U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Children’s exposure

 to violence 

Youth in Indian country 

Evidence-based practices 

Juvenile reentry 

Girls’ delinquency 

Underage drinking 

JJDP Act 

Disproportionate 

minority contact 

Commercial sexual 

exploitation of children 

Missing and abducted children 

Mentoring 

Youth in custody 

Research and statistics 

Gang violence 

Bullying 

Internet crimes 

against children 

Training and 

technical assistance 

Tribal juvenile 

justice systems 

Dissemination and outreach 

Emergency planning 

Listening to juvenile 

justice stakeholders 

Office O f Juvenile Justice and f Juvenile Justice and d elinquency Preventi O n 

2010 annual rePOrt 
2010
 
annual rePOrt 

Office Of Juvenile Justice and delinquency PreventiOn 

Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

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


during fiscal year 2010 (October 1, 2009–september 30, 2010)
 

ncJ 237051
 
U.S. Department of Justice
 

Office of Justice Programs
 

810 Seventh Street NW. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

Mary Lou Leary 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Melodee Hanes 

Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Justice Programs 

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

www.ojjdp.gov 

Photos used in this report: Copyright © 2012 Shutterstock. Photo on page 11 courtesy of Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice 

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

the National Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender 

Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. 
 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

Members of Congress 

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

(OJJDP’s) annual report for fiscal year 2010. This report includes information pursuant to: 

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

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

• 	 Missing Children Program—JJDP Act of 1974, as amended; Public Law 93–415, section 

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

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

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

• 	 Title V—JJDP Act of 1974, as amended; Public Law 93–415, section 503(4) [42 U.S.C. 

5782(4)]. 

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

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

Respectfully submitted, 

Melodee Hanes 

Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Washington, DC 

fOreWOrd 

We are pleased to present the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s 

(OJJDP’s) fiscal year (FY) 2010 Annual Report. 

As this report describes, OJJDP remains steadfastly committed to evidence-based approaches 

for preventing and intervening in delinquency. At the same time, the Office works every day 

to protect innocent children from abuse, exploitation, abduction, and violence. We know all 

too well that youth who have experienced repeated violence and trauma suffer many possible 

adverse consequences, including depression, substance abuse, dropping out of school, and a 

drift into delinquent behavior. 

During FY 2010, OJJDP played an important role in the Attorney General’s Defending Childhood initiative. The goals of the initiative include preventing children’s exposure to violence 

in their families and communities, mitigating the effects of this violence on children, and 

raising awareness of the problem. OJJDP’s groundbreaking research on children’s exposure 

to violence serves as the underpinning of the Defending Childhood initiative. These research 

findings include the disturbing truth that more than 60 percent of the nation’s youth have 

been exposed to violence, crime, or abuse within the past year, either directly or indirectly. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded more than $519 million in grants in support of its mission to 

address juvenile delinquency and child victimization. This amount included more than 

$96 million through mentoring appropriations to support programs across the country that 

are improving youth’s self-esteem and academic achievement and encouraging them to move 

ahead to a successful future. 

Using information gleaned from OJJDP research on the risk and protective factors specific to 

girls, we launched the National Girls Institute, which serves as the first national clearinghouse 

of information for at-risk and justice-system-involved girls, their families, and service providers. It also offers the training and technical assistance that is so urgently needed by those who 

work in the area of gender-specific programming. 

As part of our ongoing effort to leverage resources with our partners in the private sector, 

OJJDP joined with the Annie E. Casey Foundation to fund an expansion of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, which aims (among other objectives) to eliminate the inappropriate or unnecessary use of secure detention for youth and redirect public finances to sustain 

successful reform in the juvenile justice system. 
These are only a few examples of the work OJJDP is doing to help make our communities safer 

places to live, to keep the juvenile justice field informed of the latest developments in research, 

and to give children who are at risk or who are involved in the justice system an opportunity to 

lead healthy and productive lives. I am excited about the opportunity to build on these achievements in the months and years ahead. 

Melodee Hanes 

Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
abOut OJJdP 

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


by congress through the Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention (JJdP) act 


of 1974, Public law 93–415, as amended. a component of the Office of Justice 


Programs within the u.s. department of Justice, OJJdP works to prevent and control 


juvenile delinquency, improve the juvenile justice system, and protect children. 


Mission Statement 

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


and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization. OJJdP supports states and 


communities in their efforts to develop and implement effective and coordinated 


prevention and intervention programs and to improve the juvenile justice system so 


that it protects public safety, holds offenders 


accountable, and provides treatment and 


rehabilitative services tailored to the needs
 

of juveniles and their families.
 

Organization 

OJJdP is composed of the Office of 


the administrator, three program divisions 


(child Protection, demonstration Programs, 


and state relations and assistance), the 


Office of Policy development (including 


the communications unit), and the 


Grants Management unit. appendix c
 

summarizes each component’s role. 


table Of cOntents
 

cHaPter 1 : OJJDP Is Forming Partnerships and Finding Solutions: Major Accomplishments ..... 2
 

Evidence-Based Practices .................................................................. 3
 

Children’s Exposure to Violence ............................................................ 4
 

Girls’ Delinquency........................................................................ 5
 

Anti-Gang Initiatives...................................................................... 5
 

Mentoring ............................................................................... 6
 

Juvenile Reentry.......................................................................... 7
 

Bullying Prevention....................................................................... 7
 

Youth in Custody ......................................................................... 8
 

Indigent Defense ......................................................................... 9
 

Interagency Partnerships To Address Key Youth Issues ........................................ 9
 

Emergency Planning for Juvenile Justice Residential Facilities ................................. 11
 

Listening Sessions ....................................................................... 11
 

cHaPter 2 : OJJDP Is Working To Prevent and Intervene in Delinquency ...................... 14
 

Anti-Gang Initiatives ..................................................................... 15
 

Mentoring Activities ..................................................................... 19
 

Juvenile Drug Courts..................................................................... 21
 

Family Drug Courts...................................................................... 22
 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program ............................................... 22
 

Tribal Youth Initiatives ................................................................... 23
 

cHaPter 3 : OJJDP Is Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System Through the JJDP Act ......... 30
 

Formula Grants Program ................................................................. 32
 

Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program .............................................. 36
 

Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grants Program.................................. 41
 

Community Prevention Grants Program.................................................... 43
 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program ............................................... 47
 

cHaPter 4 : OJJDP Is Defending Children Against Victimization ............................. 52
 

Children’s Exposure to Violence ........................................................... 53
 

Project Safe Childhood ................................................................... 56
 

Internet Crimes Against Children Program.................................................. 56
 

Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children ................................................ 58
 

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
 

AMBER Alert ........................................................................... 63
 

Children’s Advocacy Centers.............................................................. 65
 

Court Appointed Special Advocates Program ............................................... 66
 

Model Courts Program ................................................................... 67
 
cHaPter 5 : OJJDP Is Providing Resources and Information to the Juvenile Justice Field ........ 70
 

Sharing Research Findings ................................................................ 71
 

OJJDP Web Site .......................................................................... 75
 

Online Statistical Briefing Book ............................................................ 75
 

OJJDP News @ a Glance ................................................................... 77
 

JUVJUST ............................................................................... 77
 

Publications............................................................................. 78
 

aPPendixes 

Appendix A: OJJDP Fiscal Year 2010 Awards ................................................ 93
 

Appendix B: State Compliance With JJDP Act Core Requirements .............................. 99
 

Appendix C: OJJDP Organization ......................................................... 103
 
CHAPTER 1
 
CHAPTER 1

2 

Forming Partnerships 

and Finding Solutions: 

Major Accomplishments 

Over the past decade, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

has made great strides in bringing together federal, state, local, and tribal agencies; 

communities; and components of the juvenile justice system to address youth crime 

and victimization. Collaboration characterized many of OJJDP’s activities in fiscal year (FY) 2010, 

including programs to address issues related to gang and community violence, offender reentry, 

and missing and exploited children. 

Programs must stand up to rigorous evaluation and examination to prove their merit. OJJDP 

sets a high priority on funding activities and programs that have a solid record of success. This 

means supporting evidence-based programs that reduce juvenile delinquency and crime, protect 

children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and improve the juvenile justice system. 

The Office’s many accomplishments in FY 2010 included helping the field understand and 

address pressing issues such as the prevalence of Internet crimes against youth, the need for 

prevention and intervention programs that meet the specific needs of at-risk and delinquent 

girls, and the long-term negative consequences of children’s exposure to violence. The activities 

highlighted in this chapter and throughout the report illustrate OJJDP’s ongoing commitment to 

finding solutions that have the greatest potential for improving the juvenile justice system and 

keeping communities safe. 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION 
3 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

To make the best use of public resources, 

OJJDP is committed to identifying “what 

works” in delinquency prevention and 

juvenile justice. OJJDP has partnered with 

many federal agencies to find solutions that 

have the greatest potential for improving 

the juvenile justice system and keeping 

communities safe. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded more than $519 million in grants in support of its mission to prevent 

and respond to juvenile delinquency and child victimization, including nearly $389 million in 

discretionary funding. Detailed information about these awards is available in appendix A. 

Evidence-Based Practices 

OJJDP has a long history of promoting evidence-based programs and practices. In 2000, the 

Office established the Model Programs Guide (MPG), one of the first comprehensive resources 

to identify evidence-based programs in juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. It has since 

evolved into an online resource with a variety of specialized databases. The MPG, which currently includes 200 evidence-based programs, is designed to assist practitioners and communities in implementing prevention and intervention programs that can make a difference in the 

lives of children and communities. The MPG’s growing database of programs covers the continuum of youth services, from prevention through sanctions to reentry. 

Building on these efforts, in FY 2010 the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) began developing 

CrimeSolutions.gov, a comprehensive online resource that uses rigorous evaluation evidence 

to assess program effectiveness across a broad range of juvenile and adult criminal justice and 

victims’ programs. The online tool is part of OJP’s Evidence Integration Initiative, which seeks 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

to improve the quantity and quality of evidence that OJP generates through 

research, evaluation, and statistics; to better integrate evidence into program and 

policy decisions; and to improve the translation of evidence into practice. The 

initiative established teams within OJP to synthesize evidence on specific justice 

topics and develop principles for practice that can be communicated to the field. 

Over the next several years, OJJDP will complete the process of aligning the 

MPG’s review standards and evidence ratings with those of CrimeSolutions.gov 

to ensure conformity between the two sites. 

For more information on OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide, see chapter 3. 

Children’s Exposure to Violence 

Children’s exposure to violence—whether as a victim or as a witness—is associated with long-term physical, psychological, and emotional harm. These 

children are at higher risk of mental health problems such as anxiety and 

depression. They are also more likely to use drugs and alcohol, and even to 

engage in violent behavior themselves. 

Launched in FY 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Defending 

Childhood initiative directs resources for the express purpose 

of reducing children’s exposure to violence, raising awareness 

of its ramifications, and advancing scientific inquiry on its 

causes and characteristics. At the Department of Justice (DOJ), 

offices covering a broad range of issues—from violence against 

women and juvenile justice to community-based policing and 

victims of crime—are actively engaged in coordinating efforts 

to prevent children’s exposure to violence. The initiative also 

involves partnerships with the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, as well as with law 

enforcement and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country. 

For more than 10 years, OJJDP has been a national leader in addressing this critical issue. Under the leadership of then Deputy Attorney General Holder in June 

1999, OJJDP launched the Safe Start initiative to broaden knowledge about and 

promote community investment in evidence-based strategies for reducing the 

impact of children’s exposure to violence. The Defending Childhood initiative 

is building on the foundation established by Safe Start to expand partnerships 

among family- and youth-serving agencies such as early childhood education/ 

development, health, mental health, child welfare, family support, substance 

abuse prevention/intervention, domestic violence/crisis intervention, law 

enforcement, the courts, and legal services. 

For more information on the Defending Childhood initiative, see chapter 4. 

4 

OJJDP supports and promotes 

science-based research, 

vigorous and informative 

evaluations of demonstration 

programs, and meaningful 

collection and analysis 

of statistics. Through 

initiatives such as our Model 

Programs Guide, OJJDP is 

demonstrating its commitment 

to identifying, developing, 

and implementing proven, 

effective programs. 

—Jeff Slowikowski 

Former Acting 

Administrator, OJJDP 
5 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

CHAPTER 1

Girls’ Delinquency 

Rising trends in girls’ delinquency in the 1990s led OJJDP to call for 

more gender-related research on delinquency prevention and intervention. To address this need and provide comprehensive information on female delinquency, the Office created its Girls Study Group 

in 2004. Several other OJJDP-sponsored programs also have undertaken efforts to enhance the juvenile justice system’s response to 

girls’ delinquency. The Office provides training and technical assistance, gender-specific programming, assessment tools, publications, and other resources. 

One highlight of FY 2010 was OJJDP’s award of a $1.5-million, 

3-year grant to the Center for Girls and Young Women at the 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency to establish the 

National Girls Institute (NGI). The Institute will provide training and technical assistance to programs that address the needs of girls 

who are at risk or who are involved in the juvenile justice system. NGI will also 

disseminate information; collaborate with researchers and program developers; 

form partnerships with federal, state, tribal, and local agencies; and develop 

policy. 

OJJDP also awarded grants to researchers at the Development Services Group, 

the University of Virginia, and the University of Connecticut to evaluate juvenile 

delinquency prevention, intervention, and treatment programs, which traditionally have been designed with boys in mind, to determine how well girls respond 

to these interventions. 

In addition, the Girls Study Group conducted an Evaluation Technical Assistance Workshop in Chapel Hill, NC, to equip select organizations with the 

resources they need to carry out rigorous evaluations of their gender-responsive 

delinquency prevention and intervention programs, which are designed specifically to meet the unique needs of girls. 

More information about FY 2010 Girls Study Group publications may be found 

in chapter 5. 

Anti-Gang Initiatives 

In the 1970s, fewer than half of the states reported gang problems. However, by 

the turn of the 21st century, every state and the District of Columbia were facing 

this challenge. Recognizing that youth gangs are a serious national issue, OJJDP 

supports the development and implementation of demonstration programs that 

address gang prevention, intervention, and suppression, as well as gang-related 
6 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

research and evaluation activities, training and technical assistance, and information dissemination. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP completed work on the second edition of Best Practices To 

Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model, a publication that provides guidance on how communities can best address an existing or 

emerging youth gang problem. The report, released in October 2009, describes 

the research that produced OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model and offers 

best practices obtained from practitioners with years of experience in planning, 

implementing, and overseeing variations of the model within their communities. 

The second edition includes a summary of findings from an independent evaluation of OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Program, a demonstration of the anti-gang 

framework in four target sites. 

OJJDP’s anti-gang activities are described in more detail in chapter 2. 

Mentoring 

Mentoring helps prevent at-risk youth from becoming involved in delinquency 

and also helps delinquent youth change their lives for the better. Mentoring 

relationships have been shown to improve youth’s self-esteem, behavior, and 

academic performance. OJJDP has long supported mentoring as an effective way 

to prevent at-risk youth from becoming involved in delinquency. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP continued its significant investment in mentoring programs. 

The Office funded juvenile mentoring grants to support national and community organizations that directly serve youth through mentoring, target specific 

populations of youth, and enhance the capacity of other organizations to recruit, 

train, and supervise mentors. 

A priority of the Office is the development of evidence-based practices for mentoring. In FY 2010, OJJDP’s new Mentoring Research Best Practices Program was 

launched to identify the specific components of mentoring programs that have a 

significant impact in reducing juvenile delinquency and offending. 

OJJDP’s many mentoring initiatives are described in detail in chapter 2. 
7 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

CHAPTER 1

 

OJJDP AD CAmPAIgN 

URgES PROSPECTIVE 

mENTORS TO STEP 

UP TO THE PLATE 

In FY 2010, OJJDP continued its Be a mentor 

campaign. OJJDP reached some 3.5 million 

people through its ad in the game programs for 

major League Baseball’s 2010 American League 

and National League Championship Series and 

the World Series. The ad, which invites adults to 

“step up to the plate” by becoming a mentor, also 

appeared in the program for the 2011 All-Star 

game. 

Juvenile Reentry 

The Second Chance Act of 2007 provides a comprehensive response to the 

increasing number of people who are released from prison, jail, and juvenile 

residential facilities and are returning to their communities. There are more 

than 81,000 youth in residential confinement within the juvenile justice system 

on any given day. The vast majority of these youth will eventually be released 

and will return to their communities. 

OJJDP and the Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

are collaborating closely on the implementation of the Second Chance Act to 

ensure that both juvenile and adult reentry efforts are provided with the funding 

and resources to effectively reduce recidivism, protect public safety, and return 

offenders successfully to their communities. In FY 2010, OJJDP funding focused 

on implementing indepth assessments that identify offenders at high risk of 

recidivism, providing a comprehensive range of services for offenders, and 

ensuring sustained case planning and management. 

Bullying Prevention 

The harmful effects of bullying cannot be overstated. Reports of bullying in the 

1990s show that, in extreme cases, victims may face shooting or severe beatings and may even turn to suicide. These reports have triggered public action, 

prompting more than 20 states to enact laws requiring that schools provide education and services directed toward the prevention and cessation of bullying. 

Reentry provides a major 

opportunity to reduce 

recidivism, save taxpayer 

dollars, and make our 

communities safer. . . . 

By developing effective, 

evidence-based reentry 

programs, we can improve 

public safety and community 

well-being. 

—Attorney General Eric Holder 
8 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

To determine the causes of bullying in schools and to inform the development of effective intervention strategies, OJJDP funded a series of studies in 

2007 at the National Center for School Engagement (NCSE). The research 

focused on the connection between different types and frequencies of 

bullying and truancy and student achievement, and whether students’ 

engagement in school mediates these factors. In FY 2010, OJJDP started 

work on a new publication series that summarizes findings from NCSE’s 

research. To learn more about the publication series, see chapter 5. 

OJJDP represented DOJ on the Federal Partners interagency workgroup that sponsored the first Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention 

Summit, held in Washington, DC, in August 2010. The summit was 

organized by the U.S. Departments of Education, Justice, Health and 

Human Services, Defense, Agriculture, and the Interior; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The summit brought together professionals involved in helping to prevent and 

reduce bullying and cyberbullying in schools and communities across the country. Researchers, practitioners, federal officials, members of faith-based organizations, and youth attended. Speakers included Arne Duncan, Secretary of the 

Department of Education; Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General; and Dr. 

Regina M. Benjamin, Surgeon General of the United States. 

OJJDP sponsored a followup Webinar in October to enable summit participants 

and other professionals in the field to recapture the information shared at the 

summit and to expand their knowledge on how to effectively deal with issues 

associated with bullying and cyberbullying. 

Youth in Custody 

Staff in juvenile detention and confinement facilities need high-quality training 

and technical assistance to ensure that they provide for the safety, security, and 

rehabilitation of youth in their custody. 

In 2010, OJJDP responded to the field-generated call for assistance, leadership, 

and support to improve conditions in youth and adult facilities housing juvenile 

offenders1 by creating the National Center for Youth in Custody. The Council of 

Juvenile Correctional Administrators and the National Partnership for Juvenile 

Services codirect the center. 

1 These may include juvenile correctional, juvenile detention, and court-holding facilities; group homes; and adult 

prisons, jails, and lockups. 
9 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

CHAPTER 1

The center has three priorities: to help those who work with youth in custody 

improve the conditions of custody and confinement for youth; to support and 

enhance compliance with the four core protections of the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Act; and to strengthen family and community engagement in all aspects of youth custody. The center offers a resource library, training 

and training curriculums, Webinars, professional development planning, and 

technical assistance. 

Indigent Defense 

More than 40 years have passed since the landmark Supreme Court decisions in 

Gideon v. Wainwright and In re Gault, which established the right to counsel for 

adults and juveniles in criminal and delinquency cases, respectively. Despite the 

decades that have elapsed since the Court’s decisions, these cases have yet to be 

fully translated into reality. In too many counties and communities, too many 

people—including juveniles—may never have a lawyer. 

As a means of highlighting and addressing this important issue, approximately 

500 public defenders, prosecutors, judges, legislators, government officials, and 

representatives from leading advocacy organizations gathered in February 2010 

for the National Symposium on Indigent Defense in Washington, DC. Sponsored 

by DOJ with the support of OJJDP and BJA, the symposium encompassed 5 plenary sessions and more than 40 workshops related to indigent adult and juvenile 

defense. Senior officials and staff from OJJDP served as moderators for numerous workshop discussions on strategies to enhance juvenile defense. 

In addition, in FY 2010 OJJDP funded the creation of a national clearinghouse 

for juvenile defense attorneys to provide publications and resources, information about policy development and leadership opportunities, and training and 

technical assistance on indigent defense issues. This clearinghouse will improve 

the overall level of systemic advocacy, enhance the quality of juvenile indigent 

defense representation, and ensure professional and ongoing technical support 

to the juvenile indigent defense bar. 

Interagency Partnerships To Address Key 

Youth Issues 

Chaired by Attorney General Eric Holder and administered by OJJDP, the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention charted the 

course for future interagency collaboration in FY 2010 by identifying four priority issues for consideration and action: education and at-risk youth, tribal youth 

and juvenile justice, juvenile reentry and transition to adulthood, and racial 
10 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

and/or ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system and related 

systems. The list of priorities was the culmination of extensive consultations between OJJDP, DOJ staff, and officials from the Council’s 13 

member agencies and 4 affiliate federal members. 

Multidisciplinary teams staffed by the Council’s member agencies 

are developing recommendations to the President and to Congress 

for enhancing federal practice in these priority areas. The recommendations will be based on indepth analyses of policies, legislation, budgets, regulations, and practices that foster as well as 

hinder effective collaboration between federal, state, and local 

partners. 

“For us at the Justice Department, I consider the work of this Council as a 

legacy,” said Attorney General Holder at the January 2010 meeting at which the 

Council approved the four priority areas. “This is something I hope our Justice 

Department will be remembered for . . . a time when the Council came up with 

real solutions to real problems.” 

COORDINATINg COUNCIL ON JUVENILE 

JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION 

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is an independent body within the executive branch of 

the federal government and it operates under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972. The Council is dedicated to fostering 

multisector partnerships to improve the policies and practices of 

federal, state, and local programs for youth. 

The Council is made up of 22 members—13 ex officio and affiliate members and 

9 practitioners. The ex officio members are: the Attorney general; the Administrator 

of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; the Secretaries of the 

U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and 

Urban Development, and Labor; the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Director of the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy; and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation 

for National and Community Service. Affiliate members are the Secretaries of the 

U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and the Interior, and the Administrator of 

the Substance Abuse and mental Health Services Administration of HHS. The nine 

juvenile justice practitioner members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, the Senate majority Leader, and the President of the United States. 
11 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

CHAPTER 1

Emergency Planning for Juvenile 

Justice Residential Facilities 

During FY 2010, OJJDP partnered with the National Commission 

on Children and Disasters to explore creative ways to support state 

planning activities pertaining to disaster preparedness of youthserving systems across the nation. OJJDP leads the Justice Working 

Group on Children and Disasters, which is composed of experts in 

emergency preparedness, juvenile justice, health and human services, the courts, and education. 

The group worked to develop a guidance document, Emergency Planning for 

Juvenile Justice Residential Facilities, that will assist decisionmakers in developing plans to ensure the safety and well-being of youth in custody in the event 

of a disaster. The document addresses a range of issues, including information 

sharing across agencies, alternate locations for housing youth, evacuation procedures, emergency staffing of juvenile justice facilities, communication, and mental health services. The document was released at OJJDP’s National Conference 

in October 2011. 

Listening Sessions 

OJJDP is communicating with its partners in the juvenile justice field on challenges and solutions through regularly scheduled listening sessions. These 

interactive sessions, launched in May 2009, foster an ongoing dialog with policymakers and practitioners on the current trends and issues facing the juvenile justice field. The sessions enhance OJJDP’s collective knowledge base, help guide 

decisionmaking and planning, and promote open and transparent governing. 

Topics addressed in past sessions include child protection, research and evaluation, reducing disproportionate minority contact, and trends in the juvenile 

justice system. 

In February 2010, OJJDP officials and staff along with representatives of other 

OJP components met with training and technical assistance experts in Washington, DC, to discuss trends and challenges in the field. Participants identified major trends, including the need for evidence-based practices, strategies to 

address the problem of disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile 

justice system, and gender-responsive mental health services. Major challenges 

cited were the marketing of training and technical assistance services to rural 

and tribal areas, many of which do not have Internet access; high staff turnover; 

the need to provide culturally appropriate services; and the need for national 

training and technical assistance standards. 

CHAPTER 2
 
CHAPTER 2

14 

Working To Prevent 

and Intervene in 

Delinquency 

For delinquency prevention efforts to be successful, they must be coordinated at the local, 

tribal, state, and federal levels with law enforcement, social services, child welfare, public 

health, mental health, school, and other systems that address family strengthening and 

youth development. This collaborative approach ensures a consensus on priorities, the efficient 

use of resources, and the most effective delivery of services to the youth who need them. Multidisciplinary solutions are key to solving problems in the juvenile justice field. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) anti-gang initiatives 

exemplify such collaboration. These initiatives bring together a range of community partners 

to address the multiple risk factors for gang involvement, including poor family management 

and problematic parent-child relations, low school attachment and achievement, and association with peers who engage in delinquency. Coordinating multiple anti-gang strategies has been 

shown to offer the highest potential for long-term success in reducing and eliminating gang 

activity. 

Another example of collaboration is the partnership between treatment and justice practitioners 

in OJJDP-supported juvenile drug court initiatives. Juvenile drug courts not only provide continuous judicial supervision over delinquency and status offense cases that involve substanceabusing juveniles but also, with the assistance of treatment professionals, deliver a range of 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION 
15 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

OJJDP is working with communities across the 

country to replicate proven, evidence-based 

programs and to improve existing programs 

that address juvenile delinquency. OJJDP 

supports interventions that respond to the 

specific developmental, cultural, and gender 

needs of the youth and families they serve. 

services to help these young people. These services include substance abuse and mental health 

treatment, primary care, and academic support. Because they address the spectrum of problems 

that often are factors in substance abuse and delinquency, drug courts have proven highly effective in changing individual offender behavior and improving community safety. 

These and many of the other activities discussed in this chapter illustrate how OJJDP is helping 

to coordinate efforts at every level of government and in local communities to offer at-risk and 

adjudicated youth the most comprehensive and effective services available. 

Anti-Gang Initiatives 

Gang activity is a complex social phenomenon that varies by age, region, degree of gang 

involvement, and severity of offending. Risk factors associated with the probability of joining 

a gang run across family, school, peer, and community lines. Accordingly, no single program 

or strategy operating independently is likely to have a lasting effect in reducing gang activity. Comprehensive anti-gang initiatives coordinate multiple approaches, recognizing that each 

strategy plays a role in the overall effort. 
16 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

OJJDP’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 Youth Gang Prevention and Intervention 

Program awarded nearly $3 million over an 18-month period to 10 sites 

in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

Pennsylvania, and Utah to replicate selected promising or effective antigang strategies in targeted communities. A central requirement of the 

award was that grantees already be a part of an existing comprehensive, community-based anti-gang initiative. The program is designed 

to reduce violent gang-related incidents in the targeted areas and to 

improve coordination, planning, and development. 

During FY 2010, the Office continued to play a significant role in the 

delivery of several anti-gang trainings to support the Department of 

Justice’s (DOJ’s) Project Safe Neighborhoods. The trainings emphasize the use 

of data-driven strategies; multidisciplinary partnerships; balanced approaches 

that include prevention, intervention, and suppression; family and community 

engagement; and reentry initiatives. 

Evaluation of Gang Reduction Program 

OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Program (GRP)—a $10 million, multiyear initiative 

(2003–08) to reduce crime associated with youth street gangs in Los Angeles, 

CA; Milwaukee, WI; North Miami Beach, FL; and Richmond, VA—used a comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated approach to preventing and reducing 

gang activity. The program emphasized addressing the needs of youth and 

affecting change in families, organizations, and communities. The Urban Institute conducted a multiyear evaluation of the GRP initiative in all of the original 

program sites to assess program implementation and outcomes. Following are 

selections from the evaluation’s findings: 

• In contrast to many previous crime prevention and reduction efforts, all sites 

successfully implemented the GRP model. Three of the four sites also implemented plans to sustain elements of the program as federal funding expired. 

• Successful outcomes related to crime reduction were seen in most of the sites, 

although results varied. 

• The strong leadership of a site coordinator, close oversight by OJJDP during 

the strategic planning and implementation phases, and the availability of 

technical assistance contributed to implementation progress at the sites. 

• GRP is not a one-size-fits-all approach to gang prevention and reduction. The 

model is flexible enough that sites can adapt it to local conditions yet remain 

true to the original design. 

Today, far too many of our 

children are in need and in 

pain. Too many kids have 

given up on themselves and 

given in to a life of crime. 

Too many communities are 

ravaged by gang violence. 

Too many families have 

been destroyed. Too many 

lives have been lost. For me, 

combating gang violence, 

and helping children who’ve 

been exposed to such 

violence, has been both a 

personal and professional 

concern for decades. 

—Attorney General Eric Holder 
CHAPTER 2 17 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

The GRP evaluation can inform future policy at OJJDP and other federal agencies in successful implementation of a comprehensive anti-gang program. 

OJJDP published the findings from the evaluation in early FY 2011. 

National Gang Center 

In October 2009, OJJDP’s National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) merged with 

the National Gang Center (NGC), which is funded by the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP’s) Bureau of Justice Assistance. The functions performed by NYGC 

continue, but its incorporation into an expanded National Gang Center leverages resources more efficiently while enhancing OJJDP’s response to the needs 

of researchers, practitioners, and other concerned citizens. NGC’s mission is to 

expand critical knowledge about gangs and effective strategies to address them. 

In addition, NGC provides training and technical assistance on communitybased responses to gangs and is playing a significant role in DOJ’s comprehensive anti-gang efforts. 

In FY 2010, NGC released a new bulletin, History of Street Gangs in the United 

States, which reviews the chronology of major historical events associated with 

the emergence of street gangs in each of four major geographic regions. This 

publication also places emphasis on older gangs—traditional street gangs—and 

their involvement in violent criminal activity and other serious crimes. 

NGC also conducts the annual National Youth Gang Survey of law enforcement agencies to determine the extent and nature of the nation’s gang problem. OJJDP publishes a fact sheet each year summarizing the survey results. 

Released in FY 2010, Highlights of the 2008 National Youth Gang Survey reports 

that gang activity remains a widespread problem across the 

United States, with prevalence rates remaining significantly 

elevated in 2008 compared with recorded lows in the early 

2000s. 

NGC also maintains a Web site with full-text publications 

on gang programs and research, a bibliography of gang 

publications that are not available electronically, lists 

of gang-related legislation broken down by state and 

subject, and GANG–INFO, a forum for professionals to 

exchange information about gangs. 
18 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

NEW ONLINE TOOL ASSISTS 

COmmUNITIES IN ImPLEmENTINg 

COmPREHENSIVE gANg mODEL 

OJJDP’s Comprehensive gang model helps communities effectively 

target areas with high levels of gang activity, define and locate 

gangs, and focus appropriate resources to address them. The 

model promotes the interaction of theory, research, and program 

experience. 

In fiscal year 2010, OJJDP and the National gang Center created an online tool designed to familiarize 

state and local organizations with the model. The tool, the Comprehensive gang model Overview, 

provides a 23-minute discussion of OJJDP’s model. Key concepts covered include a brief overview of 

the nation’s gang problem, explanation of the theory behind the model and its five core strategies, a 

discussion about how to effectively assess a gang problem, and tools to assist community leaders in 

implementing the model in their communities. Transcripts are available for each module. The end of the 

presentation includes a list of resources and tips to help communities plan for the long-term sustainability 

of anti-gang programs and strategies. 

Community-Based Violence Prevention 

In FY 2010, OJJDP created the Community-Based Violence Prevention demonstration program, which uses evidence-based practices to reduce violence in targeted communities. A major focus is serious youth violence and gang violence. 

The program aims to change community norms regarding violence, provide 

alternatives to violence, and increase awareness of the risks and consequences 

of involvement in violence. An important component of the program is street 

outreach to intervene in conflicts or potential conflicts and offer nonviolent strategies for resolution. Outreach also involves helping youth find jobs, find a place 

to live, and receive substance abuse services. The strategies are based on those 

used in evidence-based models such as the Boston Gun Project, the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model, the Richmond Comprehensive Homicide Initiative, and 

the Chicago CeaseFire model. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded more than $8.6 million over a 3-year period to the 

City and County of Denver Safe City Office (CO); the City of Oakland (CA); the 

Columbia Heights Shaw Family Support Collaborative (DC); and the Fund for 

the City of New York/Center for Court Innovation (NY). 
CHAPTER 2 19 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

BOYS & gIRLS CLUBS OF AmERICA IN UNDERSERVED COmmUNITIES 

OJJDP continues its work with Boys & girls Clubs of America (BgCA) to make a significant and lasting impact on the lives of 

children living in disadvantaged communities. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2010, OJJDP awarded $40 million through its National mentoring Programs to BgCA to assist local clubs in 

launching new programs and enhancing existing programs for at-risk youth. To date, this funding has enabled clubs to provide 

mentoring experiences to more than 83,000 youth, more than 80 percent of whom have completed or are currently participating 

in an approved evidence-based program designed to reduce substance abuse, crime, and other negative behaviors. 

To date, BgCA has provided National mentoring Programs funding to 105 Boys & girls Clubs in Indian country and 56 clubs in 

public housing communities. In addition, the funding supports BgCA Targeted Outreach gang initiatives in 35 communities. Boys 

& girls Clubs in 72 communities received funding specifically to develop, implement, and share best-practice strategies for the 

identification and recruitment of minority male mentors. 

Also in FY 2010, OJJDP awarded more than $2 

million through the Tribal Youth National mentoring 

Program. more than 90 percent of the approximately 

2,600 American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) club 

members who received mentoring have completed or 

are currently participating in an approved evidencebased program. In addition, technical assistance was 

offered to all clubs in Indian country, furthering the 

impact of the grant funds. Approximately 200 Boys & 

girls Clubs currently serve 123,000 youth in AI/AN 

communities in 25 states. 

Mentoring Activities 

Mentoring is an effective way to prevent at-risk youth from becoming involved 

in delinquency and also to help delinquent youth change their lives for the better. In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded more than $96.3 million through mentoring 

appropriations to support the following activities: 

New Programs 

•	 The Multi-State Mentoring Initiative provides funding for organizations 

currently operating mentoring programs in five or more states to expand or 

enhance the capacity of their mentoring initiatives. These initiatives strive to 

reduce juvenile delinquency and gang participation, improve academic performance, and reduce school dropout rates. 

Mentors help young people 

resist drug use, violence, and 

delinquency and find what is 

best in themselves. 

—Jeff Slowikowski 

Former Acting Administrator, 

OJJDP 
20 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

•	 The Mentoring for Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative seeks 

to promote the innovative use of mentoring as a component of an existing 

SS/HS communitywide strategy. The initiative is a joint effort by the U.S. 

Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice to 

support schools and communities in creating safer and healthier learning 

environments. 

New Research and Evaluation Initiatives 

•	 The Group Mentoring Research and Evaluation Program evaluates the 

effectiveness of group mentoring programs supported by local Boys & Girls 

Clubs. Group mentoring involves one or two mentors working with a group 

of mentees, rather than one on one. The evaluator will conduct process and 

outcome evaluations to measure the success of the implementation of these 

programs and their impact on intervention in and reduction of juvenile 

delinquency. 

•	 The Mentoring Research Best Practices Program seeks to enhance the 

understanding of mentoring as a prevention strategy for youth who are at 

risk of involvement or who are already involved in the juvenile justice system. There is a need for research demonstrating the specific components 

of mentoring programs that have a significant impact in reducing juvenile 

delinquency and offending. The results of this effort should enhance the 

implementation of evidence-based practices for juvenile mentoring. 

Continuing Programs 

•	 National Mentoring Programs support the efforts of national organizations 

to enhance or expand mentoring services to high-risk populations that are 

underserved because of location, a shortage of mentors, physical or mental 

challenges, or other related issues identified by the community. 

•	 The Second Chance Act Juvenile Mentoring Initiative provides funding for 

nonprofit organizations and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) tribes 

to develop, implement, and expand mentoring programs and transitional 

services for juvenile offenders who are reentering their communities after 

serving a sentence in a correctional facility. 

•	 The Strategic Enhancement to Mentoring Programs supports research- and 

evidence-based enhancements to mentoring programs that involve parents 

and family in activities and services, deliver structured activities and programs for the mentoring matches, and develop training and support for 

mentors. 
CHAPTER 2 21 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

BOYS & gIRLS CLUBS OF gREATER 

WASHINgTON OBSERVE NATIONAL 

mENTORINg mONTH 

In January 2010, OJJDP and the members of the Washington, DC, law enforcement 

community joined Boys & girls Clubs of greater Washington (BgCgW) in observing 

National mentoring month. The event conveyed the theme “Be mentored, Be Inspired, 

Be great: A Celebration in Honor of National mentoring month” and provided an 

overview of mentoring collaboration among OJJDP, BgCgW, and the Washington 

metropolitan Police Department. 

Speakers at the event included Jeff Slowikowski, then-Acting Administrator, OJJDP; Diane 

groomes, Assistant Chief, metropolitan Police Department; Kevin mcCartney, Senior Vice 

President of government Relations, Boys & girls Clubs of America; and Theodore Brannum, 

Washington, DC, police officer and BgCgW mentor. 

Officer Brannum emphasized the significant impact a mentor can have on a young 

person’s life. “Some people ask me why I mentor. The answer is: someone did it for 

me. I came out of a single-parent home. The people who mentored me left a lasting 

impression. What we do in the club and the way we live our lives are so important 

to the kids.” 

Juvenile Drug Courts 

In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded more than $1.2 million over 

4 years to jurisdictions in Ohio, Texas, and Washington to 

implement the Juvenile Drug Court/Reclaiming Futures 

Program, with training and technical assistance funded 

and provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 

The FY 2010 funding builds on previous funding of sites 

in California, Colorado, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and 

Oklahoma by OJJDP and the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Center for Substance Abuse and 

Treatment. 

The Reclaiming Futures Program model offers best 

practices and specific steps to build the capacity of states, state courts, local 

courts, units of local government, and tribal governments to help court-involved 

youth break the destructive cycle of drugs and alcohol and build a better future 

through education and skills development. The model has been used in 26 communities in 17 states. 

Also in FY 2010, OJJDP awarded nearly $3 million for the Juvenile Drug Courts 

Mentoring and Support Services Initiative. The initiative includes mentoring 
22 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

as part of a comprehensive approach to serving substance-abusing youth in 

juvenile courts. In addition to mentoring, youth are provided with educational, 

health, employment, and community services; recreational activities; parenting 

programs; and housing assistance as part of the juvenile drug court approach. 

Family Drug Courts 

OJJDP’s Family Drug Courts program builds the capacity of states, state courts, 

local courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to implement new and enhance existing drug courts for substance-abusing adults involved with the family dependency court as a result of child abuse and neglect 

issues. The selected grantees provide services to the children of the parents in 

the program as well as to the parents. The program’s goal is to decrease the incidence of child abuse and neglect, intervene in family risk factors, and reduce the 

likelihood of negative outcomes for children by addressing parents’ substance 

abuse and providing services to their children. 

OJJDP’s FY 2010 awards totaled more than $3 million. Eight family drug courts 

were selected for these awards in California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Texas. 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program 

OJJDP has administered the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) 

program since Congress created the initiative in 1998. The program has four 

components: 

•	 Block grants awarded to each state and territory and the District of Columbia 

to improve the enforcement of underage drinking laws. 

•	 Discretionary grants awarded to competitively selected states to support the 

demonstration of best or promising practices at the local level. 

•	 Training and technical assistance. 

•	 Evaluation. 

This section focuses on EUDL’s FY 2010 discretionary grants and evaluation 

activities. (For information on EUDL’s block grants and training and technical 

assistance, see chapter 3.) 

For more than a decade, OJJDP has been supporting and enhancing efforts by 

states and local jurisdictions to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors 
CHAPTER 2 23 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

and the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors. EUDL discretionary grants support several initiatives, all aimed at helping communities 

use a comprehensive approach to address underage drinking as well as to document the strategies that are most effective. 

Highlights of recent EUDL discretionary programs include partnerships with 

university/college campuses and adjacent communities to implement researchbased and promising practices; a Rural Communities Initiative designed to 

reduce access, change social norms, and increase enforcement in geographically 

isolated areas; a Community Trials Initiative to implement and rigorously evaluate the impact of best practices and most promising practices tested in the context of the EUDL program; and a collaboration with the U.S. Air Force to prevent 

access to and consumption of alcohol by underage military personnel. 

OJJDP’s partnership with the Air Force currently includes programs in Arizona, 

California, Hawaii, Montana, Missouri, and Wyoming. The National Institute on 

Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism is supporting the program’s evaluation, which is 

being conducted by the Prevention Research Center. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded nearly $2.4 million to Maine, Nevada, and Washington for the 3-year EUDL Assessment, Strategic Planning, and Implementation 

Initiative. The funding will enable these states to conduct an independent assessment of both state and local underage drinking in the first year of the program 

and to develop a long-range strategic plan based on the independent assessment. Grantees will then implement selected elements of the strategic plan with 

the goal of decreasing the number of first-time alcohol-related incidents, the 

incidence of unintentional injuries related to alcohol consumption among underage individuals, and the number of alcohol-related traffic injuries and fatalities 

involving minors. 

Tribal Youth Initiatives 

Far too many lives in Indian country have been scarred by 

violence and crime, as well as by addiction and a lack of 

learning and job opportunities. Of particular concern to 

OJJDP is the disproportionate number of violent crimes 

committed by and against juveniles in Indian country. 

However, many AI/AN communities lack comprehensive 

programs to address juvenile delinquency, violence, and 

other serious problems such as substance abuse and high 

truancy and dropout rates. In FY 2010, OJJDP entered its 

12th consecutive year of congressional appropriations to 

address these pressing issues. 
24 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation 

In response to concerns that tribes voiced during public listening sessions, in 

2010 DOJ developed the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS), 

which enables federally recognized tribal governments and tribal consortia to 

submit a single application for all available tribal government-specific grant 

programs that DOJ offers. Eligible applicants seeking funding for juvenile justice 

programs in FY 2010 could apply under the following purpose areas: preventing 

and controlling delinquency and improving the juvenile justice system, enhancing accountability for delinquent behavior, and developing new demonstration 

projects on violence prevention and rehabilitation. 

OJJDP’s Tribal Youth Program (TYP) awards grants to federally recognized 

tribes for activities that prevent juvenile delinquency, reduce violent crime, and 

improve tribal juvenile justice systems. The program is part of the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, a joint initiative of the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior to improve law enforcement and juvenile justice in Indian 

country. In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded more than $13.4 million to 32 tribal communities through CTAS’s two TYP purpose areas. 

The Office’s Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grants Program 

(T–JADG) provides funds for programs that hold AI/AN youth accountable for 

their offenses while providing the necessary resources and support for positive 

outcomes and reduced recidivism. In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded $1.1 million to 

four tribal communities through CTAS’s T–JADG purpose area. (For more information about the T–JADG program, see chapter 3.) 

TRIBAL YOUTH FELLOWSHIP 

In FY 2010, OJJDP launched a Tribal Youth Fellowship program. The fellowship represents 

an opportunity for professionals, practitioners, researchers, or trainers with expertise in tribal 

youth justice to help the federal government improve its partnership with federally recognized 

tribes on tribal justice matters and in support of tribal children and youth. Among other 

activities, the fellow has assisted in an effort undertaken through the Coordinating Council on 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to examine federal tribal youth policy, practice, 

regulation, and legislation. 

“The program provides fellows the opportunity to work closely with federal staff and grantees 

in a mutually beneficial exchange of information and perspectives,” said Jeff Slowikowski, 

OJJDP’s then-Acting Administrator. 

For more information on the Coordinating Council’s assessment of federal practice 

in tribal matters and other priority areas, see the section entitled “Interagency 

Partnerships To Address Key Youth Issues” in chapter 1. 
CHAPTER 2 25 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER ACT OF 2010 

The Tribal Law and Order Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama in July 2010, 

mandated that the U.S. Departments of Justice (DOJ) and the Interior (DOI) develop, in 

consultation with tribal leaders and tribal justice professionals, a long-term plan to address 

incarceration and the alternatives to it in Indian country. 

In the ensuing months, DOJ and DOI began working to obtain input from tribal justice 

officials, including professionals in law enforcement, the courts, and corrections. 

Consistently, OJJDP’s findings pointed to the desire from the field for more alternatives 

to detention, flexibility in policy and programming that allows tribes to develop strategies 

that serve their specific public safety needs, and greater coordination among federal, 

tribal, state, and local government resources to support tribal justice systems. OJJDP 

produced numerous draft documents with recommendations on juvenile justice issues 

to inform the Tribal Justice Plan. Those comments were incorporated into a final 

plan, which was released in FY 2011. 

Research suggests that mentoring relationships with caring, responsible, and 

law-abiding adults may mitigate the risks for delinquency faced by many AI/ 

AN youth. In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded nearly $5.2 million through its Tribal 

Youth National Mentoring Program to national initiatives that will support 

the development and expansion of community programs that provide mentoring services to tribal youth populations on reservations of federally recognized 

tribes across the country. The program focuses on communities that are underserved due to location, a shortage of mentors, emotional or behavioral challenges of the targeted population, or other situations identified by the federally 

recognized tribes. 

Training and Technical Assistance 

In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded more than $3.1 million for training and technical assistance to support tribal programming. Approximately $2.4 million was 

awarded to Education Development Center, Inc., to continue funding the Tribal 

Youth Training and Technical Assistance Center. The center provides culturally 

sensitive training and technical assistance to TYP grantees as well as all federally 

recognized tribes in Indian country. The technical assistance includes access to 

AI/AN professional staff with expertise in the development of culturally based 

approaches to prevention and intervention, capacity building, strategic planning, 

program implementation, program evaluation, and program sustainability. 

The Tribal Youth Training and Technical Assistance Center’s Web site provides 

a range of resources, including a calendar of workshops, Webinars, events, and 

grantee deadlines; funding opportunities; and comprehensive online tools for 

strategic planning, sustainability, and communications. 
26 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

TRIBAL YOUTH 

SUmmIT 

In July 2010, DOJ hosted a Tribal 

Youth Summit at the Institute of 

American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, 

Nm. more than 110 tribal youth 

representing 21 tribal communities 

from across the nation participated. 

The summit included the first 

Listening to the Voices of Tribal 

Youth Circle, in which the youth 

The youth identified alcohol and drug abuse, including prescription drugs; suicide; a 

lack of productive activities for youth in the community; gang involvement, violence, 

property theft, and vandalism; and teen pregnancy, among other issues of concern. 

The goal of the Circle was to create a venue for communication between tribal youth 

and federal government staff as a tool to shape policy and programs that will affect 

tribal youth for years to come. 

shared their high-priority concerns with federal officials. 

OJJDP also provided its annual regional TYP trainings for grantees in FY 2010. 

The trainings focused on helping tribes apply their strengths and experiences to 

develop and maintain programs that are valuable to their communities. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP continued to participate in the Tribal Justice Safety and Wellness Training and Technical Assistance initiative launched by the Assistant 

Attorney General for OJP. This initiative provides training and information to 

tribal leaders, administrators, program managers, and grant writers on overall 

resources available from OJP. 

Research Activities 

Through its Tribal Youth Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Program, 

OJJDP awarded $500,000 in FY 2010 to McKinley County, NM, to evaluate the 

Regional Juvenile Service Center’s Alternatives to Detention program, which 

addresses juvenile delinquency linked with substance abuse. The county’s residential social detoxification facility and case management program provide 

innovative crisis intervention services annually for about 480 youth ages 12 to 

17. Previous evaluation studies found that the program reduces juvenile justice 

involvement and substance abuse for up to 12 months after intake. The evaluation will focus on establishing the efficacy of the program model over a 10-year 

period, understanding the client characteristics and programmatic features that 

lead to positive outcomes, and documenting the program for replication in other 

tribal communities. 
CHAPTER 2 27 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

Numerous other OJJDP-funded research and evaluation activities continued in 

FY 2010 to assist the field in better understanding the needs of tribal youth and 

communities, and in developing effective strategies to address those needs. Following are a few highlights: 

•	 CSR, Inc., is conducting a process evaluation of OJJDP’s administration of 

TYP. OJJDP will use the information from this study to gain a deeper understanding of how federally recognized tribes use the grant funds they are 

awarded and how OJJDP can better support program implementation and 

sustainability. 

•	 Prevent Child Abuse America, in partnership with the National Indian Child 

Welfare Association and other organizations, is conducting research designed 

to increase knowledge about the severity and extent of tribal youth victimization, tribal adult caregivers’ perceptions of youth victimization, and intervention and treatment resources available to tribal youth. 

•	 The National Native Children’s Trauma Center is studying the relationship between poverty, a previous history of trauma, and youth violence and 

substance abuse. The findings from this project are intended to inform the 

development of a working theory of why violence proliferates in AI/AN 

communities. 

•	 In collaboration with the Oregon Youth Authority and the Oregon Department of Education, the University of Oregon has developed four model 

programs to assist youth who are leaving correctional facilities in successfully transitioning back to their communities. An evaluation will measure the 

impact of the programs on systems change and youth achievement. 

CHAPTER 3
 
CHAPTER 3

30 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Strengthening the 

Juvenile Justice System 

Through the JJDP Act 

Congress established the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

and created the Formula Grants program in 1974 to support local and state efforts to prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. The Formula Grants program 

provides funds directly to participating states to help them implement the four core requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended:2 

• Deinstitutionalize status offenders (DSO). 

• Separate juveniles from adults in secure facilities (separation). 

• Remove juveniles from adult jails and lockups (jail removal). 

• Reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC) within the juvenile justice system.3 

2 In this chapter, the term “states” also encompasses the five U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. Wyoming does not participate in the Formula Grants program. 

3 In 1988, Congress first required states participating in the Formula Grants program to reduce the disproportionate number of minority youth confined in secure facilities. The issue was elevated to a core requirement in 1992, and then broadened in 2002 to encompass 

disproportionate representation of minorities at any point in the juvenile justice system. 
31 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

Long a leader in helping to find solutions 

to the problem of disproportionate minority 

contact with the juvenile justice system, 

OJJDP continues to increase the scope of 

its resources—including training, technical 

assistance, publications, and research 

activities—to help states address this issue. 

Each participating state must develop and implement a strategy for achieving and maintaining 

compliance with the four core requirements as part of its annual Formula Grants State Plan. A 

state’s level of compliance with each of the core protections determines eligibility for its continued participation in the Formula Grants program. 

Fulfilling the core requirements is essential to creating a fair, consistent, and effective juvenile 

justice system that advances the important goals of the JJDP Act.4 

During fiscal year (FY) 2010, OJJDP worked with the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 

territories to provide financial and technical assistance to support the implementation of the JJDP 

Act’s requirements. The Office also worked with states to help them implement accountabilitybased reforms; develop collaborative, community-based delinquency prevention programs; and 

prevent the purchase and consumption of alcohol by minors. These activities are helping states 

realize the importance of forming partnerships and leveraging a variety of resources to help 

make a difference for youth by strengthening the juvenile justice system. 

4 On March 24, 2009 (during the 111th Congress), Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Reauthorization Act of 2009 (S. 678). On December 17, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the reauthorization bill and sent 

it to the full Senate for consideration. In addition, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 

6029) was introduced by Representative Keith Ellison with cosponsor Representative Robert C. “Bobby” Scott on July 30, 2010. This 

bill was referred to both the House Committee on Education and Labor and the House Committee on the Judiciary. At the conclusion 

of the 111th Congress in December 2010, both S. 678 and H.R. 6029 expired without further action. To obtain copies of these bills, go to 

thomas.loc.gov. 
32 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Formula Grants Program 

OJJDP awarded approximately $60 million in Formula Grant funds to designated state agencies in FY 2010. During that same period, OJJDP made programmatic site visits to states, completed compliance monitoring audits, provided 

technical assistance, and sponsored numerous training conferences to assist 

states in implementing comprehensive juvenile justice plans and programs to 

prevent delinquency and improve their juvenile justice systems. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP’s National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC) 

provided training and technical assistance to more than 3,1555 participants in 

35 states for the Formula Grants program. The top five topic areas were compliance monitoring, disproportionate minority contact, delinquency prevention, 

juvenile justice systems improvement, and mental health. Participants included 

professionals working in child and family services, corrections/detention, law 

enforcement, juvenile courts, legal services, education, health services, information technology, the private sector, and research. 

Also in FY 2010, OJJDP hosted a training day for new juvenile justice specialists, compliance monitors, and disproportionate minority 

contact coordinators. Held in October in Jersey City, NJ, the training provided information and supporting materials to assist key 

state agency staff in implementing the federal juvenile justice grant 

programs administered by OJJDP’s State Relations and Assistance 

Division and ensuring compliance with the four core requirements 

of the JJDP Act. The training day was led by members of OJJDP’s 

disproportionate minority contact team in collaboration with other 

expert consultants. 

Additional trainings were held in Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Utah in FY 2010. 

Topics included implementing OJJDP’s DMC Reduction Model, strategic planning for State Advisory Groups and their DMC subcommittees, and developing 

plans to conduct DMC assessment studies. OJJDP also conducted topical Webinars and bimonthly conference calls in FY 2010 with state and local coordinators 

to provide an opportunity for networking and information sharing. 

Performance Measures 

Performance measurement is a system of tracking the progress of chosen activities in accomplishing specific goals, objectives, and outcomes. There are two 

5 Please note that the number of participants is based on evaluation forms received. The actual number of 

participants trained may be higher. 
CHAPTER 3 33 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

types of performance indicators: output and outcome. Output indicators measure the products of a program’s implementation or activities. Examples include 

the number of juveniles served, hours of service provided, staff trained, materials distributed, reports written, and site visits conducted. Outcome indicators 

measure the benefits or changes for individuals, the juvenile justice system, or 

the community as a result of the program. Examples include changes in academic performance, prosocial behavior, recidivism rate, and conditions of confinement in detention. 

In 2010, states and territories receiving Formula Grant funds reported data for a 

total of 1,634 awards, including 1,340 subgrants across more than 968 separate 

organizations. This represents more than $82 million in funded activities. Funds 

were allocated to activities across many program areas; program areas with the 

largest funding allocations included: 

• Disproportionate minority contact (17 percent). 

• Delinquency prevention (16 percent). 

• Compliance monitoring (state level) (10 percent). 

The program areas selected by the largest number of states included: 

• Delinquency prevention (22 percent). 

• Disproportionate minority contact (16 percent). 

• Alternatives to detention (7 percent). 

Formula grant programs served more than 192,000 youth during the reporting 

period. Of these youth: 

• Seventy-two percent completed program requirements. 

• Sixty-three percent exhibited a desired change in the targeted behavior.6 

• Three percent offended or reoffended during the program period. 

Of the Formula Grant-funded programs, about 44 percent reported implementing at least one evidence-based program, up from 34 percent for the previous 

year. 

6 Targeted behaviors differed depending on the youth’s specific program goals. In the majority of cases, Formula 

Grant-funded programs targeted a reduction in antisocial behavior, improved school attendance, or increased 

social competence. 
34 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Compliance Progress 

In FY 2010, OJJDP continued its work with the states to help them achieve compliance with the core requirements and provide state agencies with training to 

meet these requirements. To this end, OJJDP supported several technical assistance and training activities related to compliance monitoring in FY 2010. This 

included specialized onsite training and technical assistance to train new state 

compliance monitors and to assist states seeking to maintain or achieve compliance with one or more of the core requirements. OJJDP also sponsored specialized compliance training for the U.S. territories and for American Indian/Alaska 

Model PrograMs guide 

oJJdP’s Model Programs guide (MPg) is a userfriendly, online portal of scientifically tested, 

evidence-based programs that address a wide 

range of issues across the juvenile justice 

spectrum, from prevention through aftercare. 

The MPg profiles more than 200 prevention and 

intervention programs and helps communities 

identify those that best suit their needs. users 

can search the database by program category, 

target population, risk and protective factors, 

effectiveness rating, program type, and other characteristics. 

in 2007, oJJdP added strategies and programs that show promise in helping 

jurisdictions reduce disproportionate minority contact in their juvenile justice systems. 

in 2009, oJJdP completed another expansion to include strategies and programs that 

help jurisdictions identify and implement evidence-based initiatives leading to the removal 

of status offenders from secure detention and from correctional facilities. 

in 2010, to support the attorney general’s defending Childhood initiative, the MPg 

project concentrated on reviewing evidence-based strategies for reducing the impact 

of children’s exposure to violence (CeV). Working with oJJdP’s safe start Center, CeV 

subject-matter experts reviewed and rated more than 40 CeV programs. (For more 

information on the defending Childhood initiative, see chapter 4.) 

Through a partnership with the u.s. departments of Health and Human services, 

education, and Housing and urban development as well as nine other federal agencies, 

oJJdP makes the programs in the MPg available through the FindYouthinfo.gov Web 

site. FindYouthinfo.gov was created by the interagency Working group on Youth Programs 

to support programs and services concentrating on youth, with a special emphasis on 

bullying prevention programs. as part of this partnership, MPg expert reviewers evaluate 

all program nominations received through the FindYouthinfo.gov Web site. 
CHAPTER 3

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

35 

Native (AI/AN) tribes. As part of ongoing efforts to strengthen compliance 

monitoring overall, OJJDP also hosted a “training of trainers” session for compliance monitoring in October 2010. 

In FY 2010, most states were qualified to receive the maximum amount of Formula Grant funds on the basis of compliance status. (For more compliance information, see appendix B.) 

State progress toward achieving the goals of the JJDP Act has been significant. 

However, the hard work of sustaining that progress remains. OJJDP continues to 

work to strengthen its program of training and technical assistance to help states 

address compliance issues. 

DMC Activities 

Reducing DMC within the juvenile justice system is a requirement for all states 

that wish to receive grants under the JJDP Act of 1974, as amended. States have 

made notable progress in addressing DMC. For example, 69 percent of states 

currently collect and analyze data by race and ethnicity for at least six of the 

nine juvenile justice system contact points. In addition, more than 89 state 

and local delinquency prevention and systems improvement activities have 

been designated as best practices. 

FY 2010 was a productive year for the DMC initiative: 

•	 OJJDP completed the annual review of DMC compliance plans for all 

50 states, 4 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. 

•	 OJJDP continued the Relative Rate Index Modification Project with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics and Dr. William Feyerherm of Portland State University to examine how jurisdictions, particularly the U.S. territories and the 

District of Columbia, can determine the extent of disproportionality when the 

“minority is the majority.” 

•	 OJJDP issued an enhanced technical assistance proposal for the Community 

and Strategic Planning initiative to facilitate state and local DMC initiatives. 

Targeted DMC reduction sites will engage in community capacity-building 

activities that include implementing a community collaborative, conducting 

a local assessment, and assisting the state DMC coordinator with monitoring 

delinquency prevention and systems improvement activities. 

•	 OJJDP continues to collaborate with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil 

Rights Division to identify local jurisdictions to determine whether high rates 

of DMC contribute to violations under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 

Persons Act. 
36 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

FaCT sHeeT on 

disProPorTionaTe 

MinoriTY ConTaCT 

in FY 2010, oJJdP released Disproportionate 

Minority Contact, a fact sheet that provides 

an overview of the office’s efforts to reduce 

disproportionate minority contact (dMC). The 

publication includes a description of oJJdP’s 

dMC reduction Model, which helps states 

determine whether disproportionality exists 

and, if it does, guides the establishment of 

multipronged intervention strategies to ensure 

equal treatment of all youth. The fact sheet 

also includes a summary of states’ dMC-reduction activities 

derived from compliance plans submitted in FY 2008. 

In response to state DMC coordinators’ concerns about disproportional representation of AI/AN youth, OJJDP convened an interagency workgroup with 

representation from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

and the Justice Research and Statistics Association. The workgroup’s goals are to 

determine the extent of DMC (particularly in states with significant AI/AN populations), to further examine how AI/AN youth are processed compared with other 

minority youth, to ascertain how cultural needs are addressed, and to identify 

existing promising delinquency prevention and systems improvement strategies. 

Juvenile Accountability 

Block Grants Program 

The Juvenile Accountability Block Grants (JABG) program7 helps states8 and 

units of local government improve their juvenile justice systems by implementing accountability-based programs that focus on both juvenile offenders and 

7 The House of Representatives passed the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) Act in 1997 under 

Title III of H.R. 3. Congress first funded the program through an appropriations act in fiscal year (FY) 1998. OJJDP, as 

a component of the Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice, is the administering agency. 

The Department of Justice Authorization Act of FY 2003 included provisions to change the name of the JAIBG 

program to the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants (JABG) program, expand the number (from 12 to 16) and scope 

of the purpose areas, refine the program’s reporting and monitoring requirements, and include funding of the program 

as part of Title I (Part R, Chapter 46, Subchapter XII–F) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Congress 

added a 17th program area—reentry—in 2006. This report meets the reporting requirements spelled out in the 

Omnibus Crime Control Act. In addition to being eligible for JABG funds as a state-designated agency, American 

Indian tribes, as defined by Section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a), 

or a consortia of such tribes, are eligible for JABG funding through OJJDP’s Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grants (T–JADG) program. OJJDP awards T–JADG grants on a competitive basis. 

8 In the context of this report, the term “states” includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. 

territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). 
CHAPTER 3 37 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

the juvenile justice system. Accountability means holding a juvenile who has 

violated the law responsible for the behavior by imposing consequences commensurate with the seriousness of the offense and the youth’s previous criminal 

history. These sanctions can include restitution, community service, victimoffender mediation, probation, electronic monitoring, incarceration, and reentry 

services. JABG monies also fund training and technical assistance to enhance the 

ability of the state and local juvenile justice systems to maintain and enhance 

intervention and treatment programs, track offenders, and process cases in a 

timely manner. 

OJJDP distributed more than $46 million in funds in FY 2010 under the JABG 

program to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. 

alTernaTiVes To JuVenile deTenTion 

in FY 2010, oJJdP entered into a partnership with the annie e. Casey Foundation to 

jointly fund an expansion of the foundation’s Juvenile detention alternatives initiative 

(Jdai) to additional sites over 2 years. The partnership includes oJJdP funding to 

support training and technical assistance through three organizations—the W. Haywood 

Burns institute, the Center for Children’s law and Policy, and the national Partnership for 

Juvenile services—to the new sites implementing the initiative. 

launched in 1992, Jdai assists states and communities across the country in creating 

and testing new alternatives to detention. at its essence, Jdai demonstrates that 

jurisdictions can safely reduce their reliance on secure detention. Jdai communities 

also test the hypothesis that detention reforms will equip juvenile justice systems with 

values, skills, and policies that will improve results in other components of the system. 

The objectives of Jdai sites are to eliminate the inappropriate or unnecessary use of 

secure detention, minimize rearrest and failure-to-appear rates pending adjudication, 

ensure appropriate conditions of confinement in secure facilities, redirect public 

finances to sustain successful reforms, and reduce racial and ethnic disparities. 

another highlight of 2010 was the annie e. Casey Foundation’s Jdai summit for tribal 

detention centers, held in october. 

Today, Jdai reform efforts are underway in 

more than 125 jurisdictions in 30 states and 

the district of Columbia. oJJdP is also 

supporting an evaluation of the Jdai 

approach and its impact in furthering 

the deinstitutionalization of status 

offenders, a core requirement 

under the JJdP act. 
38 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Recipients must use their JABG funds to support activities in 1 of 17 purpose 

areas (see the sidebar, “Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program Purpose 

Areas”). The purpose areas are centered on four types of activities—hiring staff, 

building infrastructure, implementing programs, and training staff. 

OJJDP provides training and technical assistance through three providers: 

•	 NTTAC provides training and technical assistance to the states and territories. The requests for JAGB training that NTTAC received in FY 2010 were 

concentrated in the following areas: graduated sanctions; training for law 

enforcement, court, and probation officers; reentry; restorative justice; sustainability; and juvenile drug courts. 

•	 CSR, Inc., manages the data collection and technical assistance tool, known 

as DCTAT, that states use when submitting JABG performance measurement 

data. CSR staff also provide training and support on the use of the JABG performance measures. 

•	 The JABG Technical Support Center, established by OJJDP with assistance 

from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and a grant to the Justice Research and 

Statistics Association, provides states the data they need to calculate JABG 

allocations for local jurisdictions. 

During the 2010 JABG reporting period (October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010), 

OJJDP provided 15 JABG training and technical assistance events to 2409 individuals from 10 states and the District of Columbia. This support was in the 

form of workshops, conference presentations, funding, resource identification, 

and curriculum development. Training participants included probation officers, 

substance abuse treatment providers, family advocates, judges, clerks and court 

staff, juvenile justice residential and detentions staff, members of community 

organizations, and state advisory group members. 

JABG Results 

States and units of local government report their performance data on an annual 

reporting cycle. A reporting cycle consists of a 12-month reporting period, followed by a 3-month period in which data must be submitted. For example, 

grantees and subgrantees collected JABG data during the reporting period 

April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010, and submitted it through June 30, 2010. Hereafter, the reporting period will be referred to as the 2010 reporting period. 

9 Please note that the number of participants is based on evaluation forms received. The actual number of 

participants trained may be higher. 
CHAPTER 3 39 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

JuVenile aCCounTaBiliTY BloCk granTs PrograM 

PurPose areas 

Purpose Area Description of Purpose Area 

1. graduated sanctions developing, implementing, and administering graduated sanctions for juvenile 

offenders. 

2. Corrections/detention 

facilities 

Building, expanding, renovating, or operating temporary or permanent 

juvenile corrections, juvenile detention, or community corrections facilities. 

3. Court staffing and 

pretrial services 

Hiring juvenile court judges, probation officers, court-appointed defenders, 

and special advocates and funding pretrial services for juvenile offenders to 

promote the effective and expeditious administration of the juvenile justice 

system. 

4. Prosecutors (staffing) Hiring additional prosecutors so that more cases involving violent juvenile 

offenders can be prosecuted and case backlogs can be reduced. 

5. Prosecutors (funding) Providing funding to enable prosecutors to address drug, gang, and youth 

violence problems more effectively. Providing funding for technology, 

equipment, and training to help prosecutors identify and expedite the 

prosecution of violent juvenile offenders. 

6. Training for law 

enforcement and court 

personnel 

establishing and maintaining training programs for law enforcement and other 

court personnel with respect to preventing and controlling juvenile crime. 

7. Juvenile gun courts establishing juvenile gun courts for the prosecution and adjudication of 

juvenile firearms offenders. 

8. Juvenile drug courts establishing drug court programs for juvenile offenders that provide continuing 

judicial supervision over juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems and 

integrate the administration of other sanctions and services for such offenders. 

9. Juvenile records 

systems 

establishing and maintaining a system of juvenile records designed to promote 

public safety. 

10. information sharing 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 about the early identification, 

control, supervision, and treatment of juveniles who repeatedly commit serious 

delinquent or criminal acts. 

11. accountability establishing and maintaining accountability-based programs designed to 

reduce recidivism among juveniles who are referred by law enforcement 

personnel or agencies. 

12. risk and needs 

assessment 

establishing and maintaining programs to conduct risk and needs assessments 

that facilitate effective early intervention and help provide comprehensive 

services (including mental health and substance abuse screening and 

treatment) to juvenile offenders. 

13. school safety establishing and maintaining accountability-based programs that are designed 

to enhance school safety. These programs may include research-based 

bullying, cyberbullying, and gang prevention programs. 

14. restorative justice establishing and maintaining restorative justice programs. 

15. Juvenile courts and 

probation 

establishing and maintaining programs to enable juvenile courts and juvenile 

probation officers to be more effective and efficient in holding juvenile 

offenders accountable and reducing recidivism. 

16. Corrections/detention 

personnel 

Hiring detention and corrections personnel, and establishing and maintaining 

training programs for such personnel to improve facility practices and 

programming. 

17. reentry establishing, improving, and coordinating prerelease and postrelease systems 

and programs to facilitate the successful reentry of juvenile offenders from 

state and local custody in the community. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

40 

Performance Measures 

To assess the effectiveness of the JABG program, OJJDP developed a set of performance measures that help the Office, Congress, and the juvenile justice field 

see the progress and challenges facing the program. During FY 2010, OJJDP 

During the 2010 reporting period, the JABG grantees and subgrantees reported 

performance measures data regarding activities that were funded by active 

awards received in FYs 2004 through 2009. Although funds were allocated to 

activities across all 17 JABG purpose areas, the activities with the largest funding allocations included: 

This section presents the performance data for the 2010 reporting 

period, representing information that states collected from their 

subgrantees.10 

measures data. 

continued to work with the states to collect quantitative performance 

All grantees submitted at least some performance data. States 

reported performance data for 1,373 subgrants, representing 

approximately $74 million in funded activities. 

•	 Accountability-based programs (26 percent). 

•	 Court/probation programming (14 percent). 

•	 Risk/needs assessments (9 percent). 

JABG programs served more than 300,000 youth during the 2010 reporting 

period. The following is summary information about the performance of JABG 

grantees and subgrantees: 

•	 Seventy-seven percent of program youth successfully completed program 

requirements (148,050 of 191,369 youth who exited the program). 

•	 Sixty percent of program youth exhibited a desired change in targeted 

behavior (113,187 of 189,390 youth served).11 

•	 Twenty-six percent of programs reported using an evidence-based program 

or practice (364 of 1,374 programs), up from 21 percent in 2009. 

10 The final responsibility for the accuracy and validity of these data rests with the state/territorial JABG grantees 

who submitted them to OJJDP. 

11 Targeted behaviors differed depending on the youth’s specific program goals. In the majority of cases, JABG 

programs targeted a reduction in antisocial behavior, improved school attendance, or increased social competence. 
CHAPTER 3 41 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

 

•	 Seven percent of program youth reoffended during the program period (50 

of 1,393 youth served), down from 20 percent in 2009. 

l l l SucceSS Story: JABG ProGrAm 

Project Connect (South Carolina) 

Carolina Family Services, Inc.’s Project Connect offers a community-based and culturally competent 

alternative to secure detention. The project provides approximately 75 juveniles who have committed 

mild to moderate offenses and their families with family advocates immediately after arrest to address 

factors influencing the juvenile’s delinquent behavior. 

During the 12-week program, family advocates work to strengthen parenting skills and help the family 

access community resources, including mental health or substance abuse services, individual and family 

therapy, and recreational, social, educational, and vocational programs. An individualized treatment plan 

identifies each family’s specific strengths and weaknesses in different areas, targets specific goals, and 

outlines the steps necessary to achieve those goals. 

Ninety-five percent of the youth/families enrolling during the period April 1, 2009, through October 

31, 2010, who completed the program were considered successful on all outcome measures. They 

demonstrated an increase in social skills development, school attendance, grade point average, positive 

family relationships, and family functioning. 

Tribal Juvenile Accountability 

Discretionary Grants Program 

The Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grants program (T–JADG) 

funds programs that hold AI/AN youth accountable for their offenses and provides the necessary resources and support for positive outcomes and reduced 

recidivism. T–JADG funds are a separate allocation within the JABG appropriation. OJJDP awards T–JADG cooperative agreements to federally recognized 

tribes through a competitive process. 

Through the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Coordinated Tribal Assistance 

Solicitation, in FY 2010 OJJDP awarded T–JADG grants—a total of more than 

$1 million—to four tribes: Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians (Wisconsin), Yurok Tribe (California), Gila River Indian Community 

(Arizona), and Pueblo of Jemez (New Mexico). 
42 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Performance Measures 

In FY 2010, OJJDP had 13 active T–JADG awards, representing more than $3.9 

million in funding. Of the 13 T–JADG grantees, 12 provided performance data 

for the 2010 reporting period. Data for 2010 include the following: 

•	 Ninety-five percent of program youth exhibited a desired change in targeted 

behavior (1,593 of 1,671), up from 59 percent in 2009.12 

Federal adVisorY CoMMiTTee 

on JuVenile JusTiCe 

oJJdP obtains advice and guidance from 

the states, the territories, and the district 

of Columbia through the Federal advisory Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FaCJJ). Committee on 

FaCJJ is an advisory body established Juvenile Justice by the Juvenile Justice and delinquency 

Prevention act of 1974, as amended 

(section 223), and is supported by oJJdP. 

its role is to advise the President and 

Congress on matters related to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, to advise 

the oJJdP administrator on the work of oJJdP, and to evaluate the progress and 

accomplishments of juvenile justice activities and projects. 

as of FY 2010, FaCJJ included appointed representatives from the state advisory groups 

of each of the 50 states, the district of Columbia, and the territories. FaCJJ’s mandated 

responsibilities include preparing two annual recommendation reports—one to the 

President and Congress, and one to the office. 

FaCJJ’s first meeting in FY 2010 was held october 29–31, 2009, in austin, TX. The 

meeting included presentations on law enforcement approaches to disproportionate 

minority contact with the juvenile justice system, roundtable discussions with oJJdP 

leadership on key issues, and a discussion of options for reconfiguring FaCJJ in the 

future. 

at FaCJJ’s spring meeting, held May 10–12, 2010, in Washington, dC, discussions 

focused on the status of reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and delinquency 

Prevention act, the Committee’s 2010 annual reports, and the Coordinating Council 

on Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention’s current analysis of the impact 

that federal policies, regulations, and practices related to youth programs have 

on states and communities. 

12 Targeted behaviors differed depending on the youth’s specific program goals. In the majority of cases, T–JADG 

programs targeted a reduction in antisocial behavior, improved school attendance, or increased social competence. 
 

CHAPTER 3 43 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

• Seventy-nine percent of program youth successfully completed program 

requirements (104 of 131), up from 74 percent in 2009. 

• Fifty-four percent of programs reported using an evidence-based program 

or practice (7 of 13 programs). 

Community Prevention Grants Program 

Preventing young people from engaging in delinquent behavior, 

thus diverting many of them from a lifetime of criminal activity, is a central goal of the juvenile justice system in this country. 

Since 1994, OJJDP has administered the Community Prevention 

Grants (CPG) program, which provides funds to help communities develop and implement delinquency prevention programs.13 

The program focuses on helping youth avoid involvement in 

delinquency through reducing the risk factors and enhancing the 

protective factors in their schools, communities, and families. 

Extensive research has shown that risk factors increase the likelihood that a youth will engage in delinquent behavior, and protective 

factors help prevent or reduce that likelihood. For example, studies have shown 

that a lack of engagement in school and persistent family conflicts are highly 

correlated with adolescent delinquency and violence, among other serious problems. In developing a program to prevent juvenile delinquency, communities 

often adopt a collaborative approach that includes working with schools and 

families to help these at-risk youth. 

The CPG program encourages local leaders to initiate multidisciplinary needs 

assessments of the risks and resources in their communities and to develop 

locally relevant prevention plans that simultaneously draw on community 

resources, address local gaps in services or risks, and employ evidence-based or 

theory-driven strategies. Communities may allocate their Title V funds under 

1 or more of 19 program areas (see the sidebar, “Community Prevention Grants 

Program Areas”). 

In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded $569,156 in grants through the CPG program, with 

$20,336 going to most states.14 Although this was a considerably smaller grant 

award than in previous years, OJJDP reasoned that these allocations, combined 

with the program requirement of a 50-percent match, would enable states to 

13 Congress established the Title V Community Prevention Grants program in its 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act. 

OJJDP began administering the program in 1994. 

14 In the context of the Community Prevention Grants program, the term “states” includes the 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands). 
44 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

CoMMuniTY PreVenTion granTs PrograM areas
 

Purpose Area Description of Purpose Area 

Child abuse and Programs that provide treatment to juvenile victims of child abuse or neglect and to their families to reduce the 

neglect likelihood that such at-risk youth will commit violations of law. 

Children of services to prevent delinquency or treat first-time and nonserious delinquent juveniles who are the children of 

incarcerated parents incarcerated parents. 

delinquency prevention Programs to prevent youth at risk of becoming delinquent from entering the juvenile justice system or to 

intervene with first-time and nonserious offenders to keep them out of the juvenile justice system. This program 

area excludes programs targeted at youth already adjudicated delinquent, on probation, or in corrections, and 

programs undertaken as part of program areas 12 and 32 of the Formula grants program that are designed 

specifically to prevent gang-related or substance abuse activities. 

disproportionate delinquency prevention programs primarily to address the disproportionate number of juvenile members of 

minority contact minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice system, pursuant to section 223(a)(22) of the 

JJdP act of 1974, as amended. 

diversion Programs to divert juveniles from entering the juvenile justice system. 

gangs Programs to address issues related to preventing juvenile gang activity. 

gender-specific services to address the needs of female and male offenders in the juvenile justice system. 

services 

gun programs Programs to reduce the unlawful acquisition and illegal use of guns by juveniles (excluding programs to 

purchase guns from juveniles). 

Hate crimes Programs to prevent hate crimes committed by juveniles. 

Job training Projects to enhance the employability of at-risk juveniles and/or first-time and nonserious juvenile offenders or 

prepare them for future employment (e.g., job readiness training, apprenticeships, and job referrals). 

Juvenile system Programs, research, and other initiatives to examine issues related to the juvenile justice system or to improve 

improvement existing juvenile justice information-sharing systems. 

Mental health services Psychological and psychiatric evaluations and treatment, counseling services, and/or family support services for 

at-risk juveniles and/or first-time and nonserious juvenile offenders. 

Mentoring Programs to develop and sustain an ongoing one-to-one supportive relationship between a responsible adult 

age 18 or older (mentor) and an at-risk juvenile and/or first-time and nonserious juvenile offender (mentee). 

american indian Programs to address delinquency prevention issues for american indians and alaska natives. 

programs 

restitution/community Programs to hold first-time and nonserious juvenile offenders accountable for their offenses by requiring 

service community service or repayment to the victim. 

rural area juvenile Prevention services in an area located outside a metropolitan statistical area as designated by the u.s. Census 

programs Bureau. 

school programs educational programs and/or related services to prevent truancy, suspension, and expulsion. school safety 

programs may include support for school resource officers and law-related education. 

substance abuse Programs to prevent and treat the use and abuse of illegal and other prescription and nonprescription drugs 

and the use and abuse of alcohol among at-risk juveniles and/or nonserious juvenile offenders. 

Youth (or teen) courts Juvenile justice programs in which peers play an active role in the disposition of first-time and nonserious 

juvenile offenders. Most communities use youth courts as a sentencing option for first-time offenders charged 

with misdemeanor or nonserious, nonviolent offenses who acknowledge their guilt. The youth court serves as 

an alternative to the traditional juvenile court. 
CHAPTER 3 45 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

fund at least one evidence-based program, thereby retaining the intent of the 

program to support research-based delinquency prevention efforts. 

Training and Technical Assistance 

OJJDP offers a three-part training series to help grantees write successful 3-year 

delinquency prevention plans. The training includes: 

•	 Community team orientation, which brings together key local leaders and 

provides an overview of the CPG model. 

•	 Community data collection and analysis training, which helps participants 

review, analyze, prioritize, and present the data they have collected. 

•	 Community planning and program development training, which shows participants how to use data to develop delinquency prevention plans and how 

to select appropriate strategies using the Model Programs Guide (for more 

information, see the sidebar, “Model Programs Guide”). 

Because membership in a community coalition is a prerequisite for funding, training participants included community leaders, program developers, 

researchers, and others who are involved in mobilizing the community or in 

governing or serving children. 

The Office also provides specialized training in performance measurement and 

evaluation, evidence-based practices, and sustainability. The training is available 

to CPG subgrantees, juvenile justice specialists, and state CPG coordinators. 

Performance Measures 

In FY 2010, 56 grantees submitted at least some performance information to 

OJJDP. Of those, 52 submitted complete performance data for subgrant awards 

that were active in FY 2010, using the Title V performance measures. States and 

territories reported data for a total of 154 active subgrants from 106 subgrantees, 

representing more than $4 million in funded activities. 

Following are the program areas to which the greatest number of subgrants 

were allocated: 

•	 Delinquency prevention (88 subgrants). 

•	 School programs (28 subgrants). 

•	 Disproportionate minority contact (27 subgrants). 
46 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

 

During FY 2010, OJJDP worked with the states to collect quantitative performance measurement data. An analysis of these data shows that in FY 2010, 

Community Prevention Grants programs served 24,191 youth; 52 percent of 

youth completed program requirements. Of the 258 local programs that provided performance data during this reporting cycle, 46 percent were evidence 

based, up from 15 percent in 2009. 

These local programs addressed a wide range of youth behaviors. Overall, 58 

percent of youth participants in funded programs exhibited positive changes 

in behavior targeted by the program.15 More specifically, program participants 

showed the following improvements in their behavior: 

•	 Thirty-seven percent improved their school attendance. 

•	 Eighty-six percent reduced their antisocial behavior, up from 56 percent 

in 2009. 

•	 Sixty-eight percent improved relationships with their families. 

•	 Seventy-five percent reduced their substance use, up from 62 percent in 2009. 

The ultimate outcome measure for delinquency prevention programs is a low 

offending rate among program participants. In FY 2010, the offending and 

reoffending rate of CPG program participants was 1.2 percent and 4.4 percent, 

respectively, down from 8 percent for both categories in 2009. 

l l l SucceSS Story: Community Prevention GrAnts ProGrAm 

Delinquency Prevention Project (Michigan) 

Alpena County’s Delinquency Prevention Project was created after the release of data showing a 

200-percent spike in first-time alcohol use in county youth ages 11 to 12 and a 35-percent higher rate 

of substance abuse treatment among young people than in the surrounding 20 counties in southern 

Michigan. Based on these data, county officials determined that the best course of action was for 

a Prevention Policy Board (composed of 18 community stakeholders, including the courts, law 

enforcement, schools, clergy, community agencies, health departments, and individuals) to develop a 

comprehensive plan to address substance abuse issues. 

The goals of the project are to prevent and reduce substance abuse among county youth and to sustain 

the Prevention Policy Board as the primary entity advancing substance abuse prevention efforts in the 

county. The project coordinated the implementation of the Botvin Lifeskills curriculum in each of the 

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

reduction in antisocial behavior, improved school attendance, or increased social competence. 
CHAPTER 3 47 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

county’s schools. Through coordination and cooperation among the stakeholders, the project diverted 

substance abuse prevention funding from a licensed provider, who had offered the services for more 

than 20 years, to a school-based agency. The project also used Title V funding to conduct the Michigan 

Profile for Healthy Youth online risk assessment in each school in the county and to provide training in 

the Botvin Lifeskills curriculum for 18 community-based agency personnel. 

About 1,200 students (all fifth through eighth graders in the county) were taught the curriculum. 

Annual evaluations of the first 3 years in which the curriculum was taught indicated improvements 

in knowledge about drugs, knowledge about life skills, attitudes toward drugs, drug refusal skills, 

assertiveness skills, strategies for reducing anxiety, and drug use behavior. 

The Prevention Policy Board has exceeded everyone’s expectations. Stakeholders are happy with 

the changes that the process of creating and sustaining the Prevention Policy Board have brought 

to the community, and they are also satisfied with the collaborative process and cooperation that 

local government processes and institutions have seen. Stakeholder participation remains high; key 

community members regularly attend meetings to monitor data, analyze resources and gaps in services, 

and respond to funding and technical assistance opportunities. 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program 

During the past 12 years, OJJDP’s Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) 

program has successfully built partnerships with law enforcement, community organizations, and government officials to implement evidence-based 

strategies to reduce youth access to alcohol. 

The EUDL program includes both block grants and discretionary grants. 

This chapter focuses on EUDL’s block grants and training and technical 

assistance activities. (For information about EUDL’s discretionary grant 

activities, see chapter 2.) 

Under the EUDL block grants program, each state, the District of Columbia, and the territories received more than $356,000 in FY 2010, totaling 

$20 million. These funds are allocated to enforce state laws prohibiting the 

sale of alcoholic beverages to minors and to prevent the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors. 

Activities funded under the EUDL program may include: 

• Forming statewide task forces of state and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies to target establishments suspected of a pattern of violations 

of state laws governing the sale and consumption of alcohol by minors. 
48 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Adolescents generally 

obtain alcohol from adults 

who sell it to them, purchase 

it on their behalf, or allow 

them to attend or give 

parties where it is served. 

Therefore,it is critical that 

adults refuse to provide 

alcohol to adolescents 

and that communities 

value, encourage, and 

reward an adolescent’s 

commitment not to drink. 

—The Surgeon General’s 

Call to Action To Prevent and 

Reduce Underage Drinking 

•	 Creating public advertising programs to educate establishments about 

statutory prohibitions and sanctions. 

•	 Developing innovative programs to prevent and combat underage drinking. 

EUDL funds support a wide range of activities. Many states focus on enforcement, emphasizing compliance checks of retail alcohol outlets. Other enforcement activities include crackdowns on false identification, programs to deter 

older youth or adults from providing alcohol to minors, party patrols to prevent 

drinking at large gatherings, “cops in shops” to keep minors from purchasing alcohol, youth-focused campaigns to enforce impaired driving laws, and 

investigations to determine the source of alcohol and hold the responsible party 

accountable for their role in an alcohol-related incident. The funds also support 

public education programs and innovative methods for reaching youth. 

The training and technical assistance component of the EUDL program has been 

instrumental in helping communities and states enforce underage drinking laws 

around the country. OJJDP’s Underage Drinking Enforcement and Training Center (UDETC), managed by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, provides training workshops, curriculums, regional meetings, national conferences, 

onsite strategic technical assistance, and other resources. In FY 2010, UDETC 

conducted a total of 84 trainings, reaching more than 4,600 individuals in 50 

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

The EUDL program held its 12th Annual National Leadership Conference in 

Anaheim, CA, in August 2010. The conference addressed a variety of topics 

related to the prevention of underage drinking and the effective enforcement of 

underage drinking laws. A special youth track also was included. Plenary sessions, workshops, and experiential learning exercises provided participants with 

information, skills, and tools for use in enhancing local efforts. The conference 

highlighted communities, programs, and other initiatives that have successfully 

implemented evidence-based strategies to reduce youth’s access to alcohol. 

Performance Measures 

During the activity period January 1 to December 31, 2010, states and territories 

reported data for a total of 1,034 EUDL subgrants across 616 separate organizations. In this period, states and territories reported data for approximately 

$54 million in subgrant and statewide awards. Nationally, funds were allocated 

to four program categories: coalitions; media; enforcement; and education, training, and other activities. Twenty-one percent of subgrants focused on coalitions, 

23 percent on media, 49 percent on enforcement, and 7 percent on education, 

training, and other activities. 
CHAPTER 3 49 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

 

Performance data for this reporting period indicate some positive trends: 

•	 Seventy-five percent of funded projects are using an evidence-based model. 

•	 Thirty-eight percent of task forces and coalitions addressing underage drinking in states were created as a result of EUDL funding. 

•	 Eighty-seven percent of off-premise alcohol establishments checked during 

this reporting period were in compliance (27,543 of 31,829 establishments), 

up from 81 percent in 2009. 

•	 Eighty-eight percent of on-premise alcohol establishments checked were in 

compliance (19,165 of 21,776), up from 84 percent in 2009. 

•	 A total of 19,638 adult citations were issued during enforcement operations 

conducted during this reporting period. 

•	 A total of 45,818 youth were involved in task force and coalition leadership 

activities. 

l l l SucceSS Story: euDL ProGrAm 

Liquor Control Board Adopts Alcohol Advertising Restrictions (Washington) 

Many advertisements portray alcohol as a way of having fun and as a sign of prosperity and social 

popularity. These messages avoid alerting youth to the risks associated with alcohol use, including 

crime, suicide, and traffic injuries and fatalities. Communities across the country are struggling to find 

ways to shield youth from these misleading advertisements. 

The state of Washington’s Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) program (through RUaD, its 

statewide collation to reduce underage drinking) responded to this problem with an “action kit” that 

provides tools and resources to help communities reduce alcohol marketing to youth. Funding from 

the EUDL program supported the pilot testing of the action kit in five communities. The kit was then 

widely distributed throughout the state. In addition, RUaD’s cochair, also a member of Washington 

State’s Liquor Control Board (LCB), saw an opportunity for LCB to enhance public safety by revising its 

administrative code related to alcohol advertising. Many meetings, policy drafts, and public hearings 

followed. At the final public hearing at LCB’s headquarters in February 2010, the room was filled with 

students, professionals, and citizens who traveled from locations across the state to testify in favor of 

the proposed revisions. In March, LCB adopted revisions that restrict the size, amount, and location of 

alcohol advertising at liquor-licensed locations. 

Washington’s success in limiting outdoor advertising was the result of collaboration between individuals 

and organizations across the state, confirming the importance of partnerships in the development of 

successful strategies for reducing underage drinking. 

CHAPTER 4
 
CHAPTER 4

52 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Defending Children 


Against Victimization
 

Our nation’s children are victimized at an alarming rate. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)-funded National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV), nearly one-half of youth were assaulted at least once 

in the past year, and more than 1 in 10 were injured in an assault. Many children are subjected 

not only to physical violence, but also to mental and sexual abuse. Others are abducted, often by 

members of their own family. Still others are the victims of theft, vandalism, or bullying. 

Even children who are not direct victims can experience long-term adverse effects if they regularly witness violence in their homes, schools, and communities. Research has shown that children who are directly or indirectly exposed to violence are significantly more likely to display 

a variety of problems during adolescence, including serious and violent delinquency, drug use, 

mental health problems, and low academic achievement. 

The challenge of protecting children has been made significantly more complex by ready access 

to the Internet. Parents, child protection agencies, and law enforcement are struggling to protect 

children from the threat of online victimization, which can include pornography, cyberbullying, 

abduction, sexual abuse, and child prostitution. OJJDP took the lead early on in addressing this 

serious problem. More than a decade ago, the Office established the Internet Crimes Against 

Children (ICAC) program, which helps state and local law enforcement agencies prevent, 
53 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

The challenge of defending children has been 

made infinitely more complex by ready access to 

the Internet. Parents, child protection agencies, 

and law enforcement are struggling to protect 

children from the threat of online victimization. 

OJJDP’s Internet Crimes Against Children program 

and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Project Safe 

Childhood have been successful in targeting 

predators who use cyberspace to entice children. 

interdict, and investigate technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and Internet crimes 

against children. The task forces use aggressive investigations, prosecutions, computer forensics, 

and community outreach to address cybercrime. 

In addition to ICAC, the Office supports a wide range of programs that promote evidence-based 

strategies to protect children against abuse, neglect, abduction, commercial sexual exploitation, 

and exposure to community and domestic violence. OJJDP activities highlighted in this chapter 

provide a broad picture of how OJJDP is working vigorously with communities, law enforcement, and social service agencies to ensure the safety and well-being of our nation’s children. 

Children’s Exposure to Violence 

NatSCEV revealed that more than 60 percent of the nation’s youth had been exposed to violence, 

crime, or abuse within the past year, either directly or indirectly. Almost 40 percent were direct 

victims of two or more violent acts. One in four was a victim of robbery, vandalism, or theft. One 

in sixteen was victimized sexually. One in four witnessed a violent act. And almost 1 in 10 saw a 

family member assault another family member. 
54 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org

NATIONAL SURVEY OF 

Children’s Exposure to Violence Children’s Exposure to Violence

Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator October 2009 

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org

A Message From OJJDP

Children are exposed to violence

every day in their homes, schools,

and communities. They may be

struck by a boyfriend, bullied by a

classmate, or abused by an adult.

They may witness an assault on a

parent or a shooting on the street.

Such exposure can cause significant

physical, mental, and emotional harm

with long-term effects that can last

well into adulthood.

In 1999, OJJDP created the Safe

Start Initiative to prevent and reduce

the impact of children’s exposure to

violence through enhanced practice,

research, evaluation, training and

technical assistance, resources, and

outreach. The initiative has improved

the delivery of developmentally appropriate services for children exposed to

violence and their families.

Understanding the nature and extent

of children’s exposure to violence

is essential to combating its effects.

Partnering with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, OJJDP

has sponsored the most comprehensive effort to date to measure

children’s exposure to violence. The

National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence is the first survey

to ask children and caregivers about

exposure to a range of violent incidents and maltreatment.

As amply evidenced in this Bulletin,

children’s exposure to violence is

pervasive and crosses all ages. The

research findings reported here are

critical to informing our efforts to protect children from its damaging effects. 

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

Children’s Exposure

to Violence:

A Comprehensive

National Survey

David Finkelhor, Heather Turner, Richard Ormrod, 

Sherry Hamby, and Kristen Kracke

This Bulletin discusses the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence

(NatSCEV), the most comprehensive

nationwide survey of the incidence and

prevalence of children’s exposure to violence to date, sponsored by the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC). Conducted between January and

May 2008, it measured the past-year and

lifetime exposure to violence for children

age 17 and younger across several major

categories: conventional crime, child

maltreatment, victimization by peers and

siblings, sexual victimization, witnessing

and indirect victimization (including exposure to community violence and family

violence), school violence and threats, and

Internet victimization. (For more detailed

information on the types of violence that

children were questioned about, see

“Screening Questions” on page 2.) This

survey is the first comprehensive attempt

to measure children’s exposure to violence in the home, school, and community

across all age groups from birth to age 17, 

and the first attempt to measure the cumulative exposure to violence over the child’s

lifetime.

The survey confirms that most of our

society’s children are exposed to violence

in their daily lives. More than 60 percent

of the children surveyed were exposed

to violence within the past year, either

directly or indirectly (i.e., as a witness to

a violent act; by learning of a violent act

against a family member, neighbor, or

close friend; or from a threat against their

home or school) (for full details on these

and other statistics cited in this Bulletin,

see Finkelhor et al., 2009). Nearly one-half

of the children and adolescents surveyed

(46.3 percent) were assaulted at least once

in the past year, and more than 1 in 10

(10.2 percent) were injured in an assault; 1

in 4 (24.6 percent) were victims of robbery,

vandalism, or theft; 1 in 10 (10.2 percent)

suffered from child maltreatment (including physical and emotional abuse, neglect,

or a family abduction); and 1 in 16 (6.1 percent) were victimized sexually. More than 1

in 4 (25.3 percent) witnessed a violent act 

NatSCEV is conducted by the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes against 

Children Research Center and is sponsored by OJJDP and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is the first comprehensive attempt to measure 

children’s exposure to violence in the home, school, and community across age 

groups from birth through age 17 and the cumulative exposure to violence over 

a child’s lifetime. 

In October 2009, OJJDP released the study’s findings in the bulletin, Children’s 

Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey. “Those numbers are astonishing, and they are unacceptable,” Attorney General Eric Holder said at the 

time of the publication’s release. “We simply cannot stand for an epidemic of 

violence that robs our youth of their childhood and perpetuates a cycle in which 

today’s victims become tomorrow’s criminals.” 

To address this serious issue, in September 2010 

Attorney General Holder announced a new initiative, Defending Childhood, which aims to prevent 

exposure to violence, mitigate the negative effects 

experienced by children exposed to violence, and 

develop knowledge about and spread awareness of this issue. The initiative 

involves public and private partners and leverages federal resources and funding within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and throughout the government. 

Fiscal year (FY) 2010 funding for the initiative totaled $5.5 million. 

A key component of the Defending Childhood initiative is a two-phase, multiyear demonstration program. Phase I includes planning grants for eight demonstration sites: the City of Boston, MA; the City of Portland, ME; the Chippewa 

Cree Tribe, MT; the City of Grand Forks, ND; the Cuyahoga County Board of 

Commissioners, OH; the Multnomah County Department of Human Services, 

OR; the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, SD; and Shelby County, TN. In FY 2010, OJJDP 

awarded grants for this project totaling $1.27 million. 

The grantees will work in collaboration with other local organizations to 

develop comprehensive community-based strategies to prevent and reduce 

the impact of children’s exposure to violence in their homes, schools, and communities. In addition to the demonstration program grants, DOJ committed 

additional funding for research, evaluation, public awareness, and partnerships 

related to the initiative. 

Training and technical assistance will be provided by the Safe Start Center, 

DOJ’s national resource center for information and training related to reducing 

children’s exposure to violence. OJJDP funding for the Center’s training and 

technical assistance totaled $2.4 million in FY 2010, including support for the 

Defending Childhood initiative. 
CHAPTER 4 55 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

FelloWsHiP in CHildren’s 

eXPosure To ViolenCe 

in fiscal year 2010, oJJdP awarded a 1-year fellowship in children’s exposure to 

violence (CeV). The CeV fellow works onsite at oJJdP in Washington, dC. The fellow 

supports oJJdP’s efforts in the area of children’s exposure to violence by collaborating 

with practitioners, researchers, and trainers with expertise in children’s exposure to 

violence to help implement cross-agency strategies, policies, and evidence-based 

practices. 

among other activities, the fellow supports oJJdP’s safe start Center and the 

u.s. department of Justice’s new defending Childhood initiative by helping design, 

develop, and assess initiatives and training programs; conduct research and 

evaluations; develop policy; and engage in outreach and awareness activities. 

The fellow also assists in the development of reports and publications. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP continued its partnership with the RAND Corporation and 

15 communities to collect and disseminate process and outcome data on interventions for children exposed to violence. In the spring of 2010, the RAND 

Corporation released the findings of the process evaluation, which synthesized 

information across all 15 sites to describe the program and community settings, 

interventions, and implementation. The evaluation documented the sites’ success in launching programs and delivering high-quality and needed services to 

children exposed to violence. At the same time, most programs faced difficulties obtaining referrals and engaging families in treatment because of the very 

complex needs of these vulnerable families. These and the evaluation’s other 

findings will serve as a useful tool in future efforts to develop community-based 

programs for children exposed to violence. 

In the summer of 2010, OJJDP added 10 new sites and provided a total of 

$2.5 million for intervention services for families. In addition, OJJDP awarded 

approximately $765,000 to the RAND Corporation to continue research on promising interventions and a national evaluation of the strategies implemented at 

these new sites. 

OJJDP also awarded new grant funds of approximately $1.1 million to the 

Crimes against Children Research Center to expand and continue NatSCEV. The 

center’s researchers will conduct a longitudinal analysis of participants in the 

original NatSCEV survey, develop trend data on a new group of survey participants, and create a toolkit to help communities accurately measure the incidence, nature, and extent of children’s exposure to violence. 
56 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Project Safe Childhood 

DOJ established the Project Safe Childhood (PSC) initiative in May 2006 

to combat the proliferation of technology-facilitated sexual exploitation 

crimes against children. PSC combines law enforcement efforts, community action, and public awareness. Local PSC coalitions, which are 

led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, have as a key component the OJJDPsupported ICAC task forces, which are tasked with investigating, 

apprehending, and prosecuting individuals who exploit children via 

the Internet, as well as identifying and rescuing victims. For more 

information on the ICAC program, see the section, “Internet Crimes 

Against Children Program” below. 

Internet Crimes Against Children Program 

The ICAC program is a national network of 61 coordinated task forces representing nearly 3,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. These agencies conduct proactive investigations, forensic examinations, 

and prosecutions. By helping state and local law enforcement agencies develop 

effective and sustainable responses to online child victimization and child pornography, OJJDP and the ICAC program have built capacity at the local level to 

address related offenses. 

aTTorneY general announCes naTional 

sTraTegY For CHild eXPloiTaTion PreVenTion 

and inTerdiCTion 

in august 2010, attorney general eric Holder announced the u.s. department of Justice’s (doJ’s) 

national strategy for Child exploitation Prevention and interdiction. The strategy provides the first-ever 

comprehensive threat assessment of the dangers facing children from child pornography, online enticement, 

child sex tourism, commercial sexual exploitation, and sexual exploitation in indian country. in addition, it 

outlines a blueprint to strengthen the fight against these crimes. 

as part of the overall strategy, the u.s. Marshals service launched a nationwide operation targeting the 

top 500 most dangerous, noncompliant sex offenders in the nation. doJ has laid out goals to increase 

coordination among the nation’s investigators, better train investigators and prosecutors, advance law 

enforcement’s technological capabilities, and enhance research to inform decisions on deterrence, 

incarceration, and monitoring. The strategy also includes a renewed commitment to public awareness 

and community outreach. as part of its public outreach efforts, the department relaunched 

ProjectsafeChildhood.gov, Project safe Childhood’s Web site. 
CHAPTER 4 57 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

Since the ICAC program’s inception in 1998, nearly 286,850 law enforcement 

officers, prosecutors, and other professionals have been trained throughout the 

United States and in 17 countries on techniques to investigate and effectively 

prosecute ICAC-related cases. In addition, the ICAC task forces have reviewed 

more than 230,300 complaints of alleged child sexual victimization, resulting in 

the arrest of more than 23,640 individuals 

A major source of reports reviewed by ICAC task forces is the National Center 

for Missing & Exploited Children’s (NCMEC’s) CyberTipline, which handles 

phone calls and online reports of sexual exploitation of children. The CyberTipline has received more than 861,000 reports since the system was activated 

in 1998. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP awarded nearly $30 million to support the 

ICAC task forces, training and technical assistance for the 

task forces, and research on the scope and consequences of 

child exploitation. As of August 2010, ICAC task forces had 

arrested nearly 4,445 individuals, with more than one-third 

of those arrests (1,733) resulting in the defendant’s acceptance of a plea agreement in lieu of a trial. 

ICAC task forces received 22,627 reports of technologyfacilitated child sexual exploitation from the public and 

from electronic service providers in FY 2010. Investigations initiated from 

these reports led to 5,307 arrests, forensics examinations of more than 33,191 

computers, and 7,774 case referrals to other law enforcement agencies. 

Funded through cooperative agreements, the ICAC Training and Technical 

Assistance Program provides training for ICAC task force members as well as 

affiliated law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, computer forensic examiners, 

parole/probation officers, and judges. In FY 2010, the ICAC program trained 

approximately 29,733 law enforcement personnel and 2,378 prosecutors. 

A highlight of 2010 was the National Internet Crimes Against Children Conference, “PROTECTing our Children: Making the Internet a Safer Place,” held in 

May in Jacksonville, FL. The event is the nation’s largest training conference for 

law enforcement investigators, forensic experts, and prosecutors involved in 

combating the online exploitation of children. The Acting Deputy Attorney General opened the conference. 
58 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

The conference featured highly specialized training provided by the ICAC task 

force program, its federal partner agencies, and other organizations. The conference brought together more than 1,200 federal, state, and local law enforcement 

investigators, forensic experts, and prosecutors to participate in workshops and 

lectures on the latest techniques and tools for combating the online exploitation 

of children. 

OJJDP offered more than 140 lecture sessions and more than 70 interactive computer workshops. Training partners included DOJ, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Marshals Service, the ICAC task force program, the 

National White Collar Crime Center, the National Center for Justice and the Rule 

of Law, Girls’ Educational and Mentoring Services, the National District Attorneys Association, the Innocent Justice Foundation, SEARCH, and the University 

of New Hampshire’s Crimes against Children Research Center. 

Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children 

The commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) involves crimes of a 

sexual nature committed against juvenile victims for financial or other economic 

reasons. These crimes include trafficking for sexual purposes, prostitution, sex 

tourism, mail-order-bride trade and early marriage, pornography, stripping, 

and performing in sexual venues such as peep shows or clubs. CSEC is not only 

illegal, it brings about significant and, at times, life-threatening physical, mental, 

and emotional harm to the victimized youth. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP supported a new initiative to help selected law enforcement 

agencies develop strategies to protect children from commercial sexual exploitation. Areas of focus include improving training and coordination activities, creating policies and procedures to identify victims, investigating and prosecuting 

cases against adults who sexually exploit children for commercial purposes, and 

adopting best practices to intervene appropriately with and compassionately 

serve victims. Agencies receiving funds included the Cook County (IL) State’s 

Attorney’s Office, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the Boston (MA) Police 

Department, and the Alameda County (CA) District Attorney’s Office. 

During FY 2010, much progress was made in OJJDP’s Improving Community 

Response to CSEC initiative, launched in FY 2009 with grants of $500,000 to 

three communities to strengthen effective collaborations between stakeholder 

organizations and, ultimately, enhance the effectiveness of community response. 

During the first year of operation, each of the communities realized significant 

success in training professionals on the issues of CSEC and in identifying and 

providing services to victims. 
CHAPTER 4 59 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

oJJdP ProMoTes PreVenTion oF
 

CHild aBuse aT naTional and
 

inTernaTional ConFerenCes
 

during FY 2010, oJJdP supported numerous national conferences on the topic of child 


abuse prevention. in addition to assisting with funding and organization of the events, 


the office offered overviews of oJJdP’s efforts to protect children and shared strategies 


for preventing and reducing child maltreatment and children’s exposure to violence.
 

•	 The 26th national symposium on Child abuse, organized by the national 


Children’s advocacy Center (nCaC) with the support of oJJdP and other sponsors, 


offered more than 130 training workshops at the Von Braun Center in Huntsville, 


al, in March 2010. each year, oJJdP financially supports the nCaC conference 


and coordinates the cooperation and participation of other oJJdP grantees at the 


symposium, including the iCaC task force program, the aMBer alert program, 


the Child Protection division of Fox Valley Technical College, and many others. 


oJJdP staff presented at numerous workshops, sharing information about oJJdP 


resources and critical issues in the nationwide effort to combat child abuse. 


•	 The american Professional society on the abuse of Children held its 18th annual 


Colloquium in new orleans, la, in June 2010. The event offered 95 workshops 


that addressed all aspects of child maltreatment, including prevention, assessment, 


intervention, and treatment. oJJdP provided workshops on a wide range of topics, 


including interviewing children about domestic violence, the identification of child 


mortality due to maltreatment, child forensic interviews, the use of the internet 


by child molesters to sexually exploit children, and preparing to defend child 


interviews in court.
 

•	 The 11th annual Conference on Child 


sexual abuse and exploitation Prevention 


took place in new orleans, la, in august 


2010. organized by nCaC, the event 


included workshops on early childhood 


sexuality and abuse prevention; sexual 


revictimization in children; school-based 


intervention programs; sexting, bullying, 


and online peer harassment; how child 


abuse impacts latino families; and 


community education to protect against 


child abuse and exploitation, among other 


subjects.
 
60 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

•	 The Interagency Children’s Policy Council of Alameda County (CA) is supporting the work of the Sexually Exploited Minors Network, a collaboration 

between the county’s public and private providers. The program is offering 

comprehensive training and education to increase awareness about and promote effective responses to CSEC in the community and has trained nearly 

600 professionals in conducting street outreach and strategies to identify and 

connect high-risk youth to shelter and essential services. This training effort 

has led to contact with more than 560 youth, the provision of case management services to 29 victims, and emergency shelter care for children in crisis. 

•	 Kristi House, Inc., a Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC), is addressing the 

problem of CSEC in Miami-Dade County, FL, and will expand the project to 

other Florida cities in partnership with the Florida Department of Children 

and Families and other CACs in the state. The project will work through the 

Kristi House-led CSEC Working Group, which consists of 35 agencies. Since 

receiving funds, Kristi House has trained 295 professionals and is developing 

a systemwide protocol and set of best practices for addressing the needs of 

CSEC victims. 

•	 Multnomah County, OR, is using its OJJDP grant to improve local capacity to address CSEC and build on current collaborative efforts. Project staff 

have trained more than 700 individuals from at least 50 local agencies using 

a framework supplied by OJJDP and have identified nearly 60 CSEC victims 

through community partners. Multnomah County will continue to increase 

the availability of essential services for CSEC victims, including advocacy, 

emergency housing, mental and physical health services, and the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of CSEC. It also will continue to 

promote collaboration between Multnomah County partners to assess local 

needs and provide interventions. 

In July 2010, OJJDP released Effects of Federal Legislation on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of 

Children. The bulletin examines the effects of the 

Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 

on the prosecution of CSEC cases. It discusses 

how current laws addressing CSEC are enforced, 

provides the key features of successful CSEC 

prosecutions, and describes how the juvenile 

justice community could improve prosecution. 
CHAPTER 4 61 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

oJJdP addresses seXual ViCTiMizaTion 

oF CHildren BY oTHer YouTH 

research indicates that youth commit more than one-quarter of all sex offenses and 

more than one-third of sex offenses against juvenile victims. additional research on 

youth who sexually offended against children found that as many as 40 percent of the 

victims were either siblings or other relatives. 

in FY 2010, oJJdP awarded funding to pilot programs in nebraska, new Jersey, 

and California to provide comprehensive community-based interventions to serve 

youth who are identified as having sexual behavior problems and who are in 

pre- or postadjudication for inappropriate sexual behavior with a family member, 

co-resident, or other child with close social ties to the perpetrator. research suggests 

that by providing intervention services early to youth exhibiting inappropriate sexual 

behaviors, the likelihood of future incidents and/or escalation is greatly reduced. The 

funding also supports the development, design, and delivery of technical assistance 

that provides support and guidance to the sites as they implement their communitybased strategies. The university of oklahoma Health sciences Center is the technical 

assistance provider. 

in december 2009, oJJdP released the bulletin, 

Juveniles Who Commit Sex Offenses Against 

Minors, which presents epidemiological 

information about the characteristics of this 

population of juvenile offenders. it is hoped 

that these comprehensive statistical findings 

will support the development of researchbased interventions and policies to reduce the 

incidence of these serious offenses. 

National Center for Missing & 

Exploited Children 

The OJJDP-supported National Center for Missing & Exploited Children observed its 26th year of operation in June 2010. As a clearinghouse and resource 

center, NCMEC collects and distributes data regarding missing and exploited 

children. In partnership with OJJDP, the center has offered critical intervention 

and prevention services to families and has supported law enforcement agencies 

at the federal, state, and local levels in cases involving missing and exploited children. OJJDP funding for NCMEC totaled approximately $30.5 million in FY 2010. 
62 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

NCMEC operates a 24-hour, toll-free missing children’s hotline (1–800–THE– 

LOST); a CyberTipline for the public to use to report Internet-related child 

sexual exploitation; and the Child Victim Identification Program (CVIP), which 

uses specialized computer software to determine the identities of children whose 

images appear in pornography. 

In FY 2010, the Center’s hotline received 104,934 calls. During the same period, 

its CyberTipline handled 215,840 reports regarding potential child exploitation 

or online harm to children. As of September 2010, a total of 3,142 identified children were in the CVIP system. During FY 2010, NCMEC assisted in the recovery 

of 12,060 children; since its inception, NCMEC has assisted in the recovery of 

157,722 children. 

NCMEC also is a key participant in the annual National Missing Children’s Day 

commemoration and the AMBER Alert program, both described below. 

Missing CHildren’s daY 

in 1983, President reagan proclaimed May 25 

as national Missing Children’s day. since 

then, citizens, public agencies, and private 

organizations have gathered in communities 

across the country to commemorate the day 

by renewing their commitment to find missing 

children and celebrating stories of recovery. 

in May 2010, the u.s. department of Justice 

(doJ) held its annual commemoration of 

national Missing Children’s day at doJ’s 

great Hall in Washington, dC. among the 

dignitaries who spoke at the event were 

attorney general eric Holder and laurie robinson, 

then-assistant attorney general for the office of Justice Programs. guests included 

families of missing children; leaders of child advocacy organizations; and federal, 

state, local, and tribal agency representatives who have supported programs to locate 

and recover missing children. oJJdP’s acting administrator presented awards to 

recognize the outstanding efforts of law enforcement personnel and private citizens 

who have made a difference in recovering abducted children and protecting children 

from exploitation. information about oJJdP publications released at the 2010 Missing 

Children’s day ceremony is available in chapter 5. 
CHAPTER 4 6 3

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

AMBER Alert 

Launched in 1996, the AMBER Alert program is a voluntary partnership 

between law enforcement agencies, broadcasters, transportation agencies, and 

the wireless industry to activate an urgent bulletin in the most serious child 

abduction cases. The AMBER Alert system issues media alerts on radio, television, highway signs, wireless devices such as mobile phones, and over the Internet when a law enforcement agency determines that a child has been abducted 

and is in imminent danger. The broadcasts provide information about the child 

and the abductor that can lead to the child’s recovery, such as a physical description of each and a description of the abductor’s vehicle. The goal of an AMBER 

Alert is to instantly galvanize the entire community to assist in the search for 

and the safe recovery of the child. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) manages 

the program with the support of OJJDP. In FY 2010, OJP awarded $3.5 million 

for the program.

As of September 2010, the AMBER Alert program had helped recover 518 

abducted children nationwide. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Canada have AMBER Alert plans. AMBER 

Alert activities include annual national training conferences and local and 

regional training sessions on topics such as Child Abduction Response Teams 

(CARTs) and investigative techniques. 

Southern Border Initiative 

Efforts continue to bring the AMBER Alert program into Mexico through the 

AMBER Alert Southern Border Initiative. The initiative aims to improve communication and collaboration between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials, 

prosecutors, and child protection professionals and to enhance public participation and notification in cases of child abduction. An advisory team composed of 

representatives from U.S. and Mexican law enforcement agencies, courts, tribal 

agencies, social service agencies, child protection organizations, and broadcast 

media is providing guidance for this project and is assisting in the development 

of Southern Border Initiative trainings.

The problem of cross-border abduction has reached alarming proportions. 

According to NCMEC, Mexico is the destination for 47 percent of all international child abductions from the United States. OJJDP is addressing this problem 

through focused discussions, comprehensive training, and technical assistance.

In 2009, Baja California and Tamaulipas became the first states in Mexico to join 

the AMBER Alert network. In 2010, the state of Nuevo Leon passed legislation 

to adopt the AMBER Alert program, and OJJDP staff met with state officials to
64 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

provide training and technical assistance to support their efforts. In addition, 

Tamaulipas will provide peer-to-peer technical assistance to Nuevo Leon. 

OJJDP held bilingual trainings in San Diego, CA; Brownsville, TX; El Paso, TX; 

Albuquerque, NM; and Phoenix, AZ, in 2010. The trainings covered a range 

of topics, including the reporting of missing children, effective strategies for 

responding to reports, human trafficking, investigative methods, and resources 

available to address cross-border child abductions. Law enforcement, public 

safety, and child protection professionals from the United States and Mexico 

received joint training on the issues and challenges associated with these types 

of abductions. Simultaneous translation and written materials in English and 

Spanish were provided. This bilingual effort is critical to child recovery efforts in 

the border region. 

AMBER Alert in Indian Country 

Through the AMBER Alert in Indian Country initiative, OJP initially developed 

AMBER Alert plans in 13 pilot tribal communities. Through the expansion of 

the AMBER Alert in Indian Country initiative, OJP provided training and technical assistance to additional tribes; currently, 15 tribes have formal AMBER 

Alert plans and 17 additional tribes are at various levels of development and 

implementation of their AMBER Alert programs. Assessments of capabilities 

have been conducted at all sites, with the focus on building capacity within each 

community to respond to and investigate reports of endangered, missing, or 

abducted children. OJJDP provided a range of training and technical assistance 

in FY 2010 to build on these capabilities. 

Thirty-two sites have adopted or are in the process of adopting AMBER Alert 

programs, either alone or in cooperation with state and local authorities, and 15 

tribes have passed tribal resolutions or ordinances adopting the AMBER Alert 

program. All of the participating tribal communities are developing their own 

CARTs or are participating with local agencies that have CART programs. 

In FY 2010, more than 400 tribal community members, government leaders, first 

responders, child protection officials, and law enforcement officials attended 

training and technical assistance programs to improve skills and capacity related 

to a wide range of child protection needs. 

Through its Child Protection Programs in Tribal Communities initiative, OJJDP 

awarded $850,000 in FY 2010 to expand critical services, best practices, tools, and 

other resources of the AMBER Alert and ICAC programs to protect children in 

tribal communities who are at risk of exploitation. 
CHAPTER 4 65 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

naTional sYMPosiuM on CHild 

ProTeCTion in indian CounTrY 

in March 2010, oJJdP sponsored its first national symposium on Child Protection 

in indian Country in santa ana Pueblo, nM. approximately 280 tribal leaders, 

law enforcement officials, and representatives of social service agencies from more 

than 60 tribes participated. oJJdP funded the symposium through the aMBer alert 

national Training and Technical assistance Program and the aMBer alert in indian 

Country initiative. 

larry J. echo Hawk, the u.s. department of the interior’s assistant secretary for 

indian affairs, delivered remarks on the first day of the symposium. Workshops were 

designed to foster a multidisciplinary approach and coordinated tribal-based efforts 

to combat child abuse, neglect, and exploitation in indian country. 

Children’s Advocacy Centers 

Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) help coordinate the investigation, treatment, and prosecution of child abuse cases. Recognizing that child abuse is a 

multifaceted problem, CACs involve multidisciplinary teams of professionals— 

child protective and victim advocacy services, medical and mental health agencies, and law enforcement and prosecution—to provide a continuum of services 

to victims and nonoffending family members. In 2010, more than 700 CACs in 

the United States served 259,000 child victims and treated approximately 400,000 

children with preventive measures. 

OJJDP has long recognized the efficacy of the CAC model and has provided program funding to expand access to CACs and their valuable services through the 

Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990. In FY 2010, $22.5 million was appropriated 

for the program. 

The National Children’s Alliance (NCA) serves as the national accrediting and 

membership body for CACs and administers federal grants to develop and 

improve these advocacy centers. In collaboration with NCA, the National Children’s Advocacy Center (NCAC), and four regional CACs—in the Midwest, 

Northeast, South, and West—OJJDP works in close partnership to encourage 

communities to establish local CACs and to provide existing centers with training, technical assistance, and other services. 

In FY 2010, NCAC undertook several international initiatives to support the 

development of CACs and the training of professionals to respond to child 

abuse. NCAC’s international efforts in 2010 included onsite presentations and 
66 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

technical assistance for child abuse professionals in Belarus, Brazil, Denmark, the 

Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. 

Court Appointed Special 

Advocates Program 

The Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program 

ensures that abused and neglected children receive culturally 

sensitive, effective, and timely advocacy in dependency court 

hearings, ultimately resulting in their placement in safe, permanent homes. CASA volunteers have helped more than 2 million 

abused children since the first program was established in 

1977. 

Authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, as amended, OJJDP 

administers funding to the National CASA Association, which directs that a 

“court-appointed special advocate shall be available to every victim of child 

abuse or neglect in the United States that needs such an advocate.” OJJDP partners with the National CASA Association to provide funding for state CASA 

organizations and new program development as well as expansion of CASA 

programs and training and technical assistance to volunteer advocates, child 

welfare professionals, attorneys, judges, and social workers. 

The National CASA Association also helps state CASA organizations build their 

capacity to provide services to local programs. The program makes subgrant 

funds available to local programs to support court-appointed special advocates 

who provide advocacy for abused and neglected children in the court system. 

These trained volunteers, also known as guardians ad litem, serve as fact finders, 

monitors, facilitators, and advocates in cases where there are charges of child 

abuse and neglect in dependency proceedings. The National CASA Association 

serves as a resource center, providing support and information dissemination 

services. 

OJJDP’s FY 2010 funding for the program totaled nearly $15 million, of which 

nearly $11 million supported state and local programs and almost $4 million 

supported training and technical assistance. 
CHAPTER 4 67 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

Model Courts Program 

Studies indicate that children who are abused and neglected are at significantly 

higher risk for academic failure, chronic delinquency, adult criminal behavior, 

antisocial personality disorder, and violent crime. In addition, as a child’s length 

of time in out-of-home care increases, the probability of negative outcomes also 

increases. Preliminary research suggests that more efficient and effective dependency courts can reduce the length of time children spend in the system. 

The Model Courts program is a network of juvenile and family courts in 34 

states, 1 tribe (the Gila River Indian Community), and the District of Columbia that collaborate to reduce the number of, and achieve better outcomes for, 

foster children by improving dependency court practice through judicially led 

system reform. In New York, the Model Courts effort has been implemented as 

a statewide initiative. The Model Courts program is also establishing important 

partnerships with tribes to expand Model Courts into additional tribal communities. Developed, managed, and guided by the National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) with funding from OJJDP, the project provides 

tailored training and technical assistance to Model Court jurisdictions and develops cutting-edge national programs and policies. 

Each Model Court leads local system reform by selecting short-term improvement goals that are based on proven practices. As a result of the work of the 

participating courts, programs that have proven to be effective in a single jurisdiction have now become nationwide efforts. 

OJJDP supports NCJFCJ’s Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and 

Fairness in Foster Care initiative (CCC), a national agenda to reduce the disproportionate representation of and disparate outcomes for children of color in 

dependency court systems. The program is identifying and evaluating all decision points in the dependency court system and recommending strategies for 

court and systems change to reduce racial disproportionality and disparate 

treatment. 

The Model Courts program also maintains an active publications program to 

educate the juvenile justice field on best practices for improving outcomes for 

children in the dependency court system. 

CHAPTER 5
 
CHAPTER 5

70 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Providing Resources 

and Information 

to the Juvenile 

Justice Field 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is a leading and 

authoritative source of information on juvenile justice issues. The Office disseminates 

information about its research findings, juvenile justice statistics, and promising programs through comprehensive online databases, Web sites, Webinars, and a wide range of print 

and online publications. 

By sharing the latest research findings on evidence-based programs and practices, OJJDP is playing a central role in the implementation of proven strategies to help prevent and intervene in 

juvenile delinquency and victimization. The activities discussed in this chapter are ensuring that 

the juvenile justice field is kept up to date on new developments in research and practice. The 

Office’s efforts in this area help ensure continued progress in the quest to find effective solutions 

to the juvenile justice field’s complex issues and challenges. 
71 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

OJJDP is keeping the nation informed about 

critical juvenile justice issues and evidencebased strategies to solve them. The Office’s 

resources include comprehensive online 

data systems; a Web site featuring the latest 

information about research, programs, and 

funding; an online newsletter; and a range of 

print and online publications. 

Sharing Research Findings 

The Office recognizes that research findings need to be widely disseminated if they are to be 

used to improve outcomes for the nation’s children. During fiscal year (FY) 2010, the Office 

shared its research findings with the field through publications as well as at conferences. 

Girls Study Group Bulletin Series 

As noted in chapter 1, OJJDP convened the Girls Study Group (GSG) in response to the rising 

arrest rates for girls. Through its research, the GSG aims to gain a better understanding of the 

dynamics of girls’ delinquency and guide policy development regarding female juvenile offenders. OJJDP works closely with the GSG to disseminate the findings from the study group’s activities. The Office is currently publishing a series of bulletins highlighting the major findings of the 

GSG research. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

72 7 2

In FY 2010, OJJDP released the fourth and fifth bulletins in the GSG series: 

•	 Suitability of Assessment Instruments for Delinquent Girls examines the extent to 

which existing adolescent assessment instruments used in the juvenile justice 

system are equally effective for girls and boys. 

•	 Causes and Correlates of Girls’ Delinquency summarizes the results of the GSG’s 

extensive review of more than 1,600 articles and book chapters from the 

social science literature on individual-level risk factors for delinquency and 

factors related to family, peers, school, and communities. 

Survey of Youth in Residential Placement 

Bulletin Series 

OJJDP sponsors the nation’s most comprehensive data collection program on 

juvenile offenders in custody and the facilities that hold them. Through a constellation of surveys—which include the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP), the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), and the 

Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC)—the agency provides critical information to state and national researchers and policymakers who are investigating 

and seeking answers to major policy and practice questions affecting youth in 

residential placement, and disseminates those findings to the field. While CJRP 

and JRFC gather critical data from residential facility administrators, SYRP interviews juveniles directly, providing an unprecedented view of their experiences 

in custody. Through this approach, SYRP is able to address issues that no other 

information source covers. For more details on these data collections, see the 

section “Juveniles in Custody” at the end of this chapter. 

To help practitioners, policymakers, and the public better understand youth in 

custody and the issues facing them, OJJDP has launched a bulletin series that 

describes SYRP and its findings in detail. The first bulletin in the series, Introduction to the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement, reviews SYRP’s background 

and history, describes its design and methodology, discusses its strengths and 

limitations, and summarizes the questions it answers about the population of 

youth in custody. 
CHAPTER 5 73 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

In FY 2010, OJJDP released the second and third bulletins in the series: 

• Youth’s Needs and Services presents key findings on the emotional and 

psychological problems, substance abuse issues, medical needs, and 

educational background of youth in residential placement, as well as 

the services provided by residential facilities to address these issues. 

• Conditions of Confinement describes the physical features of juvenile 

facilities, rates the quality of available programs, and reports on 

access to various social, emotional, and legal supports at the facilities. 

OJJDP’s sAfE sTART CEnTER Wins 

DEsign AWARD 

in fY 2010, OJJDP’s safe start Center Web site received a MarCom gold 

Award for design. The Web site provides news and resources to practitioners, 

researchers, and policymakers who work to help children exposed to violence. 

These children may experience violence as a victim or witness in their home, 

school, or community. safe start online resources include links to recent 

research, reports, Web sites, training manuals, and best-practice guidelines 

for practitioners. 

several publications on the site also received MarCom creative awards, 

including the center’s Issue Brief #2: Pediatric Case Settings, which received a Platinum 

Award; and Issue Brief #1: Understanding Children’s Exposure to Violence and Healing the 

Invisible Wounds: Children’s Exposure to Violence, both of which received gold Awards. 

The safe start Web site was recently redesigned to meet the latest Web standards and best practices. 

it displays a rotating banner with the latest news, publications, and research about children exposed to 

violence. in addition, it allows users to interact with the safe start Center through links to social networks 

such as Twitter, facebook, and YouTube. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

74 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

• you are not alone; families can and do survive • there is no right or wrong way to

respond; there is no right or wrong way to feel • hope is essential to your survival • to 

give your child the best chances of being found, you and law enforcement must treat

one  another  as  partners  •  base  your  relationship with  law  enforcement  on mutual

re spect, trust, and honesty; however, you don’t have to agree on every detail • trust

your feelings, instincts, and gut reactions; share them with law enforcement so they

can be checked out • don’t be afraid to make suggestions or air differences of opinion • 

contact the media immediately; they can be a very effective tool in asking for help • 

if you are unable to speak alone, select someone to function as your media spokesperson • remember that you control

the situation, the media do not control you • you have the right to say no

to an interview • you have the  right

to refrain from answer ing questions

if  doing  so makes  you feel  uncomfortable  •  you  have  the  right  to

completely  give  your  side  of  the

story  •  you  have  the  right  to  be

treated  with  dig nity  and  respect  • 

let people know you love your child

and  need  their  help  in  fi nding  and

bringing  your  child  home  •  hold 

a  prayer  or  candlelight  vigil  •  distributing  pictures  and  information 

is  an  es sential  part  of  search  and

recov ery • get as many people and

or ganizations as possible to distribute  your  child’s  picture  •  plug  into 

NCMEC’s  photo  distribution  services  •  place  reward  posters  where those  people most  likely to  have  information 

can see them • the many offers of support will carry you through; when people ask 

what they can do, try to tell them something specifi c • don’t be afraid to ask for what

you need . . . people really do want to help • as long as you have specifi c tasks for

volunteers to perform, they won’t go away • asking volunteers to help relieves you of

the burden of trying to do everything yourself, which you cannot • many organizations

are poised to help you fi nd your missing child • do everything you can to take care of

yourself • it is okay, even necessary, to take a break from the stress for dinner and

a walk • don’t blame yourself . . . at any given moment, you are doing the best you

possibly can • you do not have to be an “emotional rock” for extended family • seek

peace and solace for yourself, encourage family members to do the same • a laugh

can  be  as  cleansing  as  a  good  cry  •  your  child  needs  you to  be  strong  •  bring the

needs of  your other  children into balance with those of  your missing  child  • don’t let

your loss become a taboo subject • keep a notebook with you to record your thoughts

and review it periodically • keep your focus and exercise caution • never stop looking 

When Your

Child

 Is Missing: A Family 

 Survival Guide 

National Survey of Children’s Exposure to 

Violence Bulletin Series 

As described in detail in chapter 4, OJJDP maintains an active program of 

research, training, and technical assistance designed to improve the effectiveness 

of community programs that address the issue of children’s exposure to violence. Through his Defending Childhood initiative, the Attorney General has set 

this issue as a top priority for the U.S. Department 

of Justice. A key component of OJJDP’s outreach 

effort is the publication of information based on its 

research. 

In FY 2010, OJJDP launched a National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) bulletin series; the first bulletin in the series, Children’s Exposure 

to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey, was published in October 2009. It 

summarizes the results of NatSCEV, the most comprehensive study to date on 

the impact of children’s exposure to violence. 

The NatSCEV bulletin series will examine a broad range of issues from the survey data, including co-occurrence of family violence, risk factors for exposure to 

violence in the community, multiple victimizations, and correlates of victimization and mental health. Bulletins will highlight key findings from these various 

analyses for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers working on behalf of 

youth and families experiencing or at risk of violence. 

PubliCATiOns fEATuRED AT 

Missing CHilDREn’s DAY EvEnT 

At the u.s. Department of Justice’s 2010 Missing Children’s Day ceremony, 

OJJDP announced the publication of the fourth edition of When Your Child Is 

Missing: A Family Survival Guide. The guide is one of the resources most widely 

requested and used by families of missing and abducted children. Among other 

updates, the publication includes the latest information about new technologies 

that play a role in facilitating internet crimes against children. 

in addition, OJJDP released The Crime of Family Abduction: A Child’s and 

Parent’s Perspective. This publication offers unique insight into the emotional 

and psychological experiences of children during a family abduction and 

provides parents with helpful advice on assisting their children who are 

making the transition back to everyday life following their recovery. 
CHAPTER 5 75 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

OJJDP Web Site 

The OJJDP Web site (ojjdp.gov) is a leading online resource for the latest 

information on a broad range of topics related to juvenile justice. Homepage 

spotlights feature breaking news on upcoming events and current funding 

opportunities, as well as publications and other resources. The homepage also 

provides ready access to the Office’s research, publications, programs, and 

related resources to bring problems such as child abduction, commercial sexual 

exploitation of children, gang involvement, girls’ delinquency, and underage 

drinking into clearer focus. 

The heart of the Web site is its database-driven capability, which gives users 

quick access to comprehensive information. For example, the Topics page 

enables users to easily access all items related to specific subject areas, including 

funding opportunities, programs, events, and publications. 

In accordance with OJJDP’s commitment to keeping the field informed about 

the juvenile justice-related activities of other government agencies and organizations, the Web page disseminates timely information about these organizations’ 

meetings, grant opportunities, and publications. 

The Web site received approximately 60 million hits in FY 2010; there were 

approximately 4.6 million visits to the Web site (up from 3.5 million visits in 

FY 2009) during the same period. 

Online Statistical Briefing Book 

OJJDP has primary responsibility for developing and disseminating statistical 

information on the juvenile justice system and does so through several mechanisms. OJJDP funds the National Juvenile Court Data Archive, which provides 

information about cases handled by courts with juvenile jurisdiction. OJJDP 

established the Archive at the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) to provide automated juvenile court data sets. NCJJ produces several annual statistical 

reports for OJJDP based on Archive data and manages the content for the Statistical Briefing Book (SBB) on OJJDP’s Web site. 

SBB provides a wealth of information for practitioners, policymakers, the media, 

and the public. This online tool has current statistics about juvenile crime and 

victimization and about youth involved in the juvenile justice system. SBB data 

are continually updated, ensuring that users receive timely and reliable information. SBB has become a primary source of information on juvenile crime and 

juvenile justice for individuals in the United States and throughout the world. 

During FY 2010, there were more than 734,000 visits to the SBB site (up from 

618,000 in FY 2009) and more than 4 million page views. 

I found the information on this 

Web site to be very useful. 

The navigation features 

were timesaving. . . . 

I would recommend this site 

to everyone.

 —Statistical Briefing Book user 
 

 

76 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

SBB uses Easy Access, a family of Web-based data analysis tools that NCJJ 

developed for OJJDP to expand access to recent, detailed information on juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system. The Easy Access applications provide 

information on national, state, and county population counts, as well as information on homicide victims and offenders, juvenile court case processing, and 

juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities. 

FY 2010 updates to SBB included the addition of Juvenile Court Statistics, 2006– 

2007. Developed and produced by NCJJ, the report is one of the nation’s oldest 

justice statistical publications, dating back to 1929. Drawing on data from the 

National Juvenile Court Data Archive, the most recent report profiles the nearly 

1.7 million delinquency cases handled each year by U.S. courts with juvenile 

jurisdiction in 2006 and 2007. The report also describes trends in delinquency 

cases processed by juvenile courts between 1985 and 2007 and status offense 

cases handled between 1995 and 2007. 

OJJDP also produced and added four new fact sheets to SBB based on data from 

the Juvenile Court Statistics report: Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2007; Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 2007; Juvenile Delinquency Probation Caseload, 2007; and Person Offense Cases in Juvenile Court, 2007. (For more information, 

see the “Publications” section later in this chapter.) 

OJJDP bullETin On JuvEnilE TRAnsfER lAWs 

nOW in PRinT 

in fY 2010, OJJDP produced a print version of the 

bulletin, Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to 

Delinquency?, originally released online in 2008. The 

information provided in the bulletin is helping inform 

much-needed public discussion and policy decisions on 

the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts. 

in August 2008, the publication was highlighted in 

a New York Times editorial underscoring the value 

of specialized courts for young people. The author 

of the bulletin cited numerous studies demonstrating higher 

recidivism rates for juveniles convicted in criminal court 

than for similar offenders adjudicated in juvenile court. 
CHAPTER 5 77 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

 

OJJDP News @ a Glance 

OJJDP News @ a Glance highlights major OJJDP activities and priorities, updates 

from OJJDP-funded programs, new publications, and conferences. This bimonthly 

newsletter is sent to subscribers via e-mail and is also available on the Web site. 

At the end of FY 2010, News @ a Glance had more than 28,000 subscribers— 

reflecting an increase of more than 2,000 subscribers since October 2009. 

JUVJUST 

OJJDP’s electronic listserv, JUVJUST, provides e-mail notices of timely information on juvenile justice and other youth service-related news. JUVJUST 

subscribers receive brief announcements semiweekly about publications, funding opportunities, conferences, and other valuable resources. JUVJUST reaches 

more than 20,000 subscribers. JUVJUST announcements are frequently picked 

up by other governmental and private-sector media, significantly expanding the 

audience they reach. 

To subscribe to OJJDP News @ a Glance and JUVJUST, go to the OJJDP Web site, 

ojjdp.gov (click on the appropriate “Subscribe” button on the homepage). Both 

services are free. 

infOCus fACT sHEET sERiEs 

in fY 2010, OJJDP launched a series of infocus fact sheets designed to highlight some of the Office’s priority 

activities in an engaging and easy-to-read format. The infocus fact sheets provide a quick overview of some 

of OJJDP’s major research, programmatic, and training 

and technical assistance efforts. in 2010, OJJDP won a 

Communicator Award from the international Academy of the 

visual Arts for the fact sheets’ design. 

following are the titles of the first six fact sheets, released 

in fY 2010: 

• Community Prevention Grants Program 

• Disproportionate Minority Contact 

• Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program 

• Formula Grants Program 

• Girls’ Delinquency 

• Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program 

for more information about these infocus fact sheets, see the section entitled “Publications.” 
78 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Publications 

OJJDP develops and disseminates a broad range of information about juvenile 

justice and child protection. The publications described throughout this report 

play a central role in every facet of OJJDP’s mission, from enhancing opportunities for youth to ensuring public safety and supporting law enforcement. Following is a list of the major publications released by OJJDP during FY 2010. 

Causes and Correlates of Girls’ Delinquency (GSG bulletin). Summarizes the results 

of the Girls Study Group’s extensive review of more than 1,600 articles and book 

chapters from the social science literature on individual-level risk factors for 

delinquency and factors related to family, peers, school, and communities. The 

research team focused on girls ages 11 to 18 and also examined whether these 

factors are gender neutral, gender specific, or gender sensitive. NCJ 226358. 

Children’s Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey (NatSCEV bulletin). Presents the findings of the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence, the first comprehensive attempt in the United States to measure children’s 

exposure to violence in the home, school, and community across all age groups 

from birth to age 17. The survey is also the first attempt to measure the cumulative exposure to violence over the child’s lifetime. NCJ 227744. 

Community Prevention Grants Program (InFocus fact sheet). Provides an overview 

of OJJDP’s Community Prevention Grants program, which funds collaborative, 

community-based delinquency prevention efforts. NCJ 227345. 

Conditions of Confinement: Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP bulletin). Presents results from the Survey of Youth in Residential 

Placement on the characteristics of the facilities in which youth are confined and 

the programs provided to them. NCJ 227729. 

The Crime of Family Abduction: A Child’s and Parent’s Perspective (report). Helps the 

reader understand the characteristics of a family abduction and the psychological and emotional impact such criminal activity has on the abducted child and 

his or her family. NCJ 229933. 

Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2007 (fact sheet). Presents statistics on delinquency cases that U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction processed between 1985 

and 2007. NCJ 230168. 

Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 2007 (fact sheet). Presents estimates 

of the number of cases transferred from juvenile court to criminal court through 

the judicial waiver mechanism between 1985 and 2007. NCJ 230167. 
CHAPTER 5 79 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

Disproportionate Minority Contact (InFocus fact sheet). Provides an overview of 

OJJDP’s efforts to reduce the disproportionate number of juvenile members of 

minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. 

NCJ 228306. 

Effects of Federal Legislation on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (bulletin). Presents findings from a study that OJJDP sponsored to examine the effects 

of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act on the federal prosecution of commercial sexual exploitation of children cases. NCJ 228631. 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program (InFocus fact sheet). Provides an overview of OJJDP’s Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws program, which supports 

and enhances efforts by states and local jurisdictions to reduce the availability of 

alcohol to minors. NCJ 227469. 

Formula Grants Program (InFocus fact sheet). Provides an overview of OJJDP’s 

Formula Grants program, which supports efforts related to delinquency prevention and reduction, juvenile justice system improvement, research, evaluation, 

statistical analysis, and training and technical assistance. NCJ 227470. 

Girls’ Delinquency (InFocus fact sheet). Highlights OJJDP’s research, programs, 

publications, and training and technical assistance to address the rising trend in 

girls’ delinquency. NCJ 228414. 

Highlights of the 2008 National Youth Gang Survey (InFocus fact sheet). Reports the 

2008 findings from the annual survey of U.S. law enforcement agencies. Findings show that an estimated 32.4 percent of all cities, suburban areas, towns, and 

rural counties experienced gang problems in 2008. NCJ 229249. 

Introduction to the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP bulletin). Introduces 

the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement, reviews its background, describes its 

design and methodology, discusses its strengths and limitations, and summarizes 

the questions it answers about the population of youth in custody. NCJ 218390. 

Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program (InFocus fact sheet). Provides an 

overview of OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Block Grants program, which 

helps states and communities develop and implement programs that hold 

youth accountable for delinquent behavior through the imposition of graduated 

sanctions. NCJ 226357. 

Juvenile Arrests 2008 (bulletin). Characterizes the extent and nature of juvenile 

crime that came to the attention of the justice system in 2008. This bulletin draws 

on data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, from which the FBI 

prepares its annual Crime in the United States report. NCJ 228479. 
80 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Juvenile Court Statistics, 2006–2007 (report). Describes delinquency cases that more 

than 2,100 U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled between 1985 and 2007 

and petitioned status offense cases handled between 1995 and 2007. NCJ 230105. 

Juvenile Delinquency Probation Caseload, 2007 (fact sheet). Presents statistics on 

delinquency cases resulting in probation between 1985 and 2007. NCJ 230170. 

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2006: Selected Findings (National Report bulletin). Presents information about the facilities in which juvenile offenders are 

held, including characteristics such as size, structure, type, ownership, and security arrangements. NCJ 228128. 

Juveniles in Residential Placement: 1997–2008 (fact sheet). Examines the changing 

trends regarding juvenile offenders in residential placement in publicly and privately operated juvenile facilities. NCJ 229379. 

Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency? (bulletin). Provides 

an overview of research on the effects of transferring juveniles to an adult criminal court, focusing on two large-scale, comprehensive OJJDP-funded studies on 

the impact of transfer laws on recidivism. NCJ 220595. 

Juveniles Who Commit Sex Offenses Against Minors (bulletin). Draws on data from the 

FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System to examine the characteristics of 

youth who commit sexual offenses against minors and their offenses. NCJ 227763. 

Person Offense Cases in Juvenile Court, 2007 (fact sheet). Presents statistics on person 

offense cases that juvenile courts handled between 1985 and 2007. NCJ 230169. 

Suitability of Assessment Instruments for Delinquent Girls (GSG bulletin). Examines 

the extent to which existing adolescent assessment instruments used in the juvenile justice system are equally effective for girls and boys. NCJ 226531. 

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide, Fourth Edition (report). 

Revised from 1998, 2002, and 2004, this report provides parents with the most 

current information on, and helpful insights into, what families should do when 

their child is missing. NCJ 228735. 

Youth’s Needs and Services: Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP bulletin). Presents findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential 

Placement on how facilities have addressed youth’s needs, what services youth 

receive, and where these services could be improved. NCJ 227728. 
CHAPTER 5 81 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

All OJJDP publications can be viewed and downloaded from the OJJDP Web 

site, ojjdp.gov (select the “Publications” section). Print publications can also be 

ordered online at the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Web 

site, ncjrs.gov (select the “A–Z Publications/Products” section). The NCJ numbers at the end of the entries in the above publications list can be used to search 

for or order resources from NCJRS or to locate specific resources in the NCJRS 

library, including items produced by OJJDP. 
82 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

JuvEnilEs in CusTODY 

since OJJDP’s inception, an important part of its information dissemination role has been to gather and 

report data on youth held in public and private juvenile residential placement facilities. As noted earlier 

in this chapter, the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) and the Juvenile Residential facility 

Census (JRfC), administered by OJJDP in alternate years, provide comprehensive data on juveniles in 

custody and the facilities that house them. in addition, the survey of Youth in Residential Placement asks 

youth about their background and experiences in custody. 

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

secure and nonsecure, as well as publicly operated (state and local) and privately operated (including 

long-term and short-term holding). Juvenile facilities go by many different names across the country: 

detention centers, juvenile halls, shelters, reception and diagnostic centers, group homes, wilderness 

camps, ranches, farms, youth development centers, residential treatment centers, training or reform 

schools, and juvenile correctional institutions. some look like adult prisons or jails, some look like 

campuses, and others look like houses. This section highlights key findings from the 2010 CJRP and 

2008 JRfC and briefly summarizes information on deaths of juveniles in custody from the 2008 JRfC. 

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 2010 

The CJRP provides a 1-day “snapshot” of youth held in public and private juvenile detention and 

correctional facilities; it includes offense, gender, race, age, and other data. The following highlights 

are primarily from the census conducted on february 24, 2010. 

Overview 

•	 A total of 70,792 youth were held in publicly and privately operated juvenile residential 

facilities on the 2010 census date. The number of juvenile offenders in residential placement 

has declined steadily since 2000. The 2000 JRfC registered the largest population of juvenile 

offenders in residential placement since the data collection expanded in 1974 to include private 

facilities. in 2010, there were fewer than 71,000 juvenile offenders housed in residential 

placement—a decline of 35 percent since the peak in 2000 and a 13-percent drop from 2008. 

The last time that so few juvenile offenders were counted in the national census of juvenile 

facilities was in 1989, when the tally was slightly less than 67,000. 

•	 Of all juveniles in residential placement, 69 percent were held in public facilities and 31 

percent were in private facilities. in addition, tribal facilities reported 177 youth held, Puerto 

Rico reported 588 youth held, and the u.s. virgin islands reported 21 youth held. 
CHAPTER 5 83 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

•	 nearly 7 of 10 juvenile offenders in residential placement had been adjudicated and committed 

to the facility by the court. Almost 3 of 10 were detained in a facility waiting for their case to 

be completed or awaiting placement elsewhere. 

•	 Thirty-seven percent of youth in residential placement were there because they were charged 

with or adjudicated for a person offense. Twenty-four percent were held for a property offense, 

16 percent for technical violations of probation or parole, 11 percent for public order offenses, 

7 percent for drug offenses, and 4 percent for status offenses. The most common delinquent 

offenses were technical violations of probation, parole, or valid court order; burglary; robbery; 

and assault. The most common status offense was ungovernability. 

120,000 

100,000 

80,000 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 

0 

Gender and Age 

•	 Males dominate the juvenile residential placement population. The ratio of males to females is 

more than six to one. 

•	 More than 9,400 female juvenile offenders were in residential placement on the 2010 census 

date. The female proportion was 13 percent of offenders in public facilities and 14 percent of 

offenders in private facilities. 

Number of juvenile offenders

in residential placement

Public and private facilities 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
84 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

• The offense profiles of males and females were similar in some ways and different in others. 

for both males and females, drug offenders were less than 10 percent, and drug trafficking 

offenders were outnumbered by other types of drug offenders. Criminal homicide accounted for 

only 1 percent of each group. However, for males, aggravated assault offenders outnumbered 

simple assault offenders. for females, the reverse was true. Among females, 22 percent were 

held for technical violations of probation, parole, or valid court order. Among males, the 

proportion was 16 percent. similarly, status offenders accounted for 11 percent of all females 

in residential placement, but for only 3 percent of males. 

• A greater proportion of female than male juvenile offenders in residential placement were 

younger than age 16. in 2010, juveniles age 15 or younger accounted for 38 percent of 

females in custody, compared with 29 percent of males. 

Juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities, by age and gender, 2010 

Number Percent 

Total Male Female Total Male Female 

Total 70,792 61,358 9,434 100% 100% 100% 

12 or younger 693 559 134 1 1 1 

13 2,079 1,711 368 3 3 4 

14 5,955 4,905 1,050 8 8 11 

15 12,604 10,596 2,008 18 17 21 

16 19,540 16,799 2,741 28 27 29 

17 19,990 17,608 2,382 28 29 25 

18 or older 9,931 9,180 751 14 15 8 

note: Percents may not add to total because of rounding. 
CHAPTER 5 85 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

Juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities, 

by most serious offense and gender, 2010 

Number Percent 

Total Male Female Total Male Female 

Total 70,792 61,358 9,434 100% 100% 100% 

Delinquency 67,776 59,413 8,363 96 97 89 

Criminal homicide 924 837 87 1 1 1 

sexual assault 4,638 4,568 70 7 7 1 

Robbery 6,996 6,576 420 10 11 4 

Aggravated assault 6,097 5,298 799 9 9 8 

simple assault 5,445 4,134 1,311 8 7 14 

Other person 1,910 1,548 362 3 3 4 

burglary 7,247 6,892 355 10 11 4 

Theft 3,759 3,074 685 5 5 7 

Auto theft 2,469 2,150 319 3 4 3 

Arson 533 466 67 1 1 1 

Other property 3,029 2,676 353 4 4 4 

Drug trafficking 1,034 964 70 1 2 1 

Other drug 3,952 3,381 571 6 6 6 

Weapons 3,013 2,899 114 4 5 1 

Other public order 5,126 4,393 733 7 7 8 

Technical violation 11,604 9,557 2,047 16 16 22 

status offense 3,016 1,945 1,071 4 3 11 

Curfew 65 52 13 0 0 0 

ungovernable 1,080 683 397 2 1 4 

Running away 535 256 279 1 0 3 

Truancy 643 442 201 1 1 2 

Alcohol 402 289 113 1 0 1 

Other status offense 291 223 68 0 0 1 

note: Percents may not add to total because of rounding. 
86 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Race/Ethnicity 

• nearly 48,000 minority youth 

were in residential placement 

on the 2010 census date, 

representing 68 percent of all 

offenders held. non-Hispanic 

black youth accounted for 41 

percent of the population. 

• The overall juvenile residential 

placement population decreased 

32 percent between 2001 and 

2010. The decline for white youth 

was 44 percent, a substantially 

greater relative decline than the 

decline among minority youth 

(24 percent). 

• The only group with an increase 

was the group of youth identified 

as belonging to two or more 

non-Hispanic race groups. The 

increase for this group may have 

more to do with changes to race 

identification in the data collection 

than changes in the numbers of such 

youth held. 

State Data 

• four states—California, florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas—held 36 percent of the juvenile 

offenders in residential placement on the census date in 2010. California had the largest 

population of juvenile offenders in residential placement, with more than 11,500 in placement. 

vermont had the smallest residential placement population, with only 33 juvenile offenders in 

placement. 

Juvenile offenders in residential placement 

facilities, by race/ethnicity 

Race/ethnicity 2010 total Percent 

Percent change, 

2001–2010 

Total 70,792 100% –32% 

non-Hispanic 

White 22,947 32 –44 

black 28,976 41 –29 

American indian 1,236 2 –39 

Asian 516 1 –57 

Pacific islander 212 0 –33 

Mixed race 1,315 2 112 

Hispanic 15,590 22 –13 

Minority 47,845 68 –24 

note: Minority includes all but non-Hispanic white youth. 
CHAPTER 5 87 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

Juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities, by facility operation, 2010 

State of offense Total Public Private State of offense Total Public Private 

u.s. total 70,792 49,112 21,680 nebraska 750 408 342 

Alabama 1,101 561 543 Nevada 717 675 42 

Alaska 282 228 54 New Hampshire 117 60 57 

Arizona 1,092 969 126 New Jersey 1,179 1,140 39 

Arkansas 729 270 459 New Mexico 576 471 105 

California 11,532 10,485 1,047 New York 2,637 1,185 1,452 

Colorado 1,530 930 600 North Carolina 849 600 249 

Connecticut 315 177 138 North Dakota 168 78 90 

Delaware 252 201 51 Ohio 2,865 2,661 204 

District of Columbia 180 117 66 Oklahoma 639 474 165 

Florida 4,815 1,716 3,099 Oregon 1,251 1,020 231 

Georgia 2,133 1,728 405 Pennsylvania 4,134 1,008 3,126 

Hawaii 120 114 9 Rhode Island 249 99 150 

Idaho 480 435 45 South Carolina 984 663 321 

Illinois 2,217 1,974 243 South Dakota 504 246 255 

Indiana 2,010 1,392 615 Tennessee 789 624 168 

Iowa 738 234 501 Texas 5,352 4,902 453 

Kansas 843 648 195 Utah 684 378 309 

Kentucky 852 768 84 Vermont 33 15 18 

Louisiana 1,035 756 282 Virginia 1,860 1,851 9 

Maine 186 180 6 Washington 1,305 1,275 30 

Maryland 888 681 207 West Virginia 561 348 213 

Massachusetts 663 285 378 Wisconsin 1,110 678 432 

Michigan 1,998 1,074 924 Wyoming 255 108 150 

Minnesota 912 606 306 Tribal 177 

Mississippi 357 318 39 Puerto Rico 588 

Missouri 1,197 1,161 39 Virgin Islands 21 

Montana 192 144 48 

notes: To preserve the privacy of the juvenile residents, state-level cell counts have been rounded to the nearest 

multiple of three. “state of offense” refers to the state where the juvenile committed the offense for which he or 

she was being held. u.s. total includes 2,567 in private facilities for whom state of offense was not reported. 

u.s. total does not include data reported by tribal and territory facilities. 
88 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2008 

A total of 2,458 facilities reported holding juvenile offenders on the 2008 census date (including 8 tribal 

facilities). facilities could identify themselves in more than 1 category: 734 were detention centers, 

210 were training schools, 64 were reception/diagnostic centers, 661 were group homes, 847 were 

residential treatment centers, 85 were ranch/wilderness camps, 167 were shelters, and 31 were boot 

camps. 

A decline in the number of facilities has paralleled the decline in the population of juvenile offenders in 

residential placement facilities. The decline in facilities has been sharper for privately operated facilities 

than for publicly operated facilities. Overall, there were 20 percent fewer facilities in 2008 than in 2000. 

for private facilities, the decrease was 30 percent, and for public facilities it was 4 percent. However, 

public facilities have accounted for a greater decline in the juvenile offender population: 28 percent from 

2000 to 2008 compared with 24 percent for private facilities. in fact, there were nearly three fewer 

juvenile offenders held in public facilities for every one fewer juvenile in private placement. 

These changes have resulted in a reduction in crowding. The proportion of residents that were held in 

facilities that were at or above the limit of their standard bed capacity decreased 15 percentage points 

between 2000 and 2008. in 2008, 3 percent of facilities (holding 5 percent of juvenile offenders in 

residential placement) exceeded their standard bed capacity or had juveniles sleeping in makeshift beds. 

in 2008, more than half of facilities were small (20 or fewer residents), although nearly half of juvenile 

offenders were held in large facilities (more than 100 residents). small private facilities are the most 

common type of facility. Private facilities accounted for 53 percent of all facilities, and private facilities 

with 20 or fewer residents accounted for 66 percent of private facilities. Most of these were group homes. 

large facilities were most likely to be state operated. state-operated facilities made up less than onequarter of all facilities, but they accounted for more than half of facilities holding more than 200 residents. 

3,500 120,000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Total juveniles 

Total facilities 

Juveniles in

public facilities

Juveniles in

private facilities

Private facilities

Public facilities 

3,000 100,000 

2,500 

80,000 

2,000
 

60,000
 

1,500 

40,000
 

1,000
 

20,000 500 

0 0

Juvenile residential placement facilities

Juvenile offenders in residential placement 
CHAPTER 5 89 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

Deaths in Residential Placement 

OJJDP’s latest data indicate that deaths of 

juveniles in residential placement remain 

relatively rare. According to the 2008 JRfC, 

14 youth died while in custody at juvenile 

facilities. Accidents and suicides were the 

leading causes of death in 2008. There 

were 5 deaths from accidents (down from 

10 in 2006) and 6 deaths by suicide (up 

from 4 in 2006). There were two deaths 

from an illness/natural cause and one death 

from a homicide (by a nonresident outside 

the facility). The death rate in 2008 (1.7) 

was substantially lower than the rate in 2000 (2.8). As in previous years, death rates were generally 

higher in private facilities than in public facilities. 

Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Conditions of Confinement 

The survey of Youth in Residential Placement (sYRP) provides answers to a number of questions about 

the characteristics and experiences of youth in custody, including the conditions under which they are 

confined. sYRP’s findings are based on interviews with a nationally representative sample of 7,073 youth 

in custody during spring 2003, using audio computer-assisted self-interview methodology. 

• Most experts agree that housing young juvenile offenders with older youth should be avoided. 

separation of adults and juveniles in custody is also one of the core requirements of the Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. sYRP does not include juveniles who are held in adult 

prisons and jails, but the findings reveal a considerable age mix in juvenile facilities and 

substantial mixing of juveniles with young adults. 

• One-fifth of offenders in juvenile facilities were in living units with others who are 3 or more 

years older than they are. Moreover, 43 percent of juveniles in placement were housed in living 

units with young adults. such units with older offenders tend to have more serious offenders. 

Juveniles (younger than age 18) who are in units with young adults are more than twice as 

likely as juveniles not living in units with young adults (42 percent versus 20 percent) to be 

living with youth whose most serious career offense is murder. 

• Experts recommend housing females in female-only facilities. Thirty-six percent of youth in custody 

lived in facilities that housed both males and females, and 35 percent of programs were co-ed. 

However, co-ed placement in living units is uncommon (6 percent). Co-ed placement predominates 

in detention programs—86 percent of youth were in a co-ed program, and 17 percent were in a 

co-ed living unit. 

• sYRP shows that most youth (63 percent) lived in units where the majority of other residents are 

person offenders. nearly one-fifth of the less serious offenders (status offenders, technical parole 

violators, and youth who report no offense) were placed in living units with youth who have 

killed someone, and about one-fourth reside with felony sex offenders. 

Deaths per 10,000 juveniles held on the 

census date, October 22, 2008 

Type of facility Total 

Public 

facility 

Private 

facility 

Detention center 0.9 1.0 0.0 

Training school 2.0 2.1 0.0 

group home 2.6 0.0 4.0 

Residential treatment 

center 1.4 0.0 2.4 

Other 2.8 0.0 6.8 
90 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

•	 unlike serious career offenders for robbery or drug offenders, sex offenders are more typically 

separated. sYRP indicates that youth who were in custody for a current rape offense were in 

living units where the majority of residents have rape offense histories (55 percent on average), 

whereas youth who are in custody for current offenses other than rape were in units where only 

6 percent of residents (on average) were felony sex offenders. This type of clustering is dictated 

to a considerable extent by treatment programs geared toward specific types of offenders. in 

fact, nearly three-fourths (74 percent) of youth in custody for a current rape offense were in 

specialized living units for sex offenders. 

•	 sYRP surveyed juvenile offenders only, but administrative data on their facilities also indicate 

whether they were housed with nonoffenders; 12 percent of youth in residential placement 

resided in facilities that also housed nonoffenders. Ten percent participated in programs with 

nonoffenders, and 8 percent resided in primary living units with nonoffenders. 

•	 several questions focused on issues related to youth’s safety in their facilities, including whether 

they knew what to do in case of fire or how to get help if they were threatened, whether they 

had ever left their facility without permission, and whether they were afraid of being attacked 

while living there. 

• 	 Most youth in custody (78 percent) said they know what to do in case of fire in their facility. 

Only 5 percent reported having left their facility without permission. 

• 	 More than one-third of youth (38 percent) said they feared attack by someone, which 

includes 25 percent who feared attack by another resident, 22 percent who were afraid 

that a staff member would physically attack them, and only 15 percent who feared attack 

by someone coming into the facility from the outside. More females than males expressed a 

fear of attack from another resident and from someone outside the facility. 

• 	 ninety percent of youth reported that they knew how to find help if they were threatened 

or assaulted. More females than males said they feared being attacked (44 percent versus 

36 percent) 
APPENDIXES
 

93 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

APPENDIX A 

OJJDP Fiscal Year 

2010 Awards 

I

n fiscal year (FY) 2010, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

awarded more than $519 million in grants in support of its mission to prevent and respond 

to juvenile delinquency and child victimization. Of that total, OJJDP awarded $389 million 

in discretionary grants, which include statutory earmarks and Recovery Act funding. 

Formula and Block Grants 

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

agency designated by the Governor. Juvenile Justice Specialists in each state administer the 

funding through subgrants to units of local government, local private agencies, and American 

Indian/Alaska Native jurisdictions for programs in accordance with legislative requirements. In 

FY 2010, OJJDP awarded more than $130 million under the following formula and block grants 

programs: 

• Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Block Grants Program: $19,958,400. 

• Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program: $45,872,293. 

• Title II Formula Grants Program: $59,444,862. 

• Title V Community Prevention Grants Program: $4,332,246. 

Discretionary Grants 

OJJDP awards discretionary grants to states, units of local government, and private organizations to administer programs. More than $389 million in discretionary grants was awarded in 

FY 2010 under the following programs and through statutory earmarks: 
94 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

•	 AMBER Alert Training and Technical Assistance Program: $3,150,000. 

•	 Attorney General’s Children Exposed to Violence Demonstration Program— 

Phase I: $1,109,683. 

•	 Child Abuse Training for Judicial and Court Personnel Continuation: 

$2,473,966. 

•	 Child Protection Division Fellowship Program on Children’s Exposure to 

Violence: $125,000. 

•	 Child Protection Programs in Indian Country: $850,000. 

•	 Community-Based Violence Prevention Demonstration Program: $8,610,392. 

•	 Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) Purpose Area 8—Prevent 

and Control Delinquency and Improve the Juvenile Justice System (Tribal 

Youth Program): $9,442,436. 

•	 CTAS Purpose Area 9—Enhance Accountability for Delinquent Behavior 

(Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Program): $1,074,686. 

•	 CTAS Purpose Area 10—Develop New Demonstration Projects on Violence 

Prevention and Rehabilitation (Tribal Youth Program): $3,977,223. 

•	 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Membership and Accreditation 

Continuation: $10,960,908. 

•	 CASA Training and Technical Assistance Continuation: $3,882,890. 

•	 Demonstration Programs Division Grants: $12,037,051. 

•	 Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Assessment, Strategic Planning, and 

Implementation Initiative: $2,389,625. 

•	 Engaging Law Enforcement Through Training and Technical Assistance 

To Reduce Juvenile Crime, Victimization, and Delinquency: $749,992. 

•	 Evaluations of Girls’ Delinquency Programs: $1,032,156. 

•	 Family Drug Court Programs: $3,046,982. 

•	 Field Initiated Research and Evaluation Program: $1,412,136. 

•	 Group Mentoring Research and Evaluation Program: $1,972,955. 

•	 Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) National Training Program— 

Digital Evidence Forensics: $999,756. 
95 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

APPENDIX A

•	 ICAC National Training Program—Entry Level and Core Training: $1,500,000. 

•	 ICAC National Training Program—Judges Training: $350,000. 

•	 ICAC National Training Program—Officer Wellness: $345,917. 

•	 ICAC National Training Program—Prosecutor Training: $499,995. 

•	 ICAC National Training Program—Specialized Investigative Techniques: 

$1,836,390. 

•	 ICAC Program—Law Enforcement Strategies for Protecting Children From 

Commercial Sexual Exploitation: $1,199,999. 

•	 ICAC Program Support: $2,000,000. 

•	 ICAC Task Force Continuation Program: $17,445,553. 

•	 ICAC Task Force—Minnesota: $320,000. 

•	 Juvenile Drug Courts and Mentoring Initiative: $2,952,690. 

•	 Juvenile Drug Courts Program: $1,249,979. 

•	 Juvenile Drug Courts Training and Technical Assistance Program: $1,222,329. 

•	 Juvenile Indigent Defense National Clearinghouse: $500,000. 

•	 Juvenile Workforce Development Programs in El Paso, TX: $99,975. 

•	 Membership Support Services for Nonprofit Missing Children’s Organizations Continuation Program: $225,000. 

•	 Mentoring Research Best Practices: $2,716,108. 

•	 Mentoring for Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiatives: $2,974,465. 

•	 Missing and Exploited Children Program Support: $350,000. 

•	 Missing and Exploited Children National Training Program: $1,890,000. 

•	 Multi-State Mentoring Initiative: $18,000,000. 

•	 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children Program: $29,702,900. 

•	 National Evaluation of the Community-Based Violence Prevention Program: 

$1,074,992. 

•	 National Evaluation of Safe Start Promising Approaches: $765,216. 
96 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

•	 National Girls Institute: $500,000. 

•	 National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and 

Thrownaway Children 3: $1,000,000. 

•	 National Juvenile Justice Data Analysis Program: $800,000. 

•	 National Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center: $393,160. 

•	 National Mentoring Programs: $60,000,000. 

•	 National Survey on Children Exposed to Violence—New Cohort 

Continuation: $1,089,872. 

•	 National Training and Technical Assistance Center for Youth in Custody: 

$500,000. 

•	 Nonparticipating State Program—Wyoming: $570,000. 

•	 Research on Technology-Facilitated Crimes Against Children: $1,763,372. 

•	 Safe Start Promising Approaches Project: $2,497,162. 

•	 Second Chance Act Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration 

Projects: $7,955,996. 

•	 Second Chance Act Juvenile Mentoring Initiative: $5,018,909. 

•	 State Relations and Assistance Division State Advisory Group Training and 

Technical Assistance Project: $400,000. 

•	 Strategic Enhancement to Mentoring Programs: $5,605,312. 

•	 Support for Conferences on Juvenile Justice: $80,000. 

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

•	 Tribal Youth National Mentoring Program: $5,199,507. 

•	 Tribal Youth Program Training and Technical Assistance: $3,149,825. 

•	 Victims of Child Abuse (VOCA) Act Children’s Advocacy Centers Membership and Accreditation Continuation: $1,132,137. 

•	 VOCA Children’s Advocacy Centers Subgrant Continuation: $13,189,317. 

•	 VOCA Regional Children’s Advocacy Centers Program: $5,966,827. 
97 

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

APPENDIX A

•	 VOCA Training and Technical Assistance for Child Abuse Professionals 

Continuation: $954,547. 

•	 VOCA Training and Technical Assistance for Child Abuse Prosecutors 

Continuation: $1,864,696. 

•	 Youth Gang Prevention and Intervention Program: $2,986,884. 

•	 Youth With Sexual Behavior Problems Program: $1,450,000. 

Statutory Earmarks 

A list of statutory earmark award recipients is available on the OJJDP Web site, 

ojjdp.gov (click on “Funding”). 

Recovery Act Awards 

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, OJJDP awarded 

discretionary funding for the following initiative in FY 2010: 

•	 Recovery Act—Needs Assessment and Developmental Activities for the 

National Internet Crimes Against Children Data System (NIDS): $921,000. 

Award information for FYs 2007–2011 is available on the OJJDP Web site.

2010 ANNUAL REPORT

99 

APPENDIX B 

State Compliance With JJDP 

Act Core Requirements 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) Formula Grants program supports state and local efforts in planning, operating, and evaluating projects that seek to prevent at-risk youth from entering the juvenile justice system or intervene with 

first-time and nonserious offenders to provide services that maximize their chances of leading 

productive, successful lives. The program also provides funds to enhance the effectiveness of the 

juvenile justice system. 

To receive funding, states must commit to achieving and maintaining compliance with the four 

core requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as 

amended: deinstitutionalization of status offenders, separation of juveniles from adults in secure 

facilities, removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups, and reduction of disproportionate 

minority contact within the juvenile justice system. 

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

requirements in any year, OJJDP will reduce its formula grant for the subsequent fiscal year by 

20 percent for each requirement for which the state is noncompliant. The following table indicates (in green) the states that received reduced fiscal year (FY) 2010 funding for noncompliance 

with one or more of the JJDP Act’s core requirements.
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

 

100 

FY 2010 Funding Reductions for Noncompliance 

State1 

Deinstitutionalization 

of status offenders 

Separation of 

juveniles from 

adults in secure 

facilities 

Removal of 

juveniles from 

adult jails and 

lockups 

Reduction of 

disproportionate 

minority contact 

Alabama √ √ √ √ 

Alaska √ √ √ √ 

Arizona √ √ √ √ 

Arkansas X √ X √ 

California √ √ √ √ 

Colorado √ √ √ √ 

Connecticut √ √ √ √ 

Delaware √ √ X √ 

District of Columbia √ √ √ √ 

Florida √ √ √ √ 

Georgia √ √ √ √ 

Hawaii √ √ √ √ 

Idaho √ √ √ √ 

Illinois √ √ √ √ 

Indiana √ √ √ √ 

Iowa √ √ √ √ 

Kansas √ √ √ √ 

Kentucky √ √ √ √ 

Louisiana √ √ √ √ 

Maine √ √ √ √ 

Maryland √ √ √ √ 

Massachusetts √ √ √ √ 

Michigan √ √ √ √ 

Minnesota √ √ √ √ 

Mississippi X √ X √ 

Missouri √ √ √ √ 

Montana √ √ √ √ 

Nebraska √ √ √ √ 

Nevada √ √ √ √ 

New Hampshire √ √ √ √ 

New Jersey √ √ √ √ 

New Mexico √ √ √ √ 

New York √ √ √ √ 

North Carolina X X X √ 

North Dakota √ √ √ √ 

Ohio √ √ √ √ 
2010 ANNUAL REPORT

APPENDIX B 101 

State1 

Deinstitutionalization 

of status offenders 

Separation of 

juveniles from 

adults in secure 

facilities 

Removal of 

juveniles from 

adult jails and 

lockups 

Reduction of 

disproportionate 

minority contact 

Oklahoma √ √ √ √ 

Oregon √ √ √ √ 

Pennsylvania √ √ √ √ 

Rhode Island √ √ √ √ 

South Carolina √ √ X √ 

South Dakota √ √ √ √ 

Tennessee √ √ √ √ 

Texas √ √ √ √ 

Utah √ √ √ √ 

Vermont √ √ √ √ 

Virginia √ √ √ √ 

Washington X √ √ √ 

West Virginia √ √ √ √ 

Wisconsin √ √ √ √ 

Wyoming2 – – – – 

American Samoa √ √ √ √ 

Guam X X X √ 

Northern Mariana 

Islands X √ √ √ 

Puerto Rico3 √ X X – 

Virgin Islands X X X √ 

X = reduced FY 2010 funding for noncompliance; √ = full FY 2010 funding for compliance. 

1 The term “state” means any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. 


territories.
 

2 Wyoming does not participate in the Formula Grants program.
 

3 The U.S. Census Bureau has exempted Puerto Rico from reporting racial statistics. 


2010 ANNUAL REPORT

103 

APPENDIX C 

OJJDP Organization 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Administrator 

Senior Advisor to Counselor to the

the Administrator Administrator

Principal Deputy Administrator 

Deputy Administrator Deputy Administrator 

for Policy for Programs 

Office of Policy Child Protection Demonstration State Relations 

Development Division Programs Division and Assistance

 Division 

Budget and Communications 

Planning Division Unit 

Office of the Administrator 

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

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

agencies and associations that share OJJDP’s commitment to preventing and combating juvenile 

delinquency and addressing the problem of missing and exploited children. 
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

104 

Office of Policy Development 

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

coordinating national policy on juvenile justice. OPD advises the Administrator 

on policy and legal issues and how OJJDP can best accomplish its mission. OPD 

also provides leadership and direction for OJJDP’s research and training and 

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

Communications Unit 

The Communications Unit (CU) is responsible for OJJDP’s information dissemination and outreach. CU develops OJJDP publications, manages its Web site and 

online services, and performs a range of writing and editing functions to support the Office. CU also serves as a liaison to the Office of Justice Programs on 

media-related issues. 

Budget and Planning Division 

The Budget and Planning Division handles OJJDP’s budget and planning operations and manages the Office’s research and training and technical assistance 

functions. The division also oversees all administrative and personnel matters. 

Child Protection Division 

The Child Protection Division (CPD) develops and administers programs related 

to crimes against children and children’s exposure to violence. It provides leadership and funding in the areas of enforcement, intervention, and prevention. 

CPD’s activities include supporting programs that promote effective policies 

and procedures to respond to the problems of missing and exploited children, 

Internet crimes against children, abused and neglected children, and children 

exposed to domestic or community violence. 

Demonstration Programs Division 

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

and replicate tested approaches to delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in areas such as mentoring, substance abuse, gangs, truancy, chronic juvenile 

offending, and community-based sanctions. DPD also supports and coordinates 

efforts with tribal governments to expand and improve tribal juvenile justice 

systems and develop programs and policies that address problems facing tribal 

youth. 
2010 ANNUAL REPORT

APPENDIX C 105 

State Relations and Assistance Division 

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

and local governments achieve the system improvement goals of the Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended; combat underage 

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

to identify and respond to critical juvenile justice and delinquency prevention 

needs. 


PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

DOJ/OJJDP 

PERmIT NO. G–91 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs ice of Justice Programs OJJDP Report 

Office of Jice of J ice of Juvenile Juvenile J uvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention vention *NCJ~237051*

Washington, DC ashington, DC 20531 

Official Business icial Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 ate Use $300