 2001, program activities included 19 workshops for more than 1,000 participants from 600

jurisdictions in 12 States. In addition, a marketing

database was developed that allows the program to

promote each individual product by State, via fax,

directly to police, sheriffs, school administrators,

school resource officers, juvenile probation and corrections agencies, juvenile mental health services

officials, and other juvenile justice stakeholders. An

OJJDP/IACP Training and Technical Assistance

Web page was created for the IACP Web site. The

page includes the training schedule and registration

forms for specific training sessions and onsite technical assistance.

In FY 2002, curriculum development and pilot testing will be completed. Marketing strategies will be

enhanced to broaden national outreach efforts. Additionally, nationwide training and curriculum modifications and updates will continue, followup protocols to guide the provision of technical assistance

will be developed, and a Fact Sheet will be written
FY 2001 41

Annual Report

for OJJDP distribution. The program will be

implemented by the current grantee, IACP.

Partnerships To Reduce

Juvenile Gun Violence

Program 

As part of its commitment to address the continuing

problem of youth violence, OJJDP has awarded

three communities (Baton Rouge, LA; Oakland,

CA; and Syracuse, NY) demonstration grants to

implement the Partnerships To Reduce Juvenile

Gun Violence Program. The goal of these partnerships is to increase the effectiveness of existing

strategies by enhancing and coordinating prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts and

strengthening linkages among community residents,

law enforcement personnel, and juvenile justice

system professionals.

This problem-solving program is based on research

showing that community assessment of local youth

gun violence problems should guide program development and that strategies designed to reduce gun

violence should be comprehensive and theory driven and should include suppression, intervention,

and prevention components. The program goals are

designed to:

• Reduce youth’s illegal access to guns.

• Reduce the incidence of youth carrying guns

illegally and committing gun-related crimes.

• Increase youth awareness of the personal and

legal consequences of gun violence.

• Increase participation of community residents

and organizations in youth violence reduction

efforts.

• Increase and coordinate services and resources

for at-risk youth, especially youth involved in

the justice system. 

Implementation of the following seven strategies is

required if the program is to achieve its goals: 

• A firearms suppression strategy that reduces

juveniles’ access to illegal guns and prevents illegal gun trafficking by developing special law enforcement units, using community allies to report

illegal gun trafficking, targeting gang members,

prosecuting those who possess illegal guns, and

imposing sanctions on those who are involved in

gun violence.

• A juvenile justice strategy that applies appropriate alternative sanctions and interventions to

respond to the needs of juvenile gun offenders.

• A communication strategy that unites law enforcement with neighborhoods, includes community policing, and initiates community supervision to educate at-risk and court-involved youth

on the legal consequences of gun violence.

• A positive opportunities strategy that provides

young people with beneficial programs such as

academic tutoring, mentoring, job training and

placement, and afterschool activities.

• An education strategy that teaches at-risk youth

how to resolve conflicts and resist peer pressure

to carry or possess guns.

• A public information strategy that engages

broadcast and print media to communicate the

dangers and consequences of gun violence to

juveniles, families, and residents.

• A community mobilization strategy that encourages neighborhood residents and youth to improve the community.

The partnerships were required to develop integrated and comprehensive gun violence reduction plans

that incorporated each of the seven OJJDP strategies within a suppression, intervention, and prevention framework. The specific strategies and activities selected by each site were based on an analysis

of available community resources and gaps in services. The final logic models developed by each partnership and facilitated by the national evaluation

team reflect their differing identifications of underlying issues and problems, organizational needs/

resources, and initial focus.

FY 2001 43

Annual Report

Part of OJJDP’s mission is to engage in efforts to

understand juvenile victimization and to identify

policies and programs that will help prevent or reduce it. Since its inception in 1974, OJJDP has

funded numerous programs that address the problems associated with juvenile victimization and

keeping children safe. Children’s exposure to violence has been strongly linked with increased depression, anxiety, anger, alcohol and drug abuse,

and decreased academic achievement. In addition,

approximately 2 million adolescents ages 12–17

appear to have suffered from posttraumatic stress

disorder, presumably stemming from violent experiences in their past. Exposure to violence shapes

how children remember, learn, and feel.

In addition, children may be victims of parental abductions and/or exploitation. Since 1984, OJJDP

has funded the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children (NCMEC) to enhance and expand NCMEC’s ability to offer critical intervention

and prevention services to families, law enforcement, and Federal, State, and local agencies. Other

programs have been implemented to strengthen

families and reduce child maltreatment. OJJDPfunded research demonstrates that to effectively

break the cycle of abuse and protect today’s children,

parents need to ask for help early. Research also

shows that children who witness domestic violence

experience higher levels of childhood behavioral,

social, and emotional problems than children who

have not witnessed such violence and that the emotional consequences of viewing or hearing violent

acts may have the same lasting effects on children

as being a direct victim of violence. Such findings

have led OJJDP to continue funding the Safe

Start Initiative, which helps protect children who

have been exposed to violence in their families and

communities.

This chapter highlights these and other aspects of

OJJDP’s efforts to understand and reduce the victimization of children. FY 2001 proved to be another successful and meaningful year for OJJDP, as it

continued to encourage communities and the juvenile justice system to respond more effectively to

child abuse and neglect and to promote training and

technical assistance.

Children’s Advocacy Centers

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

teams of investigators, prosecutors, medical personnel, and social services and mental health professionals to work on child abuse cases. The goal

is to ensure that children are not revictimized by

the very system designed to protect them. During

FY 2001, OJJDP continued to fund the National

Children’s Alliance (NCA) of Washington, DC,

and four Regional Children’s Advocacy Centers

(RCACs). The RCACs provide information, consultation, and training and technical assistance,

which help to establish child-focused programs that

facilitate and support coordination among agencies

responding to child abuse. RCACs also provide

regional services to help strengthen CACs that already exist. For information on the regional centers

or NCA, phone NCA at 800–239–9950 or visit

NCA’s Web site (www.nca-online.org).

In 2001, both the RCACs and NCA worked on several collaborative projects, including the National

CAC Training Academy, and developed CACs in

American Indian communities and a telemedicine

project. This project, NCA Net, provides an opportunity for selected CAC team members from across

the nation to connect via videoconferencing for interactive clinical and programmatic discussions with

Chapter 5

Reducing the Victimization of Children
44 FY 2001

Annual Report

peers. NCA Net also provides access to national

trainers and experts in the field with whom sites

would otherwise not have the opportunity to consult with. The project became fully operational in

2001. More than 64 videoconferences were held,

and they reached more than 800 individuals. NCA

awarded subgrants to 400 CACs nationwide, of

which 261 were full members of NCA, serving

114,087 children.

Crimes against Children

Research Center

OJJDP has supported the Crimes against Children

Research Center (CCRC) at the University of New

Hampshire in Durham, NH, since 1998. CCRC

helps young victims of crime by providing research,

statistics, and education to the public, policymakers,

law enforcement personnel, and child welfare practitioners. The crimes of concern to CCRC include

physical and sexual abuse, abduction, homicide,

rape, assault, property offenses, and the victimization of children on the Internet.

In 2001, OJJDP expanded its research relating to

the online victimization of children through the

Juvenile Online Victimization Incidence Study

(JOVIS). This study is designed to count and determine the characteristics of criminal cases that involve the arrest of offenders for Internet-related sex

crimes against juveniles. The mail survey of 2,500

law enforcement agencies yielded a response rate

of 88 percent (2,260 agencies responded), which

includes the Internet Crimes Against Children

(ICAC) Regional Task Forces and ICAC Satellites.

Three hundred followup interviews have been conducted. A JOVIS database will calculate the incidence of criminal cases involving the online victimization of juveniles and produce reports on the

characteristics of these cases, including information

on victims and perpetrators.

In 2001, OJJDP continued to release Bulletins in

the Crimes Against Children Series. These Bulletins

present the latest information about child victimization, including analyses of victimization statistics,

studies of child victims and their special needs, and

descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs. In FY 2001, OJJDP published

the following Bulletins in this series: Child Abuse

Reported to the Police (NCJ 187238), Crimes Against

Children by Babysitters (NCJ 189102), The Decline

in Child Sexual Abuse Cases (NCJ 184741), and

Choosing and Using Child Victimization Questionnaires

(NCJ 186027). The Bulletins are available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Additional information on two of these Bulletins—Child Abuse Reported to

the Police and Crimes Against Children by Babysitters—

appears in this chapter’s section on the National

Incident-Based Reporting System (see page 46).

ICAC Task Force Program

The increasing number of children and teenagers

using the Internet, the proliferation of child pornography, and the heightened activity by predators

searching for unsupervised contact with underage

victims present both a significant threat to the

health and safety of young people and a formidable

challenge for law enforcement. Recognizing this

challenge, OJJDP created the ICAC Task Force

Program in 1998. The purpose of the program is

to help State and local law enforcement agencies

develop an effective response to cyberenticement

and child pornography cases that encompasses

forensic and investigative components, training and

technical assistance, victim services, and community

education.

Regional task forces located throughout the country

provide forensic, prevention, and investigation assistance to parents, educators, prosecutors, law enforcement, and professionals working on child victimization issues. Participating task force agencies

provide training to prosecutors and law enforcement officers and reach thousands of children,

teenagers, parents, educators, and others through

publications, presentations, and public service announcements. Currently, 30 regional task forces

coordinate the activities of more than 160 law enforcement agencies in 35 States. As of June 2001,

ICAC Task Force Program operations had resulted
FY 2001 45

Annual Report

in the seizure of more than 900 computers and the

service of 695 search warrants and 1,338 subpoenas. In August 2001, Operation Avalanche, an undercover sting operation conducted by the Dallas

(TX) Police Department, 30 ICAC Task Forces,

and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, dismantled

a multimillion dollar child pornography enterprise

in Fort Worth, TX. The operation involved 144

searches in 37 States and 100 arrests for trafficking

child pornography through the mail and via the

Internet.

OJJDP plans to extend its support for the ICAC

Task Force Program into FY 2002. Cooperative

agreements will be funded for up to an 18-month

budget and project period to begin July 1, 2002,

and end December 31, 2003. The solicitation will be

limited to State and local law enforcement agencies

in the following States and localities: Georgia,

Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and the

Greater San Francisco Bay area, CA.

To enhance the geographical impact of the ICAC

Task Force Program, OJJDP created the Investigative Satellite Initiative (ISI). Under ISI, agencies lacking the personnel or resources to form fulltime task forces can still receive one-time awards to

train and equip officers in smaller jurisdictions to

respond to cases of child pornography and enticement through the Internet. Fifty-four law enforcement agencies now receive funding through ISI.

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

Since 1982, NCMEC has spearheaded the national

effort to prevent child abductions and to return

missing and exploited children to their families. In

partnership with OJJDP, NCMEC continues to

enhance and expand its ability to offer critical intervention and prevention services to families and to

support law enforcement agencies at the Federal,

State, and local levels in cases involving missing

and exploited children. Over the years, NCMEC

has improved its services and programs. NCMEC’s

24-hour hotline (800–THE–LOST) has received

more than 1.5 million calls from around the world

and can handle phone calls in more than 140

languages.

In FY 2001, NCMEC launched the AMBER

(America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Plan, a national program to save abducted

children. The AMBER Plan is a voluntary partnership between law enforcement agencies and broadcasters to activate an urgent bulletin in the most

serious child abductions. Broadcasters use the Federal Communications Commission’s Emergency Alert

System to deliver information to the community—

the same concept used during severe weather emergencies. As a result, descriptions of an abducted

child and his or her suspected abductor are instantly broadcast to millions of listeners and viewers.

The goal of the AMBER Plan is to instantly galvanize the entire community to assist in the search

and safe return of the child and apprehension of the

suspect. To date, more than 25 areas in 16 States

have an AMBER Plan and more than 27 children

have been recovered nationwide.

In FY 2001, NCMEC also continued to work with

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to dramatically

expand the distribution of photos of lost, abducted,

and runaway children. The IRS included pictures

of missing children on its 2001 tax form instructions and publications. The photos are provided by

NCMEC and are accompanied by information about

the children. During FY 2001, NCMEC released

an updated version of its nationally recognized book

Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis in an effort to

better address child molestation through behavior

analysis and prevention. This groundbreaking edition provides a comprehensive look at children who

are sexually exploited by acquaintance molesters

and is a valuable resource for law enforcement officers and prosecutors that investigate such cases.

In February 2001, NCMEC launched a state-ofthe-art Internet safety initiative, the NetSmartz

Workshop, to better protect children who regularly

use the Internet. The NetSmartz Workshop is a

DVD–ROM that uses three-dimensional technology

to create animated characters who provide
46 FY 2001

Annual Report

interactive lessons to children. The workshop will

be tested in 50 Boys & Girls Clubs and, during the

next 5 years, NCMEC plans to release NetSmartz

to Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide.

Every year, NCMEC honors law enforcement officers for their outstanding work on cases that involve

the recovery of missing children and assistance to

exploited children by awarding them National Missing and Exploited Children’s Awards. The 2001

awards were presented at the Sixth Annual Congressional Breakfast and National Missing and Exploited Children’s Awards ceremony held on May

23, 2001, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

National Incident-Based

Reporting System

In May 2001, OJJDP released Child Abuse Reported

to the Police (NCJ 187238), a Bulletin in OJJDP’s

Crimes Against Children Series that describes how

the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

captures data that allows researchers to analyze incidents involving child victims and parent or other

caretaker perpetrators reported to the police.

NIBRS is gradually replacing the FBI’s Uniform

Crime Reporting system and reports much more

information on the crime committed, victim characteristics (including age), offender characteristics,

and incident circumstances. Under the new system,

as with the old, local law enforcement personnel

compile information on crimes that come to their

attention, and this information is aggregated at the

national and State levels. For a crime to be counted

in the system, it simply needs to be reported and

investigated. It is not necessary that an incident

be cleared or an arrest made, although unfounded

reports are deleted from the record.

Babysitters are one of the categories of offenders

about which NIBRS collects information. After

analyzing data on babysitter offenses drawn from

NIBRS, the authors of Crimes Against Children by

Babysitters found that:

✦ Babysitters are responsible for 4.2 percent of all

offenses committed against children younger

than 6 years old.

✦ Children most at risk of physical assaults by

babysitters are younger (ages 1–3) than those

most at risk of sex crimes (ages 3–5).

✦ Males constitute 77 percent of sex-offending

babysitters reported to police, whereas females

make up 64 percent of those who commit physical assaults. 

More information about NIBRS data collection can

be found at www.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs.htm. For additional information on the Crimes against Children

Research Center, see page 44. 

Parents Anonymous®

Parents Anonymous®, Inc., of Claremont, CA, is

the oldest national child abuse prevention organization. Since 1994, OJJDP has been helping Parents

Anonymous® replicate its self-help model, which is

designed to strengthen families and reduce child

maltreatment. Parents Anonymous® encourages all

parents to ask for help early, whatever their circumstances, to effectively break the cycle of abuse so as

to protect today’s children and strengthen tomorrow’s generation of parents. Parents Anonymous®

builds on the strengths of parents to ensure that

children live and grow in safe, nurturing homes by

offering families help today and hope for the future.

Parents Anonymous® also operates local 24-hour

hotlines to provide an immediate response to parents seeking help.

In FY 2001, this organization continued to expand

the number of local groups and the number of parents attending meetings, the diversity of populations

served, training and technical assistance, and curriculum and other resource materials. More information about Parents Anonymous® is available on

its Web site (www.parentsanonymous.org).
FY 2001 47

Annual Report

In FY 2001, OJJDP began a project through a

competitive process to evaluate the Parents Anonymous® program. The purpose of the evaluation is to

assess the implementation and effectiveness of the

Parents Anonymous® program in preventing and

treating child abuse and neglect. The National

Council on Crime and Delinquency is conducting

this evaluation in two phases. Phase I is an ongoing

process evaluation that investigates how the theoretical premises, principles, best practices, and

model of Parents Anonymous® are operationalized

in a sample of programs selected by the evaluator.

Phase II will present a preliminary approach to

conducting the outcome evaluation of the selected

programs. This will include a detailed discussion of

the overall design of the outcome evaluation and

methods for selecting programs and comparison

groups, designing and testing data collection instruments, and collecting and analyzing data. This project will be implemented by the current grantee, the

National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Safe Start Initiative

The Safe Start Initiative is based in part on the

Child Development-Community Policing (CD–CP)

pilot program developed by Yale University and the

New Haven (CT) Police Department with OJJDP

support. The CD–CP program brings together

police officers and mental health professionals

(through training, consultation, and support) to

provide constructive intervention for children who

have witnessed or been victims of violent crime.

In FY 2001, OJJDP, which administers the Safe

Start Initiative, selected nine sites to share more

than $6 million in grants during the first year of a

51

/2-year project to develop comprehensive efforts

to help children exposed to violence. The sites—

Baltimore, MD; Bridgeport, CT; Chatham County,

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

NY; San Francisco, CA; Spokane, WA; and Washington County, ME—were selected after a review of

208 applications. Each grantee receives approximately $670,000 per year from OJJDP. In addition,

OJJDP is in the process of selecting two tribal sites.

First-year funding is dedicated to a thorough review

of existing community services and gaps that need

to be filled. Based on the results of this review, the

grantees will plan a 5-year comprehensive response

that depends on coordination among law enforcement, mental health and medical professionals, and

child protective services providers. The plans will

include efforts such as child advocacy centers, home

visitation programs, and domestic violence services

for battered mothers whose children are at a high

risk of exposure to violence.

In addition to granting funds to the nine Safe Start

sites, OJJDP awarded $670,000 in 2000 to each of

three sites—Miami, FL; Newark, NJ; and New

Orleans, LA—for a 2-year period. These sites are

focusing on specific improvements to services for

children exposed to violence. The National Center

for Children Exposed to Violence in New Haven,

CT, is working with OJJDP to provide training

and technical support to the Safe Start sites. A

national team led by Caliber Associates is collaborating with local representatives at each site to conduct an intensive evaluation of Safe Start activities

and inform the field about the promising practices

and strategies being demonstrated.

OJJDP’s Fact Sheet, Children’s Exposure to Violence:

The Safe Start Initiative (FS–200113), and Summary,

Safe From the Start: Taking Action on Children Exposed

to Violence (NCJ 182789), provide more information

about Safe Start activities. Both publications are

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

FY 2001 49

Annual Report

OJJDP closely monitors youth gang developments

through annual surveys of the nation’s law enforcement agencies. Since 1995, National Youth Gang

Surveys have documented the persistence of the

youth gang problem and the changes in its scope

and nature. 

In 2000 (the latest survey from which data are

available), more than 24,500 gangs and 772,500

gang members were active in more than 3,330 jurisdictions across the United States. Recent years

have seen decreases in these numbers: in 1996, an

estimated 30,818 gangs and 846,428 gang members

were active in 4,824 jurisdictions. Nevertheless,

youth gangs remain a substantial presence. Of the

2,542 law enforcement agencies responding to the

2000 survey, 40 percent reported active youth

gangs in their jurisdictions, and 22 percent said

their gang problem had worsened since 1999.

Findings from recent surveys suggest differences

between traditional inner-city youth gangs and the

newer gangs emerging in small cities and suburban

and rural areas. For example, compared with their

urban predecessors, these “modern-day” gangs tend

to have younger members and a different racial mix

(greater proportions of white members and black

members) and are less likely to be involved in violent crime and drug trafficking. The 2000 survey

found that the nature of gang-related violence differed by population size of the jurisdiction. Gangs

in more populous jurisdictions tended to target

members of other gangs, whereas gangs in less populous jurisdictions tended to victimize individuals

not involved in gangs.

National Youth Gang Survey findings inform

OJJDP’s approach to addressing the nation’s gang

problem. Through research, evaluation, training

and technical assistance, and dissemination activities, OJJDP seeks to support communities in their

gang prevention, intervention, and suppression

efforts. This chapter highlights OJJDP’s recent

gang-related activities.

Comprehensive Community- Wide Approach to Gang

Prevention, Intervention,

and Suppression Program

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program (the OJJDP Comprehensive

Gang Model) includes five key strategies: mobilizing communities, providing opportunities for youth,

suppressing gang violence, providing social intervention services and street outreach, and facilitating

organizational change and development in community agencies. OJJDP funded implementation and

testing of the model in five demonstration sites from

FY 1995 through FY 1998 and provided continuation funding to two particularly promising sites—

Mesa, AZ, and Riverside, CA—in FY 1999 and FY

2000. Mesa and Riverside received local support to

continue their programs after FY 2000.

OJJDP is funding an ongoing evaluation of the

Comprehensive Gang Model, conducted by the

School of Social Service Administration at the

University of Chicago in Chicago, IL. The evaluator helped the demonstration sites establish realistic

and measurable objectives, document program implementation, and measure the impact of this comprehensive approach. It has also monitored data

collection and quality control efforts and provided

interim feedback to program implementers. During

FY 2001, the evaluator continued to analyze the data

required to evaluate the model, developing results for

Chapter 6

Addressing Youth Gangs
50 FY 2001

Annual Report

each demonstration site as well as cross-site findings.

Final results will be reported in FY 2003.

Preliminary evaluation results show that implementation across the five sites was uneven and that

some sites experienced greater success at full-model

implementation than others. All five sites experienced difficulty engaging grassroots groups, including faith-based organizations. Every site, however,

was successful in linking youth to resources and social services, and all of the sites except one (Tucson,

AZ) improved coordination between law enforcement, probation, and social services agencies. Tucson’s lack of success in this regard was attributed,

in part, to police departments’ and probation agencies’ initial and ongoing reluctance to embrace the

model’s collaborative aspects. In addition, Tucson’s

direct funding recipient and lead agency for the

project was a community nonprofit organization.

This organization’s difficulties leveraging cooperation between law enforcement and probation officers and revising policies and procedures prompted

changes in subsequent OJJDP gang initiatives, including a requirement that the lead agency be a unit

of local government.

Gang-Free Schools and

Communities

During FY 2001, OJJDP awarded grants totaling

nearly $1.5 million to 10 communities under 2 new

programs designed to help communities and schools

address gangs and gang violence. During the first

year of funding, sites in both programs are conducting thorough assessments of the gang problems in

their communities as a basis for developing plans

for implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model

in later years.

Six of the communities—Fort Lauderdale, FL;

Lakewood, WA; Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY;

San Francisco, CA; and Washington, DC—are

participating in the basic Gang-Free Communities

Program. These communities are receiving seed

funding to replicate the OJJDP Comprehensive

Gang Model.

Four of the communities—East Cleveland, OH;

Houston, TX; Miami, FL; and Pittsburgh, PA—are

serving as demonstration sites for the Comprehensive Gang Model: An Enhanced School/Community

Approach to Reducing Youth Gang Crime. This

program will implement school-focused enhancements to the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model.

The enhancements will build on the model’s original

framework and on current efforts to prevent both

youth violence in general and violence in schools.

OJJDP’s National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) in

Tallahassee, FL, is providing training and technical assistance to the 10 communities. In FY 2001,

NYGC developed an assessment manual, data collection instruments, and Web-based technical resources for the communities and provided assessment training at all sites and followup training at

five sites. NYGC also developed a Web page to

make technical assistance available to communities

whose applications for program funding were not

selected.

OJJDP has awarded a grant to COSMOS Corporation of Bethesda, MD, to conduct a process evaluation at the four school/community sites. The

grantee is examining school and community collaboration, assessment activities, and program planning.

Gang Prevention and

Intervention Through Targeted Outreach With

Boys & Girls Clubs

OJJDP provides funds to Boys & Girls Clubs of

America (BGCA) to help its local affiliate clubs

prevent youth from entering gangs, intervene with

gang members in the early stages of gang involvement, and divert youth from gang activities into

more constructive programs. The national BGCA

organization provides training and technical assistance to local gang prevention and intervention

sites and to other clubs and organizations through

regional training sessions and national conferences.
FY 2001 51

Annual Report

In FY 2001, BGCA added 30 new gang prevention

sites, 4 new gang intervention sites, and 3 new

“targeted reintegration” sites (where clubs provide

services to youth returning to the community from

juvenile corrections facilities, with the goal of preventing their return to gangs and violence).

An OJJDP-funded national evaluation of the Gang

Prevention and Intervention Through Targeted

Outreach Program was completed in FY 2001. The

evaluation, conducted by Public/Private Ventures,

Inc., concluded in part that “participants demonstrated positive change” and that “the clubs were

successful in reaching an underserved, high-risk

population through direct outreach and referralnetwork-building activities.”

In FY 2002, BGCA will identify and support up to

30 new gang prevention sites. Evaluation of the targeted reintegration component of the program will

begin with the receipt of FY 2002 funding.

National Youth Gang Center

The National Youth Gang Center was established

by OJJDP in 1994 to maintain and expand the

body of knowledge about youth gangs and effective

responses to them. Each year, NYGC conducts an

annual survey of law enforcement agencies (the National Youth Gang Survey mentioned earlier in this

chapter), which provides critical data on the extent

of the nation’s gang problem. Results of the surveys

are disseminated by OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse in a series of Summaries and Fact

Sheets.

In FY 2001, NYGC implemented a new survey of

youth gangs in American Indian communities. The

survey assesses the prevalence, composition, and

activities of gangs in federally recognized tribes that

have not been included in NYGC’s annual surveys

of law enforcement agencies.

As mentioned above, NYGC is providing technical

assistance to communities participating in OJJDP’s

Gang-Free Schools and Communities Initiative.

NYGC also helped OJJDP develop the initiative

and promoted it in communities that reported gang

problems in the annual survey.

On an ongoing basis, NYGC provides technical

support to the National Youth Gang Consortium,

which is convened by OJJDP three times a year to

bring together all Federal departments and agencies

engaged in antigang activities. The consortium

builds partnerships and coordinates Federal resources to support local efforts to combat gangs. 

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

that offers comprehensive, up-to-date information

about gang programs, research, and legislation.

NYGC also maintains GANGINFO, an electronic

mailing list that provides a forum for professionals

to exchange information about gangs.

Publications

The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in the United States,

1970–98, released by OJJDP in April 2001, presents detailed national findings on youth gang problems by locality for the 25-year period between

1970 and 1995 and summarizes new findings on

gangs up to mid-1998. This 148-page Report includes information on the numbers and specific

identities of gang-problem localities, the size of

these localities, their location by State and region,

and rates of growth. The selection of a single, simple unit of analysis—locality—and the availability

of baseline data from the 1970s allowed researchers

to offer concrete and detailed information on longterm trends in the prevalence of gang problems and

provided a solid basis for predicting future trends.

Findings show that by the late 1990s, 3,700 localities in all 50 States and the District of Columbia

reported gang problems. This represents a ninefold

increase in the number of gang-problem cities and

an elevenfold increase in the number of gangproblem counties since the 1970s. The States with

the largest number of gang-problem cities in 1998

were California (363), Illinois (261), Texas (156),

Florida (125), and Ohio (86); in the 1970s, only

California and Illinois reported large numbers of

cities with gang problems. In 1998, the States with
52 FY 2001

Annual Report

the largest number of gang-problem counties were

Texas (82), Georgia (61), California (50), Illinois

(42), and Florida and Ohio (40 each); the South

replaced the Northeast as the region with the most

top-ranking States.

The historical perspective used in this study provides evidence that the United States, during the

last three decades of the 20th century, experienced

gang problems in more localities than at any other

time in history. The data from the study support a

prediction that the rate of growth in gang cities that

prevailed during the later 1990s will decrease in

the early 2000s and that the actual number of gang

localities may also decrease.

In 2001, OJJDP published as part of its Youth

Gang Series Female Gangs: A Focus on Research

(NCJ 186159), which summarizes past and current research on female gangs and draws attention

to programmatic and research needs. OJJDP

also published Youth Gang Homicides in the 1990s,

(FS–200103) a Fact Sheet summarizing findings

from an NYGC study that used several databases

to examine recent trends in gang-related homicides.

Research

Socialization to Gangs in an Emerging

Gang City

With funding support from the National Institute of

Justice and OJJDP, researchers at the University of

Missouri in St. Louis, MO, have completed a study

that examined gang-involved youth in St. Louis and

assessed the acceleration of gang involvement for the

youth who were most at risk. Researchers studied

the following: gang homicides in St. Louis, the St.

Louis SafeFutures program (an OJJDP program

that provides a comprehensive community response

to gangs and delinquency), youth referrals to the

St. Louis Family Court, the relationship between

gang involvement and delinquency, and organizational aspects of gangs. Phase I of the Socialization

study surveyed seventh and eighth grade youth

populations in selected St. Louis middle schools and

analyzed available gang-related crime and juvenile

justice data. Under Phase II, indepth interviews

with 100 gang-involved youth were conducted and

the analysis of data gathered under Phase I of the

study was extended. The final report from this project, Socialization to Gangs in St. Louis Project (NCJ

185395), is available through the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service at www.ncjrs.org.

Survey of School-Based Gang Prevention

and Intervention Programs

In this study, researchers at Gottfredson Associates,

Inc., of Ellicott City, MD, examined the approaches

currently used by schools to prevent or reduce gang

involvement among students. The study identified

features of effective prevention and intervention activities that local schools and communities can replicate. The study also gathered information on the

extent of student involvement in gangs, characteristics of gang-involved students (including the use of

drugs and weapons and other forms of delinquent

behavior), and the extent and nature of schools’

gang-related problems. Funded through OJJDP’s

Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Program,

the research used a sample of 1,287 public and private and Catholic schools and included surveys of

principals, teachers, coordinators of gang prevention activities, and students. The final report for this

study, Gang Problems and Gang Programs in a National

Sample of Schools (NCJ 194607), is available from

the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. It is also available online at www.gottfredson.com/gang.htm.

Tribal Youth and Gangs

OJJDP supports two research projects designed to

address youth gang activities on American Indian

lands.

✦ The Navajo Nation Judicial Branch in Window

Rock, AZ, is conducting a comprehensive assessment of gang activity, the first such assessment to

be undertaken by a tribal government. The study

is using a mixed research design of quantitative

and qualitative assessments, with close community
involvement at all stages. Findings will help researchers understand the nature, extent, and

causes of Navajo Nation gang violence and discover approaches to dealing with gangs that can

be adapted by other tribes.

✦ Building on the Navajo Nation’s youth gang

study, researchers at California State University

in Sacramento, CA, are using ethnographic observation and interviews with community members and gang members to document and profile

the youth gang experience in up to six rural and

urban tribal sites across the country.

Women in Gangs: A Field Research

Study

In this study, researchers at Illinois State University

in Normal, IL, will interview and observe ganginvolved women in the Little Chicago neighborhood

of Champaign, IL, over a 6-month period. The

study, which is funded through OJJDP’s FieldInitiated Research and Evaluation Program, will

explore the role that women play in maintaining the

social capital of gangs. The proposed research is

policy oriented and spotlights the immediate social

and economic complexities of women in gangs and,

more generally, the pressure of poverty on women

and how such pressure influences the nature of

gang participation subsequent to an active, criminally oriented gang lifestyle.

Youth Gangs in Juvenile Detention and

Corrections Facilities

The National Juvenile Detention Association of

Richmond, KY, has completed a study of youth

gangs in juvenile detention and corrections facilities. Researchers assessed the nature and extent of

youth gang problems in these facilities and examined the use of risk and needs assessment instruments, which can help determine the level of security required for confined juveniles and match gang

members with appropriate programs. Researchers

also identified promising and effective programs for

replication. The final report for this project is

expected to be available in 2002.

Rural Gang Initiative

During FY 2000, OJJDP provided funds, through

the Rural Gang Initiative, to four rural communities

(Elk City, OK; Glenn County, CA; Longview, WA;

and Mount Vernon, IL) to conduct comprehensive

assessments of their local youth gang problems.

Each site collected and analyzed data from a variety

of sources to determine the nature and scope of the

existing local youth gang problem. A steering committee of community representatives at each site

used the assessment findings to develop a response

to the problems identified.

In FY 2001, two of these communities—Glenn

County and Mount Vernon—began implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model to

address the most serious problems identified in

their assessments. Intervention teams, including

representatives from police and probation agencies,

schools, and community-based organizations, began

working in gang violence “hot spots” to provide

services and support to gang-involved youth, with

a goal of reducing and eventually eliminating youth

gang violence in the community. In FY 2002, these

sites will continue implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. Ongoing data collection

and assessment will be used to select intervention

targets.

In FY 2000, OJJDP awarded a grant to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) of

Oakland, CA, to evaluate the Rural Gang Initiative.

NCCD has conducted case studies to document and

analyze the 1-year community assessment and program planning efforts in each of the four sites.

These case studies served as a foundation for an

evaluation design being applied in Glenn County

and Mount Vernon. The design is based on program logic models developed at each site and will

capture information on program implementation

and outcomes at the individual, gang, and community levels.

FY 2001 53

Annual Report

FY 2001 55

Annual Report

Although rates of juvenile violent crime have been

declining throughout the Nation for several years

and the juvenile arrest rate for violent crime in 2000

reached its lowest level in 14 years, juvenile crime

continues to rise in Indian Country. According to

the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2001 Special Report Violent Victimization and Race, 1993–98 (NCJ

176354), American Indians experience violent crime

at a rate twice that of the general population. The

number of American Indian and Alaska Native

(AI/AN)4 youth in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody has increased 50 percent since 1994, and more

than 70 percent of the approximately 270 youth in

BOP custody on any given day are tribal youth. Of

particular concern to AI/AN tribes and OJJDP is

the increasing number of violent crimes committed

by juveniles in many tribal communities.

OJJDP in FY 2001 remained actively involved in

efforts to help prevent and reduce juvenile crime in

AI/AN communities through its continued support

of five broad program areas designed to help tribes

address juvenile crime:

✦ The Tribal Youth Program (TYP) was established by Congress in 1999 and is administered

by OJJDP. TYP provides funds directly to tribal communities to develop juvenile delinquency

prevention and control programs, reduce violent

crime by and against tribal youth, and improve

juvenile justice systems. TYP is part of the Indian Country Law Enforcement Improvement

Initiative, a joint initiative of the U.S. Departments of Justice (DOJ) and the Interior (DOI)

designed to enhance Indian Country law enforcement standards and improve the quality of life in

Indian Country.

✦ OJJDP supports the TYP Mental Health Project, which helps tribal communities provide diagnostic and treatment services to tribal youth involved in, or at risk of becoming involved in,

tribal or State juvenile justice systems.

✦ The Federal Comprehensive Indian Resources

for Community and Law Enforcement (CIRCLE)

Project helps tribal communities address local

crime, violence, and substance abuse problems by

developing comprehensive community programs.

✦ OJJDP provides training and technical assistance to TYP grantees and other tribal communities to help them better respond to juvenile

crime, violence, and victimization.

✦ Research and evaluation activities enable practitioners and policymakers to better understand

the unique context of juvenile justice problems

in tribal communities.

In addition, tribal communities were active participants in several other OJJDP programs in FY

2001. OJJDP is also developing training support

for tribal law enforcement officers (see discussion

of Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program, pages 40–41). In FY 2001, the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) implemented a

new survey of youth gangs in AI/AN communities

that measures the prevalence, composition, and activities of gangs in federally recognized tribes that

have not been included in NYGC’s annual National

Youth Gang Survey of law enforcement agencies.

(See page 51 for additional information.) 

Chapter 7

Improving Conditions for Tribal Youth

4 Federally recognized Indian tribes include Alaska Native

tribal governments. Under current law (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2002), the term “Indian tribe,” “tribal,” or “tribe(s)”

in Office of Justice Programs statutes means: “any Indian tribe,

band, nation, or other organized group or community, including Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as

defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act . . . which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to

Indians because of their status as Indians.”
56 FY 2001

Annual Report

This chapter highlights OJJDP’s activities in the

five program areas specifically designed to address

the needs of AI/AN communities. Through these

activities and others that are under way, OJJDP

continues to help AI/AN communities prevent and

control juvenile delinquency and address other

problems facing tribal youth.

Tribal Youth Program

To address the rising rate of juvenile crime in tribal

communities, Congress established TYP in 1999, appropriating $10 million for the program in FY 1999

and $12.5 million in FY 2000 and FY 2001. TYP

was created through the Omnibus Consolidated

Appropriations Act for 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107–77)

and is part of the Indian Country Law Enforcement

Improvement Initiative, a 4-year Federal initiative

established by DOJ and DOI in 1999 to address

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

Country. OJJDP had assisted AI/AN tribes before

1999 (through the passthrough of Formula Grants

program funds by the States, discretionary grant

funds, and training and technical assistance), but

it did not have a program solely dedicated to the

prevention and control of juvenile crime and improvement of the juvenile justice system in tribal

communities.

OJJDP received 62 applications in response to its

FY 2001 TYP solicitation (applications were due in

July 2001) seeking AI/AN communities to develop

programs to prevent and control juvenile delinquency. Awards ranged from $150,000 to $500,000 (for

a 3-year grant period), depending on the size of the

total AI/AN service population living on or near a

particular reservation. In terms of population size

and geographic location, applications were received

from a broad spectrum of tribal communities.

Applications were invited from federally recognized

tribes and those corporations representing Alaska

Native villages. Grant recipients are required to use

TYP funding for one or more of the following objectives: (1) to reduce, control, and prevent crime

and delinquency, both by and against tribal youth;

(2) to provide interventions for court-involved youth;

(3) to improve tribal juvenile justice systems; and

(4) to provide prevention programs that focus on

alcohol and other drugs.

Grantees selected for FY 2001 funding are developing a variety of programs to accomplish these

objectives.

TYP Mental Health Project

TYP’s Mental Health Project is part of the Mental

Health and Community Safety Initiative for American Indian/Alaska Native Children, Youth, and

Families, a Federal initiative announced in 1999 and

developed by DOJ, DOI, and the U.S. Departments

of Education and Health and Human Services. The

overall goal of the TYP Mental Health Project is to

provide mental health diagnosis and treatment services for AI/AN youth involved in, or at risk of becoming involved in, tribal and/or State juvenile justice systems. The project’s objectives are to reduce,

control, and prevent crime and delinquency committed by and against AI/AN youth; provide interventions for court-involved tribal youth; improve

tribal juvenile justice systems; and provide prevention programs that focus on alcohol and other drugs.

Under OJJDP’s FY 2001 Program Announcement

for the TYP Mental Health Project, the agency

offered $1 million in funding to provide substance

abuse and mental health prevention/intervention

services for AI/AN youth involved in, or at risk of

becoming involved in, the tribal and/or State juvenile justice systems. Applications were due in July

2001, and OJJDP received 21 applications from 13

States. OJJDP awarded TYP Mental Health Project grants totaling almost $950,000 to five AI/AN

communities to provide mental health treatment

and services to AI/AN youth (see sidebar for a list

of grantees). Awards ranged from $125,000 to

$300,000 (for a 3-year grant period), depending on

the size of the total AI/AN service population living

on or near a particular reservation.
Comprehensive Indian

Resources for Community and

Law Enforcement Project

The CIRCLE Project is designed to help tribal

communities (with the assistance of Federal, State,

and private partners) develop comprehensive planning and funding infrastructures so they can more

effectively fight crime, violence, and substance

abuse and address local problems comprehensively

through effective planning and appropriate funding.

The CIRCLE Project is based on two key principles. First, because the Federal Government cannot

impose solutions from the top down that effectively

and completely address the problems of tribal communities, those communities should take the lead,

with assistance from the Federal Government, in

developing and implementing efforts to control

crime, violence, and drug abuse. Second, problems

addressed by the CIRCLE Project require a comprehensive approach—that is, one that incorporates

coordinated, multidisciplinary efforts. DOJ invited

three tribes to participate in the CIRCLE Project.

These tribes were selected based on population

size (greater than 5,000 but less than 40,000), the

presence of a serious violent crime problem, and

sufficient existing tribal infrastructure to implement

the project. OJJDP awarded three Tribal Youth

Program grants totaling $1,530,000 to the Northern

Cheyenne Tribe, Lame Deer, MT; the Oglala Sioux

Tribe, Pine Ridge, SD; and the Pueblo of Zuni,

Zuni, NM.

Through the CIRCLE Project, participating tribes

receive special consideration for technical assistance

and training related to strategy development and

implementation. They are also eligible to apply for

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

agencies work together to make technical assistance

and funding available for this comprehensive program. Partner agencies include the Office of the

Attorney General, the Office of Tribal Justice, the

Office of Justice Programs, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The U.S. Attorney plays a role in the CIRCLE Project, and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation and DOI’s Bureau

of Indian Affairs also contribute through the Indian

Country Law Enforcement Improvement Initiative. 

DOJ’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is overseeing an evaluation of the CIRCLE Project. In FY

2000, NIJ (using funds transferred from OJJDP)

awarded a grant to the Harvard Project on American Indian Development at Harvard University’s

John F. Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, MA, to evaluate the CIRCLE Project. A

draft report for Phase I of the evaluation, which

covers the first 18 months of the project, is expected in 2002. Phase II of the evaluation will address

the subsequent 30 months.

Training and Technical

Assistance

OJJDP provides a training and technical assistance

program to help TYP grantees implement their programs and to help other AI/AN communities develop or enhance their juvenile justice systems. The

training and technical assistance are provided by

American Indian Development Associates (AIDA)

of Albuquerque, NM.

FY 2001 57

Annual Report

FY 2001 TYP Mental Health Project

Grantees

✦ Coeur D’Alene Tribe of Idaho (Plummer, ID).

✦ Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpaqua,

and Siuslaw Indians (Coos Bay, OR).

✦ Ketchikan Indian Corporation (Ketchikan, AK).

✦ Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (Hayward,

Sawyer County).

✦ Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians

(Sault Ste. Marie, MI).
AIDA provides assistance at the request of TYP

grantees or program managers. Once technical assistance requests are categorized, reviewed, and approved, AIDA develops a comprehensive training

and technical assistance delivery plan. A primary

goal of all training and technical assistance is to aid

communities in developing culturally appropriate

and effective ways of dealing with problems faced

by Indian youth and their families. Technical assistance is delivered through onsite visits, telephone

consultations, and regional training seminars.

AIDA helps tribal communities that are not TYP

grantees to improve their juvenile justice systems

and address issues of youth and wellness, community development, and planning and development.

Between 1997 and 2001, AIDA received 179 requests for training and technical assistance. In

2001, AIDA conducted 31 training and technical

assistance projects for TYP grantees.

Research and Evaluation

OJJDP supports two research projects designed to

address youth gang activities on AI/AN lands. The

Navajo Nation Judicial Branch in Window Rock,

AZ, is conducting a comprehensive assessment of

gang activity, the first such assessment to be undertaken by a tribal government. Building on the

Navajo Nation’s youth gang study, researchers at

California State University in Sacramento, CA, are

using ethnographic observation and interviews with

community members and gang members to document and profile the youth gang experience in up

to six rural and urban tribal sites across the country. (See chapter 6, pages 52–53, for additional

information.)

58 FY 2001

Annual Report
FY 2001 59

Annual Report

Information on the number of juveniles taken into

custody reveals much about how the nation responds to juvenile offending. In many respects,

juvenile detention and corrections facilities are a

vital part of the juvenile justice system. In these residential facilities, juvenile justice agencies attempt

to change patterns of behavior in youth so they can

become responsible members of the community.

At the same time, these facilities must maintain a

secure environment to protect both the residents

and the community at large.

OJJDP has collected information for nearly 30

years on the number of juveniles held in detention

and other facilities. Until 1995, these data were

gathered through the biennial Census of Public

and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and

Shelter Facilities, better known as the Children in

Custody (CIC) Census. Starting in 1997, OJJDP

began a new, more comprehensive, data collection

effort, the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP). This census was conducted a second

time in 1999. Data collection for the third CJRP,

in 2001, will be completed in 2002. OJJDP inaugurated another data collection effort in 2000, the

Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC).

This census collects information about the facilities

rather than the residents. The questions on the census address facility security, the number of beds

available, education services, mental health care,

substance abuse treatment, and physical health care.

This census also asks about deaths of residents in

custody. OJJDP administers the CJRP and JRFC

in alternating years, thus providing a comprehensive picture of U.S. juvenile corrections overall. The

data included in this chapter derive mainly from

these two efforts, although other data sources are

also used. 

Juvenile Arrests in 2000

Data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting

system show that in 2000 (the most recent year for

which complete data are available) law enforcement

agencies made an estimated 2.4 million arrests of

persons younger than 18, a 15-percent drop from

1996. Juvenile arrests for violent crimes in 2000

were at their lowest level since 1988. In 2000,

there were an estimated 98,900 arrests of persons

younger than 18 for Violent Crime Index offenses

(including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter,

forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault). Between 1996 and 2000, juvenile arrests for Violent

Crime Index offenses dropped 23 percent; adult arrests for these offenses dropped 9 percent. During

this period, juvenile arrests declined 55 percent for

murder, 28 percent for weapons law violations, and

38 percent for robbery. An estimated one-third of

1 percent of all juveniles ages 10–17 were arrested

for a violent crime in 2000.

While the number of juvenile arrests for violent

crimes was falling, arrests for certain other types

of offenses by juveniles also declined. Between 1996

and 2000, juvenile arrests dropped 28 percent for

all property offenses, 34 percent for motor vehicle

theft, and 30 percent for burglary. In some offense

categories, however, juvenile arrests increased: driving under the influence (13 percent), liquor law violations (4 percent), and sex offenses other than rape

and prostitution (8 percent).

In considering data on arrests and custody, distinguishing between persons younger than 18 and persons legally considered juveniles is important. The

former refers solely to the age of a person at a given

time; law enforcement agencies provide arrest data

in this manner. Depending on the law in the State

Chapter 8

Collecting Information on Juveniles in Custody
60 FY 2001

Annual Report

where an offense is committed, a youth may or may

not be legally considered a juvenile subject to the

original jurisdiction of the juvenile court. For example, original juvenile court jurisdiction for delinquent offenses ends on an offender’s 17th birthday

in 10 States and on the 16th birthday in 3 States.

Further, many States have enacted mandatory

waiver or transfer legislation that removes particular types of offenses from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and places them under the jurisdiction

of the criminal (adult) court. Thus, some young

offenders may be of juvenile age but face criminal

court trial and adult sanctions.

Census of Juveniles in

Residential Placement

As noted earlier in this chapter, OJJDP conducted

the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

in 1997 and 1999. The census covers all residential

facilities, secure and nonsecure, that hold juvenile

offenders. For the purposes of CJRP, a juvenile

offender is defined as a person younger than 21

who is held in a residential setting because of an

offense and as a result of some contact with the

justice system. The census, then, encompasses both

status offenders and delinquent offenders, whether

detained or committed for an offense. In 1997, more

than 96 percent (n=3,308) of surveyed facilities

(n=3,431) responded. In 1999, all surveyed facilities

(n=3,712) provided at least some information. Based

on data collected in the 1997 census, an estimated

105,790 juvenile offenders were in residential placement. In 1999, the number was 108,931, a 3-percent

increase from 1997. In 1997, juvenile offenders were

held in 2,844 residential facilities—1,108 public and

1,736 private. In 1999, juveniles were held in 2,939

residential facilities—1,136 public, 1,794 private,

and 9 tribal. Public facilities held 71 percent of juvenile offenders in residential placement in 1999,

private facilities held 29 percent, and tribal facilities

held less than 1 percent.

Compared with data reported by public and private juvenile facilities in the 1991 CIC Census, the

1999 CJRP data show a 43-percent increase in the

number of juvenile offenders held, and a 50-percent

increase in the number of delinquents held. However, because the two data collections are not strictly comparable, determining whether any of this apparent growth is actually an artifact of the change

in methods is not possible. For example, the CJRP’s

October census date may have resulted in a larger

count compared with the CIC’s February date. The

CJRP’s “roster” format, more explicit definitions,

and the use of electronic reporting also may have

facilitated a more complete and accurate accounting

of facility residents.

However, the data do give a strong indication that

the changes are real. For example, it seems unlikely

that the CJRP method is merely counting more

residents than the CIC method because population

increases between the last wave of CIC in 1995 and

the first wave of CJRP in 1997 were not necessarily greater than the normal 2-year fluctuations

previously observed between waves of the CIC

Census. In addition, the trends in the custody

data are comparable to those in data from juvenile

courts. Further, the 1999 CJRP shows a drop in

the number of status offenders compared with the

1997 CIC Census (see figure). This drop is consistent with the general CIC Census and provides further evidence that the CIC Census and CJRP are

comparable.

As in previous years, males accounted for the vast

majority of juveniles in residential placement in

1999 (87 percent). Of all juveniles in residential

placement in 1999, minorities accounted for 62 percent and nonminority whites for 38 percent; blacks

were by far the largest minority group, accounting

for 39 percent of all juveniles in residential placement. Hispanics were the second largest minority

group (18 percent). The racial/ethnic composition

of juveniles in custody was similar in 1997: 63 percent minority (including 40 percent black) and 37

percent nonminority white.

CJRP also collects data on the legal status of juveniles in custody. In 1999, most juveniles (74 percent)

were held in the facilities where they were placed

following adjudication. Twenty-five percent were
FY 2001 61

Annual Report

detained while awaiting adjudication, and the

remaining few were in residential placement as

part of a diversion agreement entered in lieu of

adjudication.

Over the past 2 years, OJJDP has made the information gathered through CJRP more available to

interested parties. The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook is currently available online

at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp for those who

want to learn more about youth in custody. 

Juvenile Residential

Facility Census

In addition to conducting the CJRP, OJJDP also

conducts the Juvenile Residential Facility Census.

First administered in October 2000, JRFC will be

administered by OJJDP every 2 years. In 2000,

JRFC collected information from 3,690 juvenile

residential facilities. Of these facilities, 3,061 held

a total of 110,284 offenders younger than 21 on the

census date. JRFC will routinely collect information on how residential facilities operate.

The census includes detailed questions on facility

security, crowding, deaths in custody, and facility

ownership and operation. It also asks about specific

services for mental and physical health care, substance abuse, and education. Facilities are asked

about onsite treatment provided to residents. Although only 2 in 10 facilities reported providing onsite treatment for sex offenders, nearly two-thirds of

violent juvenile sex offenders surveyed in the 1999

CJRP were held in facilities that said they provide

sex offender treatment. More than 25 percent of facilities that provide sex offender treatment indicated

that they have separate living or sleeping units for

sex offenders (27 percent). Some facilities that

said they do not provide sex offender treatment

also reported having separate sex offender units 

(4 percent). JRFC is described in more detail in

the OJJDP Fact Sheet Innovative Information on

Juvenile Residential Facilities (FS–200011), which is

available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Assessing the Need for Juvenile

Corrections Space

In 1998, Congress mandated that OJJDP examine

the basic needs of the juvenile justice system for future bed space. The study was to focus on national

needs in addition to the specific needs in 10 indicated States. OJJDP provided Congress the Report

An Assessment of Space Needs in Juvenile Detention and

Correctional Facilities in July 1998 (available on

OJJDP’s Web site). In addition, OJJDP awarded

a cooperative agreement to The Urban Institute to

study the issue in greater depth. OJJDP published

the Bulletin Anticipating Space Needs in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities (NCJ 185234) in

March 2001. These studies illustrate clearly that the

flow of juveniles into and out of residential placement relies mainly on the policy considerations and

the practices of officials in individual jurisdictions.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Public and private facilities

Public facilities

Private facilities

Total juvenile offenders in juvenile facilities

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Total delinquent juvenile offenders in juvenile facilities

Public and private facilities

Public facilities

Private facilities

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Juvenile Facilities Reported More 

Delinquents in Residential Placement 

in 1999 Than Ever Before
62 FY 2001

Annual Report

Although trends in juvenile offending do have an

impact on the number of youth in custody, ultimately, policy decisions made at State and local levels

determine what the juvenile custody population

looks like and how individual juveniles experience

custody. In the near future, OJJDP will disseminate more information that reveals in greater detail

how policy and populations affect one another.

Deaths in Custody

The death of a juvenile in custody is relatively rare.

In 1994, facilities reported that 45 juveniles died

while in custody; in 1992, they reported that 40 juveniles had died. According to the 2000 JRFC data

on deaths in custody, facilities holding juvenile offenders reported that 30 juveniles died while in the

legal custody of a facility. Accidents were the most

commonly reported cause of death. Public facilities

reported 14 deaths; private facilities reported 16

deaths. More than half of the deaths reported

occurred outside the facility (n=17 of 30). Deaths

reported by public facilities most often occurred

inside the facility. Deaths reported by private facilities usually occurred outside the facility.

All facilities reporting suicides said residents are

evaluated within 24 hours of their arrival to determine whether they are at risk for suicide. All but

one facility reported that every resident is evaluated

for suicide risk. The one facility said it evaluates

only youth who attempt suicide, who display or

communicate suicide risk, or for whom no mental

health record is available. 

One hundred and thirty-five facilities holding juvenile offenders reported transporting juveniles to a

hospital emergency room because of suicide attempts. None of these facilities reported a suicide

death.

Upcoming Surveys

OJJDP has designed a statistical system that will

enable local, State, and Federal policymakers and

practitioners to monitor juvenile detention and corrections populations and practices. In addition to

supporting the collection of important information

through CJRP and JRFC, OJJDP recognizes the

value of interviewing youth in juvenile justice system facilities. Such interviews provide a wealth of

information on past offending behavior, pathways

to delinquency, family and social environments, and

experiences in custody. Using Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) funds,

OJJDP awarded a cooperative agreement in 1998

to Westat, Inc., of Rockville, MD, to develop the

Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP).

SYRP will collect self-report data from 10,000 juveniles residing in juvenile facilities—both long-term

placements such as training schools and residential

treatment facilities and short-term placements such

as detention centers, shelters, and group homes.

SYRP will complement other OJJDP research on

delinquency careers and offending behavior and

monitor the range of residential placements used for

juvenile offenders. The survey addresses the youth’s

experiences at and before coming to the facilities

and includes questions on topics such as education,

home environment, and substance abuse. SYRP

will provide data for monitoring placements by

tracking the number and types of offenses committed by juveniles in placement and the types of sanctions they received for previous offenses. SYRP

Deaths of Youth in Custody, October 1999

Through September 2000

Inside Outside 

the Facility the Facility

Cause of Death Total All Public Private All Public Private

Accident 9 2 0 2 7 2 5

Illness/natural 8 5 4 1 3 2 1

Suicide 7 6 5 1 1 0 1

Homicide by 

nonresident 4 0 0 0 4 1 3

Other* 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Total 30 13 9 4 17 5 12

*One juvenile died outside the facility as a result of a confrontation with police, and another suffered a heart attack playing

basketball.
FY 2001 63

Annual Report

supports the goals of the JAIBG program, which

include holding juveniles accountable for their delinquent acts. Westat will conduct the first SYRP

in March and April 2003.

Beyond routine data collection, OJJDP has a

strong interest in and responsibility to research specific policy-related aspects of juvenile detention and

corrections. For example, in FY 1998, OJJDP

funded the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Juvenile Justice Programs. This initiative is examining in detail

the costs associated with juvenile corrections and

probation and will compare the costs with the benefits (both tangible and intangible) of each sanction.

Data from this study will enable OJJDP to compare the cost-benefit structure of custody with that

of probation. Although the study will not provide

national information, it will provide significant insight into how such analyses can be accomplished

in other jurisdictions. The University of Texas at

Dallas and the Dallas County Juvenile Department

are conducting the analysis.

To help determine the number of juveniles under

some form of community supervision, OJJDP is

funding development of the Survey of Juvenile

Probation, which will estimate the number of juveniles on probation nationally at a specific time, the

nature of their offenses, and the conditions of their

probation. In a certain sense, the numbers and

types of juveniles in residential placement depend

on the availability of alternative sanctions. Although

some juveniles clearly need residential placement to

ensure their own safety and/or the safety of the community, others can be handled more appropriately in

the community. The Survey of Juvenile Probation

will routinely gather sufficient information about

juveniles on probation to permit comparisons

between these youth and juveniles in custody.

OJJDP expects to field test the survey in 2002.

The first survey will be administered in 2004.

FY 2001 65

Annual Report

For many years, sharing information—about research, statistics, and programs that work—with

practitioners, policymakers, and the public has been

a priority at OJJDP. Although OJJDP recently

began to change its approach to information dissemination by relying less on bulk mailings and

more on its Web site, the Office remains committed

to sharing information with the field. In FY 2001,

OJJDP used many vehicles to get information out

to the field, including publications, electronic products (such as CD–ROMs, listservs, and Web sites),

and satellite videoconferences. The Office’s dissemination efforts addressed a number of key national

issues, including school safety, youth victimization,

and substance abuse. The activities described in this

chapter illustrate OJJDP’s commitment to keeping

the juvenile justice field informed about research

findings, juvenile justice statistics, and promising

programs.

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse 

The Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), operated by Aspen Systems Corporation of Rockville,

MD, has met the information needs of the juvenile

justice field since 1979, when it was established by

OJJDP. JJC is a one-stop shop that provides

toll-free telephone and online access to a wealth

of information on all aspects of juvenile justice,

delinquency prevention, and child protection. The

Clearinghouse offers policymakers, practitioners,

researchers, parents, youth, members of the media,

and representatives of community organizations

easy access to a comprehensive collection of up-todate research and statistics, program descriptions,

publications, practical guides and manuals, information on grants and funding opportunities, and other

useful resources—all prepared by the nation’s foremost experts in juvenile justice and related fields.

An OJJDP Bulletin, Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse:

Your Information Resource, provides an overview of

JJC services and resources. The box on page viii

explains how to access information from JJC via

telephone, fax, e-mail, and the Internet.

The Clearinghouse produces many of OJJDP’s

publications, including research and statistical reports and training and technical assistance manuals.

During 2001, JJC distributed close to 3.2 million

documents. JJC also maintains a toll-free number

(800–638–8736). During 2001, JJC responded to

51,169 telephone, fax, and e-mail requests. JJC

also continued to respond to requests related to an

antiviolence campaign that OJJDP developed in

partnership with MTV during 1999. The campaign

included an interactive CD–ROM, Fight for Your

Rights: Take a Stand Against Violence; between

October 2000 and September 2001, JJC distributed more than 109,347 copies of this CD–ROM.

Juvenile justice publications, videotapes, and other

materials can be easily ordered 24 hours a day, 7

days a week through the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service’s (NCJRS’s) Online Ordering

System (puborder.ncjrs.org). In FY 2001, JJC received 8,096 online orders through the NCJRS

System for juvenile justice products. NCJRS also

maintains a comprehensive database of approximately 190,000 titles, 57,000 of which are devoted

to juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and

child protection. During 2001, the library added

some 1,260 titles to the database collection. Most of

the titles in the database are available online through

the NCJRS Web site (ncjrs.org), but NCJRS also

lends its material through interlibrary loan or reproduces requested documents for a nominal fee (depending on copyright).

Chapter 9

Getting the Word Out
66 FY 2001

Annual Report

The Clearinghouse oversees JUVJUST, OJJDP’s

popular electronic mailing list that provides timely information about OJJDP and other youthservice-related publications, events, and funding

opportunities. JUVJUST subscribers are primarily

professionals working in juvenile justice and related

youth service fields. The number of subscribers

grew from 6,424 to 7,881 between October 2000

and September 2001. Archived JUVJUSTs and

instructions for subscribing to JUVJUST are available on the OJJDP Web site at ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

about/juvjust.html.

Web Sites

JJC designed and maintains OJJDP’s Web site

(ojjdp.ncjrs.org), which consists of more than 6,100

pages and 23 separate dedicated sites devoted to

OJJDP-sponsored programs. JJC began redesigning OJJDP’s Web site in 2001 and plans to unveil

the new site in 2002. During 2001, the site’s home

page had close to 3.2 million hits, and the overall

site had approximately 39 million hits (a 50-percent

increase over 2000). The Web site announces new

publications, allows users to download nearly all

OJJDP-produced publications, lists information about current and past funding opportunities, includes a calendar of events on upcoming

OJJDP-sponsored conferences, and provides access to speeches given by the OJJDP Administrator and senior staff.

The site also features a “JJ Facts & Figures” section that provides information on juvenile justice,

delinquency prevention, and violence and victimization. This section offers a diagram of how cases

proceed through the juvenile justice system. Also

included is a “Statistical Briefing Book” with statistics, charts, and tables that answer frequently asked

questions and provide online data sets on the juvenile population, juvenile arrests, court processing,

supplemental homicide statistics, and juveniles

in residential placement. In addition, the section

includes statistics-focused publications and offers

links to the Web sites of agencies and organizations

that focus on statistics. Users can ask their own

statistics-related questions through “askncjrs.org,”

an e-mail response service. In 2002, OJJDP plans

to redesign the Statistical Briefing Book to make it

more user friendly.

OJJDP also maintains sites for many of the programs it funds, including the Drug-Free Communities Support Program; Enforcing the Underage

Drinking Laws Program; Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grants program; and Juvenile

Mentoring Program. At the request of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP compiled an online

compendium of resources for the EUDL Program

in 2001 (ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/compendium/

2001/contents.html).

JJC developed two new Web sites in 2001 for the

Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and its component agency OJJDP. The Web site for OJP’s

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry) provides an overview

of the initiative and links to funding information,

describes reentry programs throughout the Nation,

lists publications related to each phase of the reentry process, and offers a calendar of events. The

Web site for OJJDP’s Title V Community Prevention Grants Program (ojjdp.ncjrs.org/titlev/

index.html) introduces the program, outlines available training and technical assistance, lists Title V

allocations for the current fiscal year and contact

information for each State’s or territory’s Title V

Coordinator or Juvenile Justice Specialist, describes

Title V eligibility and guidelines, and provides links

to publications related to the program and information on the national evaluation of Title V.

Publications

During FY 2001, OJJDP produced more than 80

publications that informed the juvenile justice field

about Office activities and promising approaches to

juvenile delinquency. The Office markets and disseminates its publications to ensure that they reach

a wide audience, including policymakers, practitioners, members of the media, and many others. Most
FY 2001 67

Annual Report

OJJDP publications are available online through

the Web site, and many are available via fax-ondemand, a popular automated service that can be

used to order short publications such as Fact Sheets

and Bulletins. (The fax-on-demand number is

800–638–8736.) The publications highlighted below

and those discussed throughout this Report are

only a sample of the documents OJJDP produced

in FY 2001. All are available from JJC. A complete

list of OJJDP publications released in FY 2001

appears in the appendix.

OJJDP’s Journal

OJJDP publishes Juvenile Justice, a journal that explores a range of topics about juvenile delinquency

prevention, control, and system improvement programs. The June 2001 issue (Volume VIII, Number

1) examines the nature of school violence and reviews promising approaches to creating safe schools

and resolving conflicts peacefully. The first article

draws on data related to the occurrence of crime in

the Nation’s schools, the second article discusses

comprehensive safe school planning, and the third

article proposes that conflict resolution education

be used in schools to prepare youth for a less violent future. 

Juvenile Offenders and Victims

National Report Series

Published every 4 years, OJJDP’s National Report, Juvenile Offenders and Victims, offers a comprehensive statistical overview of the problems of

juvenile crime, violence, and victimization and the

response of the juvenile justice system. The last

National Report was published in 1999. During

each interim year until publication of the next

National Report, Bulletins and Fact Sheets in the

National Report Series will provide access to the

latest information on juvenile arrests, court cases,

juveniles in custody, and other topics of interest.

Each publication in the series highlights selected

topics at the forefront of juvenile justice policymaking, giving readers focused access to statistics

on some of the most critical issues.

Upcoming publications in the National Report

Series include the following:

✦ Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System.

✦ Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000: Selected

Findings.

✦ Juvenile Sex Offenders: A National Picture.

✦ Juveniles in Court, 2002.

✦ Juveniles in Corrections.

Satellite Videoconferencing

OJJDP has successfully used satellite telecommunications for several years to provide information

and training programs more readily to juvenile justice professionals. This cost-effective medium allows

practitioners, policymakers, and researchers from

across the country to keep abreast of developments

in the field without having to travel far from home.

OJJDP has sponsored satellite videoconferences

since 1995 through its grantee, Eastern Kentucky

University (EKU) of Richmond, KY. A typical

videoconference can reach some 500 sites and

approximately 15,000 persons. OJJDP also continues to use Internet streaming, which allows individuals to simultaneously observe and hear satellite

videoconferences from desktop personal computers.

During the 2001 calendar year, EKU produced four

“live” satellite videoconferences and cybercast three

of these on the Internet.

“Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth,” which was presented on February 1, 2001,

highlighted key findings from OJJDP’s Report of

the same name. In particular, the broadcast provided guidance in designing and implementing training

programs that meet the needs of employers and

highlighted promising programs and effective

strategies for linking court-involved youth to the

job market. The videoconference was telecast to

223 downlink sites.

“Mental Health Issues and Juvenile Justice,” which

was presented on April 19, 2001, highlighted the
68 FY 2001

Annual Report

inadequacies of mental health care in juvenile corrections facilities, barriers to providing adequate

services, and ways in which the juvenile justice and

mental health systems can collaborate to increase

the level and quality of services. Promising programs and effective strategies for linking the juvenile justice, mental health, and substance abuse

service systems were discussed, as were efforts to

divert youth from the juvenile justice system to

effective community-based services. In addition,

means to incorporate culturally appropriate and

sensitive strategies in mental health programming

for these youth were highlighted. The videoconference was telecast to 350 downlink sites.

“Balanced and Restorative Justice,” which was

presented on June 28, 2001, highlighted some of

the key principles involved in the balanced and

restorative justice model and provided guidance to

agencies that want to design and implement such a

model. Diverse strategies that are thought to lead to

successful implementation of restorative practices,

including, for example, leadership, programs and

policies, staff roles, allocation of resources, and use

of information were discussed. In addition, the

videoconference featured three jurisdictions that

are implementing restorative justice programs.

Representatives of those programs were available

to discuss their successes and to answer participants’ questions. The videoconference was telecast to 343 downlink sites.

All of these broadcasts may be viewed free of

charge at www.juvenilenet.org and also are available for purchase from JJC.
FY 2001 69

Annual Report

The following publications are available through

OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC).

1998 National Youth Gang Survey (Summary),

NCJ 183109

Addressing the Problem of Juvenile Bullying

(Fact Sheet), FS–200127

Animal Abuse and Youth Violence (Bulletin),

NCJ 188677

Anticipating Space Needs in Juvenile Detention and

Correctional Facilities (Bulletin), NCJ 185234

Assessing Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Disorders in Juvenile

Detainees (Fact Sheet), FS–200102

Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Bulletin),

NCJ 187079

The Career Academy Concept (Fact Sheet), 

FS–200115

Child Abuse Reported to the Police (Crimes Against

Children Series Bulletin), NCJ 187238

Children’s Exposure to Violence: The Safe Start Initiative

(Fact Sheet), FS–200113

Choosing and Using Child Victimization Questionnaires

(Crimes Against Children Series Bulletin),

NCJ 186027

A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Models

(Bulletin), NCJ 184738 

Comprehensive Responses to Youth At Risk: Interim Findings From the SafeFutures Initiative (Summary),

NCJ 183841

Co-occurrence of Delinquency and Other Problem

Behaviors (Youth Development Series Bulletin),

NCJ 182211

Coordinating Council Promotes Federal Collaboration

(Fact Sheet), FS–200021

Crimes Against Children by Babysitters (Crimes

Against Children Series Bulletin), NCJ 189102

Culinary Education and Training Program for At-Risk

Youth (Fact Sheet), FS–200107

The Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases (Crimes

Against Children Series Bulletin), NCJ 184741

Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Courts, 1998

(Fact Sheet), FS–200131

Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court,

1989–1998 (Fact Sheet), FS–200135

Detention in Delinquency Cases, 1988–1997

(Fact Sheet), FS–200017

Drug-Free Communities Brochure (Brochure),

BC 000654

The Drug-Free Communities Support Program

(Fact Sheet), FS–200108

Drug Offense Cases in Juvenile Courts, 1989–1998

(Fact Sheet), FS–200136

Early Identification of Risk Factors for Parental Abduction

(Bulletin), NCJ 185026

Employment and Training for Court-Involved Youth

(Report), NCJ 182787

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program: A Compendium of Resources (Flier/Fact Sheet), LT 000428

Appendix

OJJDP Publications Produced in FY 2001
70 FY 2001

Annual Report

Expansion of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy

(Fact Sheet), FS–200118 

Family Abductors: Descriptive Profiles and Preventive

Interventions (Bulletin), NCJ 182788

Female Delinquency Cases, 1997 (Fact Sheet),

FS–200016

Female Gangs: A Focus on Research (Youth Gang

Series Bulletin), NCJ 186159

Functional Family Therapy (Family Strengthening

Series Bulletin), NCJ 184743

The “Green Book” Demonstration (Fact Sheet),

FS–200121

The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in the United States:

1970–98 (Report), NCJ 181868

The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in the United States:

1970–98 (Flier/Fact Sheet), LT 000420 

Gun Use by Male Juveniles: Research and Prevention

(Youth Development Series Bulletin), NCJ 188992

Healthy Families America (Fact Sheet), FS–200123

Highlights of the 1999 National Youth Gang Survey

(Fact Sheet), FS–200020

Highlights of the Youth Internet Safety Survey

(Fact Sheet), FS–200104

Increasing School Safety Through Juvenile Accountability

Programs (JAIBG Bulletin), NCJ 179283

Involving Youth in Civic Life (Fact Sheet), 

YFS–00005

JRSA Helps States Determine Local JAIBG Allocations

(Fact Sheet), FS–200126

Jurisdictional Technical Assistance Package for Juvenile

Corrections (Report), NCJ 179194

Juvenile Arrests 1999 (Bulletin), NCJ 185236

Juvenile Delinquency and Serious Injury Victimization

(Youth Development Series Bulletin), NCJ 188676

Juvenile Delinquency Probation Caseload, 1988–1997

(Fact Sheet), FS–200019

Juvenile Delinquency Probation Caseload, 1989–1998

(Fact Sheet), FS–200134

Juvenile Drug Court Programs (JAIBG Bulletin),

NCJ 184744

Juvenile Justice, Volume VII, Number 2 (Journal,

American Indian Issue), NCJ 184747

Juvenile Justice, Volume VII, Number 3 (Journal,

Parenting Issue), NCJ 184746

Juvenile Justice, Volume VIII, Number 1 (Journal,

School Violence Issue), NCJ 188158

The Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center Project 

(Fact Sheet), FS–200125

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in Florida: The 1994

Reforms (Fact Sheet), FS–200122

Juvenile Victims of Property Crimes (Bulletin), 

NCJ 184740

Juveniles and the Death Penalty (Bulletin), 

NCJ 184748

Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended: A Review of the

Professional Literature (Report), NCJ 184739

Keeping Children Safe: OJJDP’s Child Protection Division

(Bulletin), NCJ 186158

Law Enforcement Referral of At-Risk Youth: The

SHIELD Program (Bulletin), NCJ 184579

The Missing and Exploited Children’s Program (Update)

(Fact Sheet), FS–200116

Missing and Exploited Children’s Training Program

(Fact Sheet), FS–200106

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

(Fact Sheet), FS–200128

The National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse

(Fact Sheet), FS–200133
FY 2001 71

Annual Report

The National Center on Child Fatality Review

(Fact Sheet), FS–200112

The Nurturing Parenting Programs (Bulletin),

NCJ 172848

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1997 (Bulletin),

NCJ 181204

OJJDP Annual Report 2000 (Report), 

NCJ 188419

OJJDP Mental Health Initiatives (Fact Sheet),

FS–200130

OJJDP Research 2000 (Report), 

NCJ 186732

OJJDP’s Program of Research for Tribal Youth

(Fact Sheet), FS–200110

An Overview of the JAIBG Program (Fact Sheet),

FS–200109

An Overview of the Title V Community Prevention Grants

Program (Fact Sheet), FS–200119

PEPNet: Connecting Juvenile Offenders to Education and

Employment (Fact Sheet), FS–200129

Person Offenses in Juvenile Court, 1989–1998

(Fact Sheet), FS–200132

Planning of New Institutions: Workshops for Juvenile

Facilities (Fact Sheet), FS–200101

Preventing Delinquency Through Improved Child

Protection Services (Bulletin), NCJ 187759

Promising Practices: Drug-Free Communities Support

Program (Fact Sheet), FS–200111

Resources for Juvenile Detention Reform (Fact Sheet),

FS–200018

Restorative Justice Conferences as an Early Response to

Young Offenders (Bulletin), NCJ 187769

Safe From the Start: Taking Action on Children Exposed

to Violence (Summary), NCJ 182789

School Resource Officer Training Program (Fact Sheet),

FS–200105

State Custody Rates, 1997 (Bulletin), 

NCJ 183108

Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health

Problem (Fact Sheet), FS–200117

The Teens, Crime, and the Community Initiative

(Fact Sheet), FS–200124

A Treatment Study of Children With Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder (Fact Sheet), FS–200120

Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in School

(Bulletin), NCJ 188947

United National Indian Tribal Youth, Inc. (YIA Fact

Sheet), YFS–00107

The YMCA’s Teen Action Agenda (Fact Sheet),

FS–200114

Youth for Justice (Bulletin), NCJ 186161

Youth Gang Homicides in the 1990’s (Fact Sheet),

FS–200103

The YouthARTS Development Project (Bulletin),

NCJ 186668

YouthBuild U.S.A. (YIA Fact Sheet), YFS–00106
Violence and Victimization

Addressing Youth Victimization. 2001,

NCJ 186667 (20 pp.).

Animal Abuse and Youth Violence. 2001,

NCJ 188677 (16 pp.).

Crimes Against Children by Babysitters. 2001,

NCJ 189102 (8 pp.).

Gun Use by Male Juveniles: Research and

Prevention. 2001, NCJ 188992 (12 pp.).

Homicides of Children and Youth. 2001,

NCJ 187239 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Delinquency and Serious Injury Victimization. 2001, NCJ 188676 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (School Violence Issue), Volume

VIII, Number 1. 2001, NCJ 188158 (40 pp.).

Offenders Incarcerated for Crimes Against

Juveniles. 2001, NCJ 191028 (12 pp.).

Protecting Children in Cyberspace: The ICAC

Task Force Program. 2002, NCJ 191213 (8 pp.).

Race, Ethnicity, and Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending. 2000, NCJ 181202 (8 pp.).

Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Adolescent Victimization. 2002, NCJ 191210 (16 pp.).

Violent Victimization as a Risk Factor for Violent

Offending Among Juveniles. 2002, NCJ 195737

(12 pp.).

The materials listed on this page and many

other OJJDP publications and resources can

be accessed through the following methods:

Online:

To view or download materials, visit 

OJJDP’s home page: ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

To order materials online, visit JJC’s 24-

hour online store: puborder.ncjrs.org.

To ask questions about materials, e-mail

JJC: askjj@ncjrs.org.

To subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic mailing list, or OJJDP News @ a

Glance, the online bimonthly newsletter,

go to OJJDP’s Web site and click on the

appropriate icon.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS,

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

JJC, through the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service, is the repository for

tens of thousands of criminal and juvenile

justice publications and resources from

around the world. An abstract for each

publication or resource is placed in a

database that you can search online:

www.ncjrs.org/search.html.

Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a wide variety of materials,

including Bulletins, Fact Sheets, Reports, Summaries, videotapes, and the Juvenile Justice

journal. These materials and other resources

are available through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse (JJC), as described below.

The following list of publications highlights the

latest and most popular information published

by OJJDP, grouped by topical areas:

Corrections and Detention

Implementation of the Intensive CommunityBased Aftercare Program. 2000, NCJ 181464

(20 pp.).

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000:

Selected Findings. 2002, NCJ 196595 (4 pp.).

Courts

Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth. 2000, NCJ 182787 (116 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1998. 2003,

NCJ 193696 (120 pp.).

Juvenile Drug Court Programs. 2001,

NCJ 184744 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability

and Providing Treatment. 2002, NCJ 187078

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the

1990’s: Lessons Learned From Four Studies.

2000, NCJ 181301 (72 pp.).

Juveniles and the Death Penalty. 2000,

NCJ 184748 (16 pp.).

Teen Courts: A Focus on Research. 2000,

NCJ 183472 (16 pp.).

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and

Enforcement Act. 2001, NCJ 189181 (16 pp.).

Delinquency Prevention

2001 Report to Congress: Title V Community

Prevention Grants Program. 2002, NCJ 198482

(42 pp.).

Functional Family Therapy. 2000, NCJ 184743

(8 pp.).

Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime. 2001,

NCJ 191031 (32 pp.).

The Nurturing Parenting Programs. 2000,

NCJ 172848 (12 pp.).

Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offending. 2000, NCJ 178898 (16 pp.).

Restorative Justice Conferences as an Early

Response to Young Offenders. 2001,

NCJ 187769 (12 pp.).

Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending: An Analysis of Victim Survey Data. 2002, NCJ 191052

(20 pp.).

Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in

School. 2001, NCJ 188947 (16 pp.).

The YouthARTS Development Project. 2001,

NCJ 186668 (16 pp.).

Gangs

1998 National Youth Gang Survey. 2000,

NCJ 183109 (92 pp.).

Early Precursors of Gang Membership: A Study

of Seattle Youth. 2001, NCJ 190106 (6 pp.).

Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs. 2001,

NCJ 189916 (8 pp.).

Modern-Day Youth Gangs. 2002, NCJ 191524

(11 pp.).

General Juvenile Justice

The Community Assessment Center Concept.

2000, NCJ 178942 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 2000. 2002, NCJ 191729

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (Mental Health Issue), Volume

VII, Number 1. 2000, NCJ 178256 (44 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (American Indian Issue),

Volume VII, Number 2. 2000, NCJ 184747

(40 pp.).

Special Education and the Juvenile Justice

System. 2000, NCJ 179359 (16 pp.).

Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior.

2000, NCJ 178899 (8 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Child Abuse Reported to the Police. 2001,

NCJ 187238 (8 pp.).

Children Abducted by Family Members:

National Estimates and Characteristics. 2002,

NCJ 196466 (12 pp.).

The Criminal Justice System’s Response to

Parental Abduction. 2001, NCJ 186160 (16 pp.).

A Family Resource Guide on International

Parental Kidnapping. 2002, NCJ 190448

(148 pp.).

Issues in Resolving Cases of International

Child Abduction by Parents. 2001, NCJ 190105

(20 pp.).

A Law Enforcement Guide on International

Parental Kidnapping. 2002, NCJ 194639

(116 pp.).

National Estimates of Missing Children: An

Overview. 2002, NCJ 196465 (12 pp.).

Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics. 2002, NCJ 196467

(16 pp.).

Overview of the Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse: Update 2000. 2000,

NCJ 178893 (12 pp.).

Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics. 2002, NCJ 196469

(12 pp.).

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 2002, NCJ 170022 (94 pp.). Also available in Spanish. 2002, NCJ 178902.

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998,

NCJ 173393 (24 pp.).

Developing a Policy for Controlled Substance

Testing of Juveniles. 2000, NCJ 178896

(12 pp.).

Family Skills Training for Parents and Children.

2000, NCJ 180140 (12 pp.).

Revised 01/15/2003