U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies

how delinquency develops and the best methods

for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and

analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice

system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides juvenile justice training and technical assistance to Federal, State, and local governments; law

enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel;

and private agencies, educational institutions, and

community organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to replicate tested approaches to 

delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in

such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders,

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

justice system.

State Relations and Assistance Division supports

collaborative efforts by States to carry out the

mandates of the JJDP Act by providing formula

grant funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to States, local governments, and private

agencies; and monitoring State compliance with

the JJDP Act.

Information Dissemination Unit produces an

utes information resources on juvenile justice 

training, and programs and coordinates the Of

gram planning and competitive award activities

tion that meets the needs of juvenile justice pro

and policymakers is provided through print an

publications, videotapes, CD–ROM’s, electronic 

and the Office’s Web site. As part of the progr

ning and award process, IDU develops prioriti

publishes solicitations and application kits for 

opportunities, and facilitates the peer review p

for discretionary funding awards.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program p

interagency cooperation and coordination amo

eral agencies with responsibilities in the area o

nile justice. The Program primarily carries out 

responsibility through the Coordinating Counc

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

pendent body within the executive branch that 

established by Congress through the JJDP Act

Child Protection Division administers program

to crimes against children and children’s expos

violence. The Division provides leadership and 

to promote effective policies and procedures to 

the problems of missing and exploited children

who have been abused or neglected, and childr

exposed to domestic or community violence. C

gram activities include conducting research; pr

information, training, and technical assistance 

grams to prevent and respond to child victims, 

es, and their families; developing and demonst

effective child protection initiatives; and suppo

National Center for Missing and Exploited Chi

y, yg g

seven components within OJJDP, described below.

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

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

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

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

vide treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of individual juveniles and their families.
Comprehensive Responses to

Youth At Risk: Interim Findings From the

SafeFutures Initiative

Summary

November 2000

Elaine Morley

Shelli B. Rossman

Mary Kopczynski

Janeen Buck

Caterina Gouvis

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This document was prepared under grant number 95–JN–FX–K012 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent

the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its

trustees, or its funders.

Cover photo: Copyright 1999 PhotoDisc, Inc.
iii

Foreword

The prevention and control of juvenile delinquency and violence lie at the heart

of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s)

SafeFutures initiative. The initiative joins what we have learned from research

about risk and protective factors with what we now know from experience

about promising approaches to preventing and controlling delinquency, resulting in a continuum of care that responds to the needs of youth at critical stages

in their development. As such, it embodies the principles of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

This Summary describes the lessons learned over the initial 3 years of the

initiative’s implementation in pilot sites in Boston, MA; Contra Costa County,

CA; Fort Belknap Indian Community, MT; Imperial County, CA; Seattle, WA;

and St. Louis, MO. The services that each site provides vary considerably, making the Summary a valuable information resource for professionals working in

urban, rural, and tribal settings.

I am proud of the accomplishments of the SafeFutures initiative and hope that

the experiences of these sites will help us improve our efforts to prevent and

control juvenile delinquency and victimization.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
v

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions and assistance of the

SafeFutures directors and staff associated with SafeFutures initiatives at the six

demonstration sites, without whose assistance this Summary would not have

been possible. The sites are Boston, MA; Contra Costa County, CA; Fort

Belknap Indian Community, MT; Imperial County, CA; Seattle, WA; and St.

Louis, MO. We are also indebted to the many other individuals at each site who

graciously participated in our interviews and provided information about their

communities and their SafeFutures efforts.

We also wish to thank our Urban Institute colleagues E. Blaine Liner, Center

Director of the State Policy Center, and Adele Harrell, Director of the Law and

Behavior Program, for their advice and support.
vii

Table of Contents

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

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................ v

Executive Summary..................................................................................... ix

The SafeFutures Initiative ............................................................................ ix

Lessons Learned............................................................................................ x

Introduction................................................................................................... 1

The SafeFutures Initiative ......................................................................... 2

Goals of the Demonstration Programs ............................................................ 2

Theoretical Foundation ................................................................................... 3

Risk-Focused Prevention ................................................................................ 3

Graduated Sanctions for Youthful Offenders ................................................. 5

The Program Model ........................................................................................ 8

Overview of SafeFutures Communities .......................................................... 9

SafeFutures Local Administration ................................................................ 13

Afterschool Programs (Pathways to Success) ................................ 16

Juvenile Mentoring Programs ............................................................... 20

Family Strengthening and Support Services................................... 27

Mental Health Services for At-Risk and Adjudicated Youth ..... 32

Delinquency Prevention Programs ..................................................... 36

Comprehensive Communitywide Approaches to Gang-Free

Schools and Communities .................................................................... 39

Community-Based Day Treatment Programs—Bethesda

Day Treatment Center Model ................................................................ 45

Continuum-of-Care Services for At-Risk

and Delinquent Girls ................................................................................ 47

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offender Programs .... 49

Lessons Learned ......................................................................................... 54

Funded Demonstration Programs .................................................................. 55

Community-Based Collaboratives ................................................................ 57

Service Provision .......................................................................................... 60

Endnotes ........................................................................................................ 65

References ..................................................................................................... 67
ix

Executive Summary

The SafeFutures Program To Reduce Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Violence

(SafeFutures) is a 5-year demonstration initiative supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). SafeFutures seeks to prevent and control youth

crime and victimization through the creation of a continuum of care in communities. This continuum of care enables communities to respond to the needs of

youth at critical stages in their development by providing them with appropriate

prevention, intervention, and treatment services and imposing graduated sanctions. SafeFutures community-based program operations and evaluation activities began in late spring/summer 1996. Six local government grantees—Boston,

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

County, CA; Seattle, WA; and St. Louis, MO—were selected to represent urban, rural, and American Indian communities that demonstrated some prior experience with and a continuing commitment to reducing crime and victimization

through comprehensive community assessments, strategic planning, and interagency collaboration.

In response to OJJDP’s interest in determining the success of site-specific efforts, each community commissioned a local evaluation, and OJJDP funded a

national cross-site evaluation performed by The Urban Institute (Rossman,

Kopczynski, and Morley, 1999; Rossman et al., 1998). This Summary draws on

information obtained through multiple visits to each SafeFutures community

during the first 3 years of the initiative, followup discussions with selected participants to clarify specific aspects of program implementation, and analyses of

secondary documents.

The SafeFutures Initiative

The SafeFutures initiative is the result of a concerted Federal effort to link research findings about risk and protective factors for youth with state-of-the-art

knowledge about promising approaches to preventing and controlling juvenile

delinquency. The initiative embraces many of the most important innovations

being suggested by practitioners and researchers (see, for example, Connell,

Aber, and Walker, 1995). SafeFutures seeks to help participating communities

expand collaborative efforts directed at reducing juvenile delinquency and violence. The initiative calls for the creation of a continuum of care, that is, a

multidisciplinary system capable of timely, effective, and appropriate responses

to individual or family needs for prevention, intervention, treatment, or corrections services.
x

To a large extent, the SafeFutures initiative is a manifestation of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993), which combines research findings about the etiology

and development of delinquency with principles articulated by Hawkins and

Catalano in 1992 on the concept of risk and protective factors. In a sense,

SafeFutures makes the Comprehensive Strategy operational by pooling Federal

and local funds from nine broad program areas, referred to as program components, to support the demonstration communities’ development or enhancement

of their continuum of services for youth and to contribute to meeting the overall

goals of the initiative. The nine components that constitute SafeFutures are

(1) afterschool programs (Pathways to Success), (2) juvenile mentoring programs (JUMP), (3) family strengthening and support services, (4) mental health

services for at-risk and adjudicated youth, (5) delinquency prevention programs,

(6) comprehensive communitywide approaches to gang-free schools and communities, (7) community-based day treatment programs—Bethesda Day Treatment Center model, (8) continuum-of-care services for at-risk and delinquent

girls, and (9) serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offender (SVCJO) programs

(with an emphasis on enhancing graduated sanctions).

SafeFutures encourages community collaboratives to tailor prevention, intervention, treatment, and graduated sanctions strategies to local needs and capacities. As a result of the local autonomy and flexibility built into the initiative, the

services provided by the six sites under the nine specific components vary considerably. Variation also results from different levels of emphasis on particular

components and from differences in service configuration. In addition, the

SafeFutures initiatives are evolving. Like other comprehensive community

initiatives, these efforts involve a high degree of complexity, from building or

expanding effective collaborations to developing and fine-tuning services to fill

gaps and multidisciplinary delivery mechanisms. Service configurations, partnerships, and other aspects of systems reform are emerging over time, as local

leaders and program managers identify new opportunities and/or successfully

resolve existing difficulties.

Lessons Learned

A variety of lessons can be learned from the early implementation of the

SafeFutures initiative. Some lessons are common to any complex demonstration, others are less frequently encountered and may result from SafeFutures’

emphasis on collaboration and the implementation of programs to address the

nine components. This Summary groups key lessons learned into three categories reflecting three primary audiences: those responsible for creating or managing funded demonstration projects; those involved in community-based

collaboratives; and those responsible for providing services to youth at high risk

of delinquency, violence, and victimization and their families. Because it is not

always easy to classify a given point and because points may overlap, some

findings probably apply to more than one category.
xi

Funded Demonstration Programs

■ To implement complex, multifaceted initiatives, funders and demonstration

sites should adopt an iterative and flexible approach to program development and implementation. Such flexibility, however, has limits for both

sides involved in a demonstration program. Funders’ flexibility may be

somewhat constrained by legislative restrictions regarding the use of funds

or mandated program elements. The demonstration sites’ flexibility to

modify program components is often constrained by the funders’ need to

ensure program fidelity in replicating a particular model.

■ Communities need access to ongoing training and technical assistance to ensure effective implementation of highly structured or particularly complex

components and to adapt generic models to the local context. For example, in

addition to providing sites with built-in resources for basic SafeFutures technical assistance, OJJDP encouraged sites to obtain additional technical assistance on mentoring through its National Mentoring Center. Funders also may

need to encourage communities to access available technical assistance, as

in years 3 and 4 of the SafeFutures demonstration when OJJDP strongly encouraged sites to use training and technical assistance to fully implement the

Spergel Model for the gang-free schools and communities component. Further, funders must expand the range of technical assistance resources as necessary. The development of the Systems Improvement Training and Technical

Assistance Program (SITTAP) exemplifies OJJDP’s recognition of the need

to provide more focused training and technical assistance on the systems

change objectives of SafeFutures.

■ Small service providers generally need more and different types of technical

assistance and training than large, well-established organizations. Small

community-based organizations are often less familiar with aspects of

program implementation such as accountability, recordkeeping, reporting,

program evaluation, and other common requirements for demonstration

programs.

■ Demonstration sites need flexibility to exercise cultural sensitivity and competence in program implementation. Although several programs in each

SafeFutures community were specifically tailored to the cultural context of

a targeted population, staff and service providers encountered difficulties

adapting some components, such as mentoring, to ensure their relevance to

the cultural context.

■ Communities and program staff appear reluctant to impose eligibility criteria in a way that will ensure that they serve youth at highest risk or in greatest need. Many staff seem to regard all youth residing in target areas as being at risk and fail to see a need to identify those at greater risk.

■ Replication of programs that were successful in other communities (or under

different circumstances within the local community) does not guarantee similarly positive results in a new setting. It may be difficult for demonstration
xii

sites to isolate and duplicate the features of a program that are specifically

responsible for the program’s success.

■ Program sustainability should be addressed well in advance of anticipated

termination of Federal (or other external) support.

Community-Based Collaboratives

■ The process of systems reform can be seen as a continuum with gradations

and permutations. Bringing together actors from different institutional contexts who logically need to interact with one another but have not previously done so can be viewed as an early indication that systems reform is

under way.

■ Communities need a considerable amount of time, effort, and trust to develop viable collaborations, which are complex mechanisms. Collaborations

involve organizations with different institutional climates and varying levels

of autonomy, flexibility, and power; individuals with differing levels of experience and expertise; and diverse cultural contexts that give rise to different ways of defining issues and solutions. Collaborative relationships need

to be nurtured and maintained over time. This is not easy to do and requires

considerable time and effort.

■ To be successful, collaborations need individuals in positions of authority to

exert their leadership to secure resources and support.

■ In collaborative ventures, the differing perspectives of staff from different

systems need to be recognized and respected if partnerships are to succeed.

To work as a team, partners should “learn each other’s language” and develop an understanding of the values and norms of their respective fields.

Cross-training also helps promote teamwork.

■ Turnover among elected officials and administrators of key partner agencies

can have a negative impact on collaborative efforts.

■ Implementation of services and activities in multiple components can take

longer than either the local communities or the funders originally anticipate.

The use of subcontracts or other agreements with agencies that are already

operating similar programs (e.g., afterschool or mentoring programs) can

facilitate relatively early implementation of programming. The downside of

such agreements, however, may be the continuation of “business as usual,”

rather than the careful consideration of whether reforms are necessary. In

cases where staff have to be hired and new programs established, services

to youth can be delayed by startup activities.

■ By introducing a variety of accountability mechanisms over the course of

the initiative, communities can help ensure that multiple service providers

fulfill their obligations.
xiii

■ Programs operating in partnership with other agencies can be discontinued

for reasons unrelated to the initiative—even when the program is considered

successful.

Service Provision

■ Communities are willing and able to implement programming that is innovative in the local area. For most communities, however, implementing innovative programming has both beneficial and detrimental effects. Most

new approaches offer the opportunity to fill a previously unmet need or gap

in service but provide no formulaic approach to success for communities to

follow. In most cases, service providers experience learning curves and

have to find creative ways to redress unanticipated difficulties, many of

which are logistical.

■ Staff turnover in leadership and other key positions can seriously hinder

program implementation and stability. Turnover affects program continuity

and disrupts institutional memory. Staff may need to reestablish linkages

and, in some cases, restart programs that lapsed during periods of staff

change.

■ Filling positions—especially positions involving specialized skills—can be

a problem, particularly in rural areas that have a limited professional

workforce.

■ Recruiting mentors and other volunteers is particularly challenging in lowincome areas. Transportation and poverty issues affect programs’ ability to

attract and fully utilize volunteers. Recruiting mentors is also more challenging for programs that serve youth already involved in the juvenile

justice system or youth who may be perceived as high risk by potential

mentors.

■ “Hidden” resource requirements can pose challenges to program implementation. Several programs encountered unanticipated costs associated

with transportation and food—both of which are important elements of

many programs that serve a low-income population.

■ Communities may have difficulty getting families of at-risk youth to support services for their children or to participate in family-focused services.

A number of factors contribute to this difficulty: parents may feel intimidated by the institutional settings or staff; parents may fear that participation

might reveal their dysfunctional behaviors; and parents may face logistical

challenges, including limited access to transportation.

■ Programs need to be developmentally appropriate—in terms of both substance and setting. Programs seem to experience more difficulty attracting

and retaining older teens than middle or elementary school-age children.

■ It is more difficult—and takes longer—to see results of program efforts on

youth who are beyond the at-risk stage, such as those already deeply involved in the juvenile justice system, gangs, or substance abuse. Prevention
xiv

programs often are able to see changes in participants’ behavior and attitude

in the short run. Intervention programs may see little or no real change after

considerable lengths of time. The lack of measurable program outcomes in

such cases makes it difficult for administrators and funders to determine

whether intervention programs are working and should continue receiving

support or whether modifications or alternative programs are needed.
1

Introduction

The SafeFutures Program To Reduce Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Violence

(SafeFutures) is a 5-year demonstration initiative supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). SafeFutures seeks to prevent and control youth

crime and victimization through the creation of a continuum of care in communities. This continuum of care enables communities to respond to the needs of

youth at critical stages in their development by providing them with appropriate

prevention, intervention, and treatment services and imposing graduated sanctions on juvenile offenders. SafeFutures community-based program operations

and evaluation activities began in late spring/summer 1996.1

 Six local government grantees—Boston, MA; Contra Costa County, CA; Fort Belknap Indian

Community, MT; Imperial County, CA; Seattle, WA; and St. Louis, MO—were

selected to represent urban, rural, and American Indian communities that demonstrated some prior experience with and a continuing commitment to reducing

crime and victimization through comprehensive community assessments, strategic planning, and interagency collaboration.

In response to OJJDP’s interest in determining the success of site-specific efforts, each community commissioned a local evaluation, and OJJDP funded a

national cross-site evaluation performed by The Urban Institute. (For a more

detailed discussion of the national evaluation, see Rossman, Kopczynski, and

Morley, 1999, and Rossman et al., 1998.)

This Summary is one in a series of reports based on data collected for the crosssite evaluation. It is based on information obtained through multiple visits by

evaluators from The Urban Institute to each SafeFutures community during the

first 3 years of the initiative, followup discussions with selected participants to

clarify specific aspects of program implementation, and analyses of secondary

documents.2

 Future reports will address selected aspects of the initiative, including specific components of the SafeFutures model (such as gang intervention

efforts) and key elements of the service delivery system (such as systems reform and strategic planning).

This Summary focuses on the sites’ implementation of SafeFutures during the

first 3 years of the initiative. The first major section describes the SafeFutures

initiative, its goals, and its theoretical foundation. The first section also includes

an overview of the demonstration sites and a discussion of each site’s management structure for SafeFutures. Subsequent major sections discuss each of the

nine SafeFutures components. Each of these sections provides a brief description of the component and selected examples of local programs addressing that

component. The examples were chosen to illustrate the variety of programs

implemented and are not intended to serve as an exhaustive inventory of

SafeFutures programming. Rather, examples reflect programming that appears

promising, includes innovative features, or highlights such broad themes as interagency collaboration, systems reform, cultural competency, and/or advocacy.

S afeFutures seeks to

prevent and control

youth crime and

victimization through

the creation of a

continuum of care in

communities.
2

To illustrate the potential pitfalls facing initiatives such as SafeFutures, the

Summary includes some examples of programs that were discontinued or that

encountered particular difficulties. The final section identifies lessons learned

during SafeFutures’ first 3 years. It is important to acknowledge that sites are

continuing to build on community strengths and respond to the challenges noted

in this Summary. A full account of the sites’ continued progress and challenges

will be documented in the final evaluation report.

The SafeFutures Initiative

The SafeFutures initiative is the result of a concerted Federal effort to link research findings about risk and protective factors for youth with state-of-the-art

knowledge about promising approaches to preventing and controlling juvenile

delinquency. The initiative embraces many of the most important innovations

being suggested by practitioners and researchers (see, for example, Connell,

Aber, and Walker, 1995). A central feature of SafeFutures is its emphasis on

using comprehensive community strategies to combat the segmentation and

fragmentation of social, health, educational, and juvenile justice services that

often result in missed opportunities to help at-risk youth and their families before problems escalate to monumental proportions (Morrill and Gerry, 1990;

Burt, Resnick, and Matheson, 1992). Comprehensive community initiatives are

intended to bring about systems reform; they provide public and private entities

with both the opportunity and the challenge to implement more effective policies and practices (e.g., pooling resources, sharing information). SafeFutures

encourages community collaboratives to tailor prevention, intervention, treatment, and graduated sanctions strategies to local needs and capacities.

Goals of the Demonstration Programs

OJJDP has articulated the following goals for the local demonstrations (Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995, 1997):

■ Prevention and control of juvenile violence and delinquency through

(1) reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors for delinquency,

(2) providing a continuum of services for youth at risk of delinquency and

for juvenile offenders, and (3) developing a full range of graduated sanctions designed to hold delinquent youth accountable to their victim(s) and

community, ensure community safety, and provide appropriate treatment

and rehabilitation services.

■ Implementation of enhanced service delivery systems for at-risk youth

and their families. As envisioned by OJJDP, the service delivery system

should constitute a multidisciplinary system of care that offers comprehensive, developmentally appropriate, and coordinated child and family services oriented to promoting healthy youth development and reducing delinquency and victimization. Implicit in this vision is the expectation that each

Comprehensive

community initiatives

are intended to bring

about systems reform.
3

community should be capable of responding in an efficient, effective, and

timely fashion to individual and family needs at any point of entry into the

continuum of care.

■ Institutionalization of each community’s capacity to sustain its continuum of care by engaging the support of key leaders in government and

community-based organizations, implementing strategic planning, and expanding and diversifying funding sources.

■ Incorporation of accountability mechanisms that determine the success

of SafeFutures’ implementation and the outcomes achieved, including

whether a comprehensive strategy involving community-based efforts and

program resources concentrated on providing a continuum of care has succeeded in preventing and reducing juvenile violence and delinquency.

Theoretical Foundation

The SafeFutures initiative is largely a manifestation of OJJDP’s Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson and

Howell, 1993), which combines research findings about the etiology and development of delinquency with principles articulated by Hawkins and Catalano in

1992 on the concept of risk and protective factors. The Comprehensive Strategy

focuses on two distinct populations of juveniles: (1) youth who are at high risk

of future delinquent behavior and (2) youthful offenders who have already exhibited delinquent behavior and are at risk of, or already are, engaging in serious, violent, or chronic law breaking.

At its heart, the Comprehensive Strategy suggests an integrated model for community action that marries two components: (1) a range of prevention/intervention activities and (2) enhanced juvenile justice system responses in the form of

graduated sanctions and a continuum of treatment alternatives such as restitution, community service, and aftercare (Howell, 1995). This approach takes into

account the following hypotheses:

■ Family life profoundly affects criminality (McCord, 1991a, 1991b).

■ There are varying paths to delinquency (Huizinga, Esbensen, and Weiher,

1991).

■ Reciprocal, not unidirectional, relationships exist between delinquency,

school, and family/community bonds (Thornberry et al., 1991).

■ The initiation, continuance, and desistance of delinquency have different

patterns, causes, and correlates (Elliott, 1994; Smith and Brame, 1994).

Risk-Focused Prevention

Research has repeatedly identified risk factors associated with adolescent problem behaviors, such as failure to complete high school, teen pregnancy and

T he SafeFutures

initiative is largely a

manifestation of OJJDP’s

Comprehensive Strategy

for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile

Offenders.
4

parenting, and law breaking (Tolan and Guerra, 1994; Reiss and Roth, 1993;

Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992; Dryfoos, 1990). The approach popularized by Hawkins and Catalano (Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.,

1993) identifies a number of critical risk and protective factors in various domains. Ostensibly, the more risk factors to which a child is exposed, the greater

the chance of the child’s developing delinquent behavior and the greater the

likelihood that the child’s law-breaking behavior will become serious. However,

delinquency can be delayed or prevented by reducing risk factors and enhancing

protective factors such as positive social orientation, prosocial bonding, and

clear and positive standards of behavior (Howell, 1995). Communities can

Key Principles of OJJDP’s

Comprehensive Strategy

The following are the six key principles of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders:

■ Strengthen families in their role of guiding, disciplining, and instilling

sound values in their children.

■ Support core social institutions and their role in supporting families

and helping children develop their maximum potential.

■ Promote delinquency prevention strategies and activities that reduce

the impact of negative (risk) factors and enhance the influence of

positive (protective) factors in the lives of youth at greatest risk of

delinquency.

■ Provide immediate, effective, and appropriate interventions at the first

signs of trouble in a child’s life.

■ Establish a system of graduated sanctions and a continuum of services

to respond appropriately to the needs of each juvenile offender.

■ Identify and control the small group of serious, violent, and chronic

juvenile offenders who account for the majority of juvenile crime by

providing their incapacitation while at the same time addressing their

treatment needs.

Under OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy, families and communities, supported by core social institutions, have primary responsibility for meeting

the basic socializing needs of the Nation’s children. By identifying risk

factors, communities are able to develop approaches that can reduce juvenile delinquency.

Delinquency can be

delayed or prevented by

reducing risk factors and

enhancing protective

factors.
5

improve chances for youth to lead healthy, productive, crime-free lives by

reducing economic and social privation and mitigating individual risk factors

(e.g., poor family functioning, academic failure), while promoting youth’s abilities to (1) bond with peers, family members, and mentors, (2) be productive in

school, sports, and work, and (3) successfully navigate the various rules and socially accepted routines required in a variety of settings (Hawkins and Catalano,

1992; Connell, Aber, and Walker, 1995). Implicit in this perspective is the recognition that prevention programming must address risk factors at the appropriate developmental stage and as early as possible.

The Communities That Care model (Developmental Research and Programs,

Inc., 1993) presents a “blueprint for action” that is consistent with risk-focused

prevention. The model suggests that communities undertake comprehensive

strategic planning to utilize existing resources and programs and to develop a

coordinated response tailored to local needs. The recommended process involves a planning phase that includes assessment of the community’s resources,

activities designed to mobilize the community, strategic planning to identify local priorities for strengthening existing resources/services, and development of

evaluation mechanisms to monitor the success of community-based efforts. The

initial planning phase also entails formation of a community prevention board,

composed of key leaders, as a permanent institution to facilitate long-term continuity. The implementation phase includes ongoing risk and resource assessments and program evaluations to tailor the risk prevention and protective components of community-based programs to the changing needs of the local

environment (Howell, 1995).

Graduated Sanctions for Youthful Offenders

The conceptualization of a communitywide system of graduated sanctions is intended to achieve balanced and restorative justice—accountability, public safety,

and competency development—based on the assumption that a well-designed

system of treatment and punishment options can offer more than “bad choices between sending kids to jail or sending them to the beach” (Bazemore and Day,

1996, p. 3). Wilson and Howell (1993, in Howell, 1995) describe the potential to

combine fair, humane, and appropriate sanctions with treatment and rehabilitation

in a continuum of care composed of diverse programs that include:

■ Immediate sanctions for first-time, nonviolent offenders.

■ Intermediate sanctions in the community for more serious offenses.

■ Secure care (residential) programs reserved for the relatively small fraction of juvenile offenders who commit serious or violent crimes.

Implicit in this model is the view that most juvenile offenders can be rehabilitated using community-based programs and services, rather than more resourceintensive and restrictive institutional facilities. The graduated sanctions approach permits the justice system to respond more effectively to a juvenile’s

I mplicit in this

model is the view that

most juvenile offenders

can be rehabilitated

using community-based

programs and services,

rather than more

resource-intensive and

restrictive institutional

facilities.
6

criminal behavior through increased monitoring, identification, and evaluation

of this behavior and by improving the juvenile justice system’s responsiveness,

effectiveness, accountability, and responsibility. The approach is consistent with

research on juvenile offenders that has demonstrated that community-based

sanctions can reduce recidivism at lower cost to the community and with greater

effect than incarceration (Howell, 1995).

Ideally, graduated sanctions should be structured as a continuum through which

law-breaking youth move based on a risk-focused classification structure that

guides juvenile placement decisions. For each level of offense (roughly classified as minor, serious, or violent), a set of programs would be designated as the

appropriate option to meet the needs of the offender and the community. For

Communities That Care Model: Risk and

Protective Factors

Community

Risk Factors

■ Availability of drugs.

■ Availability of firearms.

■ Community laws/norms favorable to drug use, firearms,

and crime.

■ Media portrayals of violence.

■ Transitions and mobility.

■ Low neighborhood attachment.

■ Community disorganization.

■ Extreme economic deprivation.

Protective Factors

■ Clear and consistent standards for prosocial behavior that are

widely and frequently communicated.

Family

Risk Factors

■ Family history of problem behavior.

■ Family management problems.

■ Family conflict.

■ Favorable parental attitudes toward and involvement in the

problem behavior.

Protective Factors

■ Healthy beliefs.

■ Clear and consistent standards for prosocial behavior. continued

T he approach is

consistent with research

on juvenile offenders

that has demonstrated

that community-based

sanctions can reduce

recidivism at lower cost

to the community and

with greater effect than

incarceration.
7

example, mentoring, restitution with an employability skills and job placement

component, or teen court might be options for immediate sanctions in a particular community setting, while boot camp or some form of residential confinement might be designated as options for secure care. Placement decisions would

weigh the severity of each juvenile’s history of offenses and the presence of risk

factors that indicate a potential threat to the community. The assessment process

also would entail the development of customized treatment plans tailored to

meet the individual needs of each juvenile offender. This type of assessment

might result in assigning a juvenile with a high risk level who committed a less

serious offense to the same intermediate sanctioning program as a violent offender with a low risk level (Howell, 1995).

Thus far, no community is known to have implemented a fully operational

graduated sanctions system. However, a study by Krisberg et al. (1995) demonstrated that 14 States using risk-focused classification systems had been effective in making consistently appropriate offender placements. Recidivism rates

in the study were shown to be more a function of risk level than offense severity. The study also found that States using this model had demonstrated consistent cost savings by reducing the use of secure-care residential placements.

However, the use of different types of risk assessment instruments resulted in

School

Risk Factors

■ Early and persistent antisocial behavior.

■ Academic failure beginning in elementary school.

■ Lack of commitment to school.

Individual

Risk Factors

■ Alienation and rebelliousness.

■ Friends who engage in a problem behavior.

■ Favorable attitudes toward the problem behavior.

■ Early initiation of the problem behavior.

■ Constitutional factors.

Protective Factors

■ Prosocial bonding with family members, adults outside the

family, and low-risk peers.

■ Opportunities for meaningful involvement in positive activities.

■ Skill-building activities.

■ Rewards for positive contributions.

Source: Adapted from Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., Communities That Care: RiskFocused Prevention Using the Social Development Strategy—An Approach to Reducing Adolescent

Problem Behavior, Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., 1993.

F ourteen States

using risk-focused

classification systems

had been effective in

making consistently

appropriate offender

placements.
8

very different numbers of offenders recommended for placement at each risk

level (Krisberg et al., 1995).

The Program Model

SafeFutures seeks to help participating communities to expand collaborative

efforts directed at reducing juvenile delinquency and violence. A major assumption underlying the program is that communities can accomplish such objectives

by improving their delivery systems for youth and family services. The model

calls for the creation of a continuum of care that is a multidisciplinary system

capable of timely, effective, and appropriate responses to individual or family

needs for prevention, intervention, treatment, or corrections services. Key elements envisioned by program planners include the following:

■ A range of services appropriate to diverse client needs, from prenatal stages

through adulthood.

■ Collaborations across institutional domains (e.g., collaborations involving

human services, juvenile justice, and educational systems).

■ Public-private partnerships to mobilize the community and to leverage the

resources needed to institutionalize the continuum of care.

In a sense, SafeFutures implements the Comprehensive Strategy by pooling Federal and local funds from nine broad program areas, referred to as program components, to support the demonstration communities’ development or enhancement

of their continuum of services for youth and to contribute to meeting the overall

goals of the initiative. Implementation of activities or services to meet the objectives of the categoric components is one of the key responsibilities of the local

initiatives, in addition to developing or enhancing the collaborative and organizational framework for the initiative and introducing or continuing systems reform

efforts.

The nine components that constitute SafeFutures are (1) afterschool programs (Pathways to Success), (2) juvenile mentoring programs (JUMP), (3) family strengthening and support services, (4) mental health services for at-risk and adjudicated

youth, (5) delinquency prevention programs, (6) comprehensive communitywide

approaches to gang-free schools and communities, (7) community-based day treatment programs—Bethesda Day Treatment Center model, (8) continuum-of-care

services for at-risk and delinquent girls, and (9) serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offender (SVCJO) programs (with an emphasis on enhancing graduated

sanctions).3

 The table on page 10 summarizes key elements of each component.

Under SafeFutures, sites have the flexibility to implement programs and blend

funds across categories, enabling them to address local needs and manage resources. For example, both Contra Costa County and Seattle blended funding

for the JUMP and at-risk and delinquent girls components to engineer

mentoring activities targeted to females. Similarly, the Boys & Girls Club

S ites have the

flexibility to implement

programs and blend

funds across categories,

enabling them to

address local needs and

manage resources.
9

in Boston was funded to provide mentoring, afterschool, and delinquency

prevention (court diversion) services during the second year of the initiative,

although only prevention activities were continued the following year.

As a result of the local autonomy and flexibility built into the initiative, the services provided under specific components vary considerably in the six sites.

Variation among the sites also is due to their having emphasized different components. The sites’ ability to make services available also varied across sites.

The demonstration sites received their awards at slightly different times, and

different lengths of time were needed both within and across jurisdictions to

reach the point of actually serving youth under the various components. Across

the six communities, some components are provided by agencies that were fully

operational and already providing the same, or similar, services anticipated for

SafeFutures clients. By contrast, service delivery under other components could

not begin until staff were hired and other startup activities completed. Implementation efforts were hindered in some cases by unexpected challenges or barriers.

SafeFutures initiatives are evolving. Like other comprehensive community initiatives, SafeFutures efforts involve a high degree of complexity, from building or expanding effective collaborations through developing and fine-tuning services and

multidisciplinary delivery mechanisms. Service configurations, partnerships, and

other aspects of systems reform are emerging over time, as local leaders and program managers identify new opportunities or successfully resolve existing difficulties. During the first 3 years of the demonstration, some communities experienced

turnover in providers for one or more services—which, in effect, required them to

start from scratch with a new provider. Change in some areas also occurred in response to increasingly specific guidance from OJJDP (and more focused training

and technical assistance, usually directly or indirectly provided by OJJDP) that identified program expectations, recommended procedures, and anticipated activities.

Overview of SafeFutures Communities

Of the six SafeFutures sites, three are multijurisdictional or large scale in their

geographical scope: Contra Costa County, Fort Belknap, and Imperial County.

The remaining demonstrations target relatively circumscribed neighborhoods.4

Although not required to do so, virtually all of the initiatives have focused their

efforts on minority youth and families, which is likely to underscore the importance of developing culturally appropriate responses to critical youth needs or

risk factors. The following is a brief description of the SafeFutures communities

and their target areas.5

Boston, MA. Boston SafeFutures targets an area consisting of three neighborhoods—Grove Hall, Franklin Hill/Franklin Field, and Mattapan—

known as the Blue Hill Avenue Corridor. The Corridor has approximately

56,000 residents, 31 percent of whom are younger than 18 years of age.

The neighborhoods are historically linked into one community through

transit, housing, and commerce. The Corridor typifies inner-city decline:

S ervice

configurations,

partnerships, and other

aspects of systems

reform are emerging

over time, as local

leaders and program

managers identify new

opportunities or

successfully resolve

existing difficulties.
10

SafeFutures Initiative: Program Components

Component Funding* Key Elements

Enhancing Protective Factors: Providing Opportunities and Role Models

Afterschool Programs $40,000 Provide afterschool, weekend, and

(Pathways to Success) summer programs: ■ Vocational/Entrepreneurial.

■ Recreational.

■ Arts education.

Target at-risk youth (ages 6–18) and

their families.

Conduct all activities outside of the

schoolday.

Provide activities with lasting community

impact (e.g., beautification projects).

Juvenile Mentoring $200,000 Support one-on-one mentoring

Programs (JUMP) program.

Involve local education agency and

access to school records.

Target youth at risk of educational

failure, dropping out of school, or

delinquency.

Recruit and assign mentors age 21 and

older.

Design activities that should: ■ Improve school performance.

■ Reduce delinquency and gang

participation.

■ Promote personal and social

responsibility.

■ Encourage service and community

activities.

Family Strengthening $200,000 Promote healthy child development and

and Support Services positive family interaction and support

families in crisis: ■ Resource guide.

■ Gap-filling family service programs

in priority areas.

■ Intensive family case management

system and services integration.

Mental Health Services $150,000 Develop a task force to promote comfor At-Risk and munity involvement in mental health

Adjudicated Youth issues.

Support activities to improve accessibility,

quality, and efficiency of mental health

services: ■ Mobile mental health services.

■ Consultation services for juvenile

justice staff.

■ Forensic case management.

■ Training to improve clinical services.

■ Involvement of families in

individual service plans.

continued
11

Component Funding* Key Elements

Preventing Delinquency and Promoting Gang-Free Environment

Delinquency Prevention $200,000 Implement programs such as:

Programs ■ Tutoring and remedial education.

■ Employability skills training.

■ Health and mental health services.

■ Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse

(AODA) prevention services.

■ Leadership development.

■ Recreational services.

Comprehensive $400,000 Follow the OJJDP model:

Communitywide ■ Community mobilization.

Approaches to ■ Opportunities provision.

Gang-Free Schools ■ Social intervention.

and Communities ■ Suppression.

■ Organizational change and

development.

■ Eleven key agencies included.

■ Gang-involved youth targeted.

■ $100,000 may be used for gang

prevention.

Bethesda Day Treatment $30,000 Provide intensive outpatient, communityCenter Services based treatment centers for pre- and

postadjudicated youth with five areas of

service: ■ Day treatment.

■ Prep school.

■ AODA services.

■ Foster care.

■ Family systems counseling.

High-Risk Youth, Juvenile Offenders, and Enhanced Juvenile Justice System

Continuum-of-Care $120,000 Implement a comprehensive continuum

Services for At-Risk of services specifically for girls:

and Delinquent Girls ■ Case management and followup.

■ Basic education.

■ Life management.

■ Personal growth.

■ Health and counseling.

■ Parenting.

■ Childcare services for teen parents.

■ Interaction with positive role

models.

■ Family involvement.

Serious, Violent, and $100,000 Plan and implement graduated sanctions

Chronic Juvenile Offender for delinquent offenders:

(SVCJO) Programs ■ Immediate.

■ Intermediate.

■ Secure confinement and aftercare.

■ Family involvement and aftercare.

Note: Required elements in bold typeface.

*Funding amounts are the maximum available to each site from OJJDP.
12

vacant lots and boarded-up buildings abound, and few residents use parks

and open areas. It contains three large public housing developments and a

number of “granites,” scattered apartment buildings managed by the State

housing finance agency through private for-profit companies. The Corridor is characterized by high rates of unemployment and poverty: 26 percent of the population in the target area fall below the poverty level. Almost 87 percent of the area’s residents are African American (including

Caribbean American), and the remaining population is 9.2 percent Latino,

2.8 percent Caucasian, and 1.3 percent other non-Hispanics. The past 20

years have seen an influx of Caribbean Americans to the Corridor, and

service providers cite a large gap in culturally specific services available

to meet the needs of this population.

Contra Costa County, CA. Contra Costa County is located on the northeastern shore of the San Francisco Bay. The SafeFutures demonstration

focuses its efforts on two levels. Most of the prevention and gang intervention activities are concentrated in several neighborhoods in Richmond

(located in the western section of the county), known as the Iron Triangle

area, where approximately 73 percent of the population is African American, 11 percent is Caucasian, 10 percent is Latino, 6 percent is Asian/

Pacific Islander, and 2 percent is Native American. Graduated sanctions

and aftercare case management programs are countywide in scope and target seriously emotionally disturbed juvenile offenders, female offenders,

and juveniles returning to the community from the Orrin Allen Youth

Rehabilitation Facility.

Fort Belknap, MT. Fort Belknap Indian Reservation is one of two

SafeFutures sites in rural settings and the only site in an American Indian

setting. The reservation, located in the north central part of Montana, is

isolated from major service areas. The closest big cities, Great Falls and

Billings, are each 2–3 hours’ driving distance from Fort Belknap. The

nearest towns are quite small, severely limiting the availability of social

services. Fort Belknap has a tribal enrollment of 5,232 individuals from

two different tribes; approximately 3,800 individuals reside on or adjacent

to the reservation. The reservation includes four distinct communities that

are isolated from each other by distance and cultural differences associated

with different tribes. Approximately 45 percent of the reservation’s residents live in poverty, and unemployment is high (68 to 72 percent). Alcoholism is reported to be a major problem. The primary population targeted

for the SafeFutures demonstration is the nearly 1,370 Gros Ventre and

Assiniboine youth (ages 6 to 18 and roughly 51 percent male) living on or

adjacent to the reservation.

Imperial County, CA. Imperial County, located in the southeastern corner of California near the Mexican border, is another multijurisdictional

demonstration and the other rural SafeFutures community. The county

comprises roughly 4,300 square miles, contains approximately 100,000

F ort Belknap Indian

Reservation is one of two

SafeFutures sites in rural

settings and the only site

in an American Indian

setting.
13

people, and includes the largest percentage of Latinos of any county in the

State. Approximately 31 percent of Imperial County’s youth live in poverty, and 24 percent of county residents have incomes that are at or below

the poverty level. The targeted area for SafeFutures services includes the

county’s north end communities of Brawley, Calipatria, Niland, and

Westmoreland. These communities are isolated from other services by distance and topography (i.e., mountains and desert) and have few activities

or supportive programs for youth. Most services are located in the county

seat, El Centro, which is approximately 30–60 minutes’ driving distance

from the north end.

Seattle, WA. Seattle’s initial target area included four distinct low-income

neighborhoods: the Central Area, International District, Delridge, and Southeast Seattle communities. Poverty and unemployment rates are triple the

citywide average in these areas, which contain all of the city’s low-income

public housing. These areas have experienced some of the highest crime rates

in the city and are focal points for gang-related violence. The population in

these four areas is racially and ethnically diverse, and many of the residents

are recent immigrants or are “linguistically isolated.” Seattle has modified its

focus to target at-risk populations citywide, specifically Asian/Pacific Islander

youth (especially individuals of Vietnamese and Cambodian origin), at-risk

and delinquent girls, gang-affiliated youth, and youth already in the juvenile

justice system.

St. Louis, MO. St. Louis SafeFutures chose three neighborhood areas known

for high levels of socioeconomic risk, juvenile crime, gang participation, and

drug activity. The selected neighborhoods had community-based resources to

support the planned initiative, including three schools refashioned as Community Education Centers (CEC’s) jointly established by the City of St. Louis

and the St. Louis public schools. The schools redesigned as CEC’s are Carver

and Sherman (elementary schools) and Williams (middle school). The service

area has approximately 58,000 residents; in the Carver and Williams CEC

catchment areas, African Americans account for 91 percent and 99 percent of

the population, respectively, while 47 percent of the population in the

Sherman CEC area is African American. Virtually half of the children in these

neighborhoods are living in poverty, and nearly one-quarter of 16- to 19-yearolds in the neighborhoods are high school dropouts.

SafeFutures Local Administration

Although the six SafeFutures sites vary in the number and types of participating

entities, most tend to have a core organizational structure composed of an administering entity (fiscal agent or grantee), a policy advisory group responsible

for providing oversight and direction to the initiative, and a management team

responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the grant.

The independent missions of the entities charged with administrative responsiA lthough the six

SafeFutures sites vary in

the number and types of

participating entities,

most tend to have a core

organizational structure.
14

bility for the SafeFutures grant vary substantially; some have broad, flexible

mandates, while others operate within more limited confines. SafeFutures grants

are administered by the following entities:

■ Boston, MA: The Office of Community Partnerships, a department in

Boston’s Human Services Cabinet.

■ Contra Costa County, CA: The County Administrator’s Office.

■ Fort Belknap, MT: Fort Belknap Community College, a tribally operated

college.

■ Imperial County, CA: The County Office of Education.

■ Seattle, WA: The Department of Human Services,6

 a city agency.

■ St. Louis, MO: The Mayor’s Office of Youth Development.

In all sites, the project director is a staff member of the lead administrative entity responsible for the grant. However, the scope of the project directors’ responsibilities varies across sites. In some sites, day-to-day management responsibility for the initiative is either shared with or has been assigned to a project

coordinator. In these instances, the project director retains overall administrative

responsibility. This type of arrangement exists in Boston, Fort Belknap, and

St. Louis (although in the first, the “coordinator” position has the title of

“project director”).

Fort Belknap, Imperial County, and Seattle differ from the others in that some service delivery staff are directly employed by the SafeFutures initiative and report

to the individual who has direct management responsibilities at those sites (such

as the project coordinator and project director). In effect, these sites have hired

direct service delivery staff in addition to relying on local partnerships or instead

of contracting for services delivered by independent providers. In Fort Belknap,

direct service delivery staff were hired primarily because of the relative lack

of existing service delivery agencies that could provide SafeFutures services.

In Seattle, SafeFutures initially hired staff for the SafeFutures Youth Center

as employees of the Department of Human Services (the agency administering

SafeFutures) because it believed that the facility would become operational more

expeditiously than it would have if subcontracting were used.

The concept of a SafeFutures management team was introduced by OJJDP and

adopted to varying degrees by the sites. The team generally includes the project

director or project coordinator and two or three supporting positions. St. Louis is

the only site that includes local evaluators as part of its management team, although the local evaluators in Boston began attending management team meetings

during year 2. In some sites (such as Contra Costa County and Imperial County),

representatives of key partner agencies are part of the management team. In addition to the management team, several sites periodically convene representatives of

partner agencies in various forums. St. Louis is one such site.

T he concept of a

SafeFutures management

team was introduced by

OJJDP and adopted to

varying degrees by the

sites.
15

St. Louis, MO. St. Louis began holding monthly meetings of partner

agencies in the first year of program implementation to focus on broad issues related to the initiative. Separate monthly meetings of Caring Adults

(staff in partner agencies responsible for overseeing case management of

SafeFutures youth) were added later to share information related to cases

and discuss general issues related to services (e.g., gaps, available resources, new programs).

The second organizational unit involved in SafeFutures administration and

implementation is a local policy advisory board. The responsibilities of policy

boards range from general oversight and coordination to strategic planning to

achieve systems change. Although each site’s organizational structure includes

a policy board, or functional equivalent, individual sites exhibit considerable

variation in models for involving key leaders and community representatives in

the policy role. Characteristics of policy boards vary by composition, size,

breadth, and scope of advisory responsibility and by whether responsibilities are

overlapping or shared with other local policymaking bodies. (A detailed discussion of policy boards is provided in Rossman et al., 1998.)

In addition to management teams and policy boards, several sites have convened a variety of task forces to strategize and support the implementation of

activities that transcend individual agency boundaries. Imperial County is one

of the sites that has used this approach.

Imperial County, CA. The Imperial County Interagency Steering Committee formed a workgroup focused on budget issues and fiscal strategies.

Leaders of county departments serving youth (such as the Office of Education, Mental Health, Probation, and Social Services) work together to set

funding priorities, share resources, blend funds, and plan for sustainable

financing. For example, the group decided to blend funds from Social Services and Probation to support probation officers working in school and

community locations. The group is working with a systems improvement

technical assistance consultant to develop long-range fiscal strategies.

The following sections briefly describe each of the program components and

highlight selected research that suggests such efforts can foster desired results.7

Given the large number of programs implemented under these components

across sites and the changes in those programs during the first 3 years of the initiative, it would be unwieldy to provide a complete listing of SafeFutures programming. Instead, brief descriptions of the type and range of programs implemented under each component are provided, along with selected examples from

various sites. Due to the fluid nature of local efforts, these examples provide

“snapshots” of programs in place at a particular time and may not accurately

describe subsequent configurations.

Some programs provide services associated with multiple components, and

there is no clear-cut way to classify these multifocused programs when using

I ndividual sites

exhibit considerable

variation in models for

involving key leaders

and community

representatives in the

policy role.
16

them as examples. Whenever possible, examples have been placed under the

component to which they appear most closely linked.

Afterschool Programs

(Pathways to Success)

Pathways to Success is the SafeFutures afterschool program component that

targets at-risk youth. It is designed to address behavioral problems and reduce

the likelihood of juvenile delinquency by engaging youth in a variety of

age-appropriate programs focused on vocational training, entrepreneurship, recreation, and arts education. Afterschool programs provide youth a safe place to

spend free time and the opportunity to socialize with peers and adults. Programs

are intended to provide lasting skills for youth and benefits for the community

(e.g., through beautification programs involving youth volunteers). Activities

are expected to occur during nonschool hours—after school, on weekends, or

during the summer. A maximum of $40,000 per year in funding for this component is provided to each SafeFutures site under Title II, Part C of the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended.

A number of sources have cited the need for youth activities in positive, structured environments. An increase in the number of women working has led to

greater numbers of unsupervised children before and after school (Lipsitz,

1984). A 1987 Harris poll of 1,000 teachers identified isolation and lack of supervision after school as a key source of adolescents’ difficulties in school.

Also, adolescents are most likely to commit or be the victims of a crime during

the afterschool hours between 2:30 and 8:30 p.m. (Chaiken, 1997).

OJJDP has supported afterschool programming based on research demonstrating that the positive effects of participation in such programs for at-risk juveniles may be wide ranging.8

 For example, Fleisher and colleagues (1995) found

significant academic and behavioral improvement for at-risk boys and girls enrolled in an afterschool judo program. A number of studies of Boys & Girls

Club programs (including those coordinated with other programs) cite positive

outcomes such as improved school performance and substantially reduced contact with the juvenile justice system, as reflected by lower rates of drug use and

vandalism or reduced delinquency in areas where delinquency for comparison

groups rose (Brown and Dodson, 1959; National Crime Prevention Council,

1985; Schinke, Orlandi, and Cole, 1992). Similarly, Jones and Offord (1989, in

Howell, 1995), in a study conducted in a Canadian Public Housing Project,

found that an intensive, long-term recreation program led to a 75-percent reduction in juvenile arrests for the experimental group, while the control group had a

67-percent increase in arrests. Finally, Wynn and colleagues (1988) found that

participation in extracurricular activities as juveniles leads to participation in

voluntary and political organizations as adults.

P athways to Success

is the SafeFutures

afterschool program

component that targets

at-risk youth.
17

Most afterschool programs implemented under SafeFutures included two or

more activities, most commonly recreation and tutoring/homework assistance,

and included both structured activities and free time during which youth could

choose from various options. Recreational activities and media commonly included organized sports, free play, books, videos, games (ranging from board

games to interactive games), and arts and crafts. Academic services generally

focused on homework assistance, although some programs provided more structured tutoring activities. The number and type of activities available on a given

day often varied. For example, the Imperial County Boys & Girls Club provided

a 6-week series of half-hour computer training sessions, offered on a signup basis, in addition to daily homework assistance. Seattle’s Sister to Sister program

provided weekly hands-on science and math activities and daily homework

assistance.

Informal behavioral and/or values instruction was commonly built into

afterschool programming, as were efforts to promote the development of juveniles’ self-esteem. Teamwork, respect for others, drug and alcohol avoidance,

and other prosocial objectives were often emphasized in conjunction with juveniles’ participation in sports. Some sites stipulated behavioral expectations in

their criteria for participation. In Fort Belknap, for example, these rules for participation were stated on the permission form signed by the youth and parent:

respect others; do not use bad language; tell the truth; use people’s correct

names (to avoid gang-related monikers); avoid fighting or hitting; and do not

carry weapons, spit, or litter. In Contra Costa County, students had to maintain

average or above-average grades, stay current with homework assignments, and

avoid disciplinary problems to continue participation. Thus, the programs

served as incentives for positive academic and social behavior.

Afterschool programs are flexible and enable program coordinators to take advantage of various opportunities in their communities, such as accessing speakers on various topics, including conflict resolution, substance abuse, health,

pregnancy avoidance, and other prevention education topics. Such presentations

might be made on a one-time basis or as a series for a few weeks or months. In

addition, most afterschool programs include periodic special events, such as

field trips or outings, overnight trips, or holiday parties. Some, such as the programs in Fort Belknap and Imperial County, included occasional or ongoing

community service activities, such as participating in community cleanup

events or helping elderly residents with household chores. In various sites, such

as Contra Costa County, flexibility across multiple afterschool programs is intended to enable coordinators of different programs to address the particular

needs or interests of youth in their programs or to take advantage of unique opportunities in their settings.

Contra Costa County, CA. In Contra Costa County, resource specialists

assigned to the three elementary, one middle, and two high schools receiving SafeFutures services are expected to develop afterschool (or duringschool) programs to address needs or issues in those schools, such as

T eamwork, respect

for others, drug and

alcohol avoidance,

and other prosocial

objectives were often

emphasized in

conjunction with

juveniles’ participation

in sports.
18

truancy, violence on school campuses, and low academic performance. As

a result, programming varies considerably across schools. One elementary

school developed a Lions Club group to provide tutoring, group discussion/

support, and recreation to fourth- and fifth-grade girls, while another combined African dance and tutoring in an afterschool program. The resource specialist at one high school initiated a group to facilitate communication among

youth involved with different gangs. The group meets before school to prepare

breakfast and discuss school and other experiences during the meal.

Afterschool programs generally are available from the afternoon through early

evening, 3 to 5 days per week during the school year. Most operate on a drop-in

basis, and daily attendance is not required. Half of the sites—Fort Belknap, Imperial County, and St. Louis—had year-round programs (although their summer

activities may have varied from those provided during the school year, and

some were of limited duration). In some cases, the agency or facility in which

the SafeFutures afterschool program is located (e.g., the Boys & Girls Club in

Boston) offers programs not associated with SafeFutures during the summer

months. Such programs would be available to SafeFutures youth, however.

Considerable variation exists across sites in the agencies responsible for providing afterschool services. Variation is, in part, related to differences in the way

service delivery is structured in the six sites. Half of the sites—Contra Costa

County, Fort Belknap, and St. Louis—initially provided these services through

what can be considered SafeFutures staff stationed in multiple locations in the

target area (six schools in Contra Costa, three schools in St. Louis, and three

recreation/community centers in Fort Belknap). St. Louis changed its structure

for afterschool programs in year 3, as noted in the example below. In the other

sites, services were provided primarily through subcontracts or other agreements with agencies that already operated afterschool programs (such as the

Boys & Girls Clubs in Imperial County and Boston, and Girls, Inc., in Seattle)

to which SafeFutures youth were added.

Following are two diverse examples of afterschool programming.

Fort Belknap, MT. In addition to recreational activities and homework

assistance, Fort Belknap’s afterschool programs emphasize cultural education activities taught by cultural consultants (often tribal elders). One of

the three community center sites was particularly successful in establishing such a program during year 1, when 5 consultants taught a variety of

Northern Plains American Indian dances to more than 80 youth in the

Hays center. A dance troupe of these youth was formed and began making

presentations throughout the State. A variety of cultural activities, such as

dance, regalia making, beadwork, and drum groups, were established in

other centers during year 2, although none lasted as long as the initial

troupe. In addition to the arts aspect, these cultural activities impart values

such as respect for elders and traditions and promote a drug- and alcoholfree lifestyle. Cultural activities also were selected as a focus to engage

Considerable

variation exists across

sites in the agencies

responsible for

providing afterschool

services.
19

adults and to ensure that tribal traditions do not die out. Parents/caregivers

helped their children make the dance costumes/regalia, and many attended

dance practices and performances. Staff used these opportunities to meet

informally with parents to discuss their child’s needs and progress and to

encourage the adults to become involved with other SafeFutures activities.

Partly because of the considerable turnover of coordinators at the community centers and in central SafeFutures administration, cultural programming has not been offered consistently across the community centers and

has not generally been as successful in attracting and retaining youth as

the original dance troupe.

In the third year of the initiative, one of the afterschool centers introduced

a “Native Strut” program that included career and entrepreneurial concepts

to promote self-confidence. The program centered on developing modeling and related skills: youth mounted and videotaped fashion shows featuring their own designs. Both males and females have participated, although activities initially targeted girls. Through the program, youth had

the opportunity to develop skills in photography, sound engineering, cosmetology and hair styling, designing and sewing traditional clothing, and

basic business.

St. Louis, MO. St. Louis initially provided afterschool programming

through two sources. The three CEC’s in which SafeFutures had a presence traditionally operated a variety of afterschool programs. SafeFutures

funds enabled them to expand their offerings to some degree (e.g., by hiring instructors or purchasing equipment).

An existing afterschool program, Project Respond Educational Pilot Program (PREPP), operated by Project Respond, also received SafeFutures

support. PREPP provided informal recreational activities, homework assistance, and structured programming. Structured activities varied over

time and included a program, provided by staff of Girls, Inc., that focused

on nutrition, food preparation, and hygiene. A key feature of PREPP was

its counseling/therapeutic approach. Staff members with backgrounds in

social work and sociology provided informal counseling, anger management training, and conflict resolution skills training on a one-on-one or

group basis. Staff also made considerable effort to contact families and

develop trust, for example, by making home visits and informally counseling parents.

The St. Louis management team and partner agencies regarded PREPP as

a successful model, in part because it attracted and retained particularly

high-risk youth or those already involved in gangs. As a result, in year 3,

SafeFutures redirected some of its funds to develop a second therapeutic

afterschool program modeled on PREPP. The new program replaced initial SafeFutures activities at one of the CEC’s, and two staff who had provided CEC-based counseling were selected to develop the new program.

S taff used these

opportunities to meet

informally with parents

to discuss their child’s

needs and progress and

to encourage the adults

to become involved with

other SafeFutures

activities.
20

Ironically, as the PREPP model was being replicated at the CEC and contemplated for other locations, Project Respond closed the original PREPP

program.

Although most sites did not include all of the activities that OJJDP had identified as falling under the afterschool component, such activities as community

service projects with a lasting community impact, vocational training, and entrepreneurship frequently were addressed either as short-term activities in the

afterschool programs or under other components. In addition, most sites used

their afterschool programming to address SafeFutures goals extending beyond

those identified for this component. Many sites introduced or reinforced information, skills, and behavior related to issues such as substance abuse prevention, anger management, violence prevention, gang avoidance, health,

pregnancy/parenting, and HIV/AIDS/STD’s through discussion groups, workshops on specific topics, or presentations by guest speakers.

Juvenile Mentoring Programs

At-risk youth and youthful offenders often have limited contact with prosocial

adult role models. Research shows that it is uncommon for these youth to have

a significant relationship with even one unrelated adult (Steinberg, 1990). In

recognition of such needs for positive adult role models, OJJDP initiated its Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). Developed using the Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) of America approach as its model, JUMP is designed to foster an

emotional bond and mutual commitment between a child and an adult mentor

(Hamilton, 1990).

JUMP is intended to match adult mentors (age 21 or older) who have successfully undergone a screening process with youth at risk of educational failure,

dropping out, or involvement in delinquent activities. This program, which is to

be provided in partnership with local education agencies (such as school districts), seeks to improve academic performance, reduce the dropout rate,

discourage delinquent behavior and gang participation, promote personal and

social responsibility, and encourage service and community activities. A maximum of $200,000 per year in funding for this component is provided to each

SafeFutures site under Title II, Part G, of the JJDP Act of 1974, as amended.

Although recent research suggests that mentoring programs can be very effective in increasing protective factors for juveniles, there has been relatively little

scientific evaluation of these initiatives to date. A recent Public/Private Ventures quasi-experimental evaluation found that BBBS mentoring participants

self-reported that they were less likely than nonmentored youth (who were on a

waiting list for a mentor) to engage in antisocial activities (initiating drug and

alcohol use, hitting peers) and had improved academic performance (grades,

competence, truancy), family relationships (trust, lying, index of parental relationship quality), and peer relationships (Tierney, Grossman, and Resch, 1995).

Developed using the

Big Brothers Big Sisters

of America approach as

its model, JUMP is

designed to foster an

emotional bond and

mutual commitment

between a child and an

adult mentor.
21

Key aspects of the BBBS mentoring that are believed to contribute to the positive results include (1) a high level of contact between mentors and participating

youth (averaging 12 in-person hours per month and possible additional telephone contact); (2) a perspective that identifies the mentor as a friend, not a

“teacher or preacher”; (3) thorough volunteer screening to ensure highly committed adults as mentors; (4) mentor training focused on communication, limit

setting, relationship building, and ways to effectively interact with youth;

(5) procedures that respect the preferences of youth and their families and possibly use a professional case manager to arrange matches between volunteers and

youth; and (6) intensive supervision and support of each match by a case manager who maintains frequent contact with all parties and can resolve difficulties

as they arise (Grossman and Garry, 1997).

Most SafeFutures sites implemented more than one mentoring program. Some

sites targeted mentoring to specific groups, such as at-risk girls or youth involved in the juvenile justice system. In some cases, mentoring also was

funded under other SafeFutures components in addition to being supported

by JUMP funds. With the exception of Fort Belknap, which uses SafeFutures

program staff to administer its mentoring program, the demonstration sites

originally implemented mentoring services by subcontracting with other local

agencies. Three sites (Imperial County, Seattle, and St. Louis) used local affiliates of BBBS to provide some or all of their mentoring. (Imperial County

later assigned oversight of the mentoring component to County Office of Education staff.) Boston, Contra Costa County, and Fort Belknap initiated new

mentoring programs, and encountered startup issues that led to a variety of

difficulties and delays.

Mentoring programs involve numerous details, including:

■ Recruiting, screening (to ensure the safety of mentees), and retaining suitable adult volunteers.

■ Training volunteers to meet program objectives and to handle difficult situations (e.g., youth or family problem behavior).

■ Promoting the program to service providers, schools, parents, and others

who can refer targeted youth to the program.

Benefits of Mentoring

■ Mentors provide the guidance and support of positive role models in

the context of one-on-one relationships.

■ Mentoring has been recognized as an effective way to use volunteers to

address poverty issues (Freedman, 1992) and thereby increase

community involvement in collaborative efforts.

Most SafeFutures

sites implemented more

than one mentoring

program.
22

■ Communicating program expectations and guidelines to parents and youth.

■ Matching youth and adults and resolving unsatisfactory matches.

■ Establishing routines for accountability and monitoring the success of mentor relationships.

Most new mentoring programs developed their own structures and procedures,

including recruiting, orientation, and training programs for mentors. Many programs conducted periodic refresher trainings for mentors or held regular meetings

at which mentors could discuss their experiences, receive advice, and participate

in an informal support group. Boston sought to alleviate startup problems among

its subcontractors—often small neighborhood-based organizations—by contracting with Greater Boston One to One (the local affiliate of a national organization

that promotes mentoring) to train subcontractor staff to manage mentoring programs. This assistance, however, was not used as extensively as anticipated for a

variety of reasons, including concerns about the flexibility or relevance of One to

One’s model across different communities and ethnic groups.

Because of the requirements of the JUMP funding, one-on-one mentoring is

the primary focus of SafeFutures mentoring. Most mentoring programs provide

guidelines or requirements for “minimum” frequency and, sometimes, length of

meetings between mentors and mentees—most commonly requiring weekly or

biweekly meetings for 1 to 2 hours. Many programs encourage telephone contact in addition to in-person meetings. Activities are generally determined by

the mentoring pair and typically include homework assistance, sports or recreation activities, going out for a snack or meal, participating in cultural events

(e.g., going to a museum or concert), or just spending time together.

Few mentoring programs provide services beyond mentoring. One exception is

the St. Louis mentoring program.

St. Louis, MO. The BBBS mentoring program in St. Louis provides a

range of assistance to youth and families through its Community Connections program. Parents are asked to fill out a form identifying needs in a

variety of basic areas (such as clothing, school supplies, toiletries, food,

cleaning supplies, and furniture). Volunteers in the BBBS auxiliary division identify resources to fill these needs, make referrals, and are available

to assist the family in negotiating the social service system, if needed (although families are also encouraged to act self-sufficiently to address their

own needs).

Some programs supplemented one-on-one mentoring with group activities for

youth or for youth and mentors. In some cases, particularly in programs operated by BBBS affiliates, group activities are primarily for youth who have not

yet been matched with a mentor or youth whose mentors are still undergoing

screening or training. Other mentor programs include periodic group activities

for mentors and youth, such as community service events, field trips (including

trips to attend sporting or theatrical events), recreational outings, and special

Most new mentoring

programs developed

their own structures and

procedures, including

recruiting, orientation,

and training programs

for mentors.
23

events, including those focused on cultural enrichment and understanding (such

as Black History Month or Cinco de Mayo events) or holiday observation.

Group activities were used as a forum for providing academic assistance in

some programs, including those in Boston and Contra Costa.

Boston, MA. In the Mattapan-Dorchester Churches in Action (MDCA)

mentoring program in Boston, youth met twice a week for 2 hours with

program coordinators and volunteers for assistance with homework. Meetings were followed by a snack and group discussion. Some mentors attended these sessions and had their one-on-one meetings afterward, but

group sessions were not intended to be directly linked to mentor meetings.

Contra Costa County, CA. The Mirror Images Nurturing Directions

(M.I.N.D.) program for elementary school girls in Contra Costa initiated a

monthly book club to help girls’ reading and writing skills; mentors were

not required to attend club meetings but could use them as one of their

twice-monthly one-on-one contacts. The book club was discontinued after

it became clear that the girls were uncomfortable reading aloud in front of

the group because of their limited reading skills. Staff arranged to send

girls to an existing tutoring program to improve their academic skills, and

program administration is contemplating reintroduction of the book club.

Two sites—Contra Costa and Seattle—implemented mentoring programs for

youth in or transitioning out of the juvenile justice system in addition to programs targeting other at-risk youth. Boston recently contracted with a provider

to initiate mentoring services for youth returning to the community from Department of Youth Services (DYS) placement. Such programs can be viewed as

systems reform efforts, in that they seek to address the community-based aftercare needs of youth transitioning out of juvenile detention facilities and, in some

cases, link portions of the juvenile justice system with other entities in the community. The Contra Costa and Seattle programs are described below.

Contra Costa County, CA. Contra Costa’s Volunteers in Probation (VIP)

program (funded under the serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offender

programs component) was initiated as a systems reform effort for the Probation Department. The department was viewed as an isolated agency that

would benefit from outside involvement. Probation hired a coordinator

(funded through SafeFutures) to recruit and train volunteers, who were initially to perform two roles. One role was to serve as mentors to youth on

probation, providing individualized attention that probation officers cannot

generally offer. The mentors also relieve probation officers (who have

large caseloads) of some routine functions such as following up on appointments, making phone calls, monitoring youth, helping youth get into

specified programs, and assisting with transportation. Approximately half

of the volunteers serve as one-on-one mentors. Alternatively, volunteers

may be assigned to assist a specific probation officer with office work.

Later, two additional forms of volunteer activity were added: helping

T wo sites

implemented mentoring

programs for youth in or

transitioning out of the

juvenile justice system.
24

youth produce a Juvenile Hall (detention facility) newsletter and providing

Internet mentoring (to youth in residential facilities). The program also

sponsors group activities for youth and mentors, such as whale watching,

hiking, and ferry rides. The VIP program is viewed as successful in “opening up” the probation department and serving youth, and it is taking steps

to attain status as a nonprofit organization to enable it to continue after

SafeFutures funds terminate.

Contra Costa County, CA. The Step Up and Lead mentoring program in

Contra Costa focuses on 12- to 18-year-old girls who are on probation.

This program was originally intended to serve girls transitioning out of

detention. This focus, however, turned out to be impractical because many

girls leaving the Hall are sent to group homes, which are often located outside of the county (target area), making the girls ineligible for SafeFutures

services. In addition, most group homes in the county do not allow visits

by mentors. To address these issues, the program’s focus was changed to

girls on probation in the county. Step Up and Lead is housed in a nonprofit

agency that addresses foster care, but the mentoring program has its own

director and assistant director, both of whom function somewhat as case

managers for the girls. In addition to one-on-one mentoring, this program

also holds periodic group activities for girls and mentors.

Seattle, WA. Seattle’s Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA)

mentoring program’s target population is serious offenders sentenced under the Washington State Code, who are about to be released from correctional institutions. JRA is the State juvenile system that oversees youth detained for more than 30 days and provides juvenile parole services for

those returning to the community from State facilities. JRA received

SafeFutures funding to initiate and operate a program that matches JRA

youth with mentors. One-on-one meetings (at least once a month) between

JRA youth and their mentors begin 6 to 8 months prior to a youth’s release. Mentors serve as a stable presence in the youth’s lives, facilitating

their transition to the community (e.g., by helping link them to housing

and employment resources or helping them navigate reentry into the

school system). Another key feature of the program is the intensive training and technical assistance support provided to the volunteer mentors.

This program gained State recognition and was funded for replication in

other parts of Washington.

Across sites, a wide variety of mentor recruiting mechanisms were used, including personal contact, newspaper or radio advertising, and presentations to corporations or other groups (e.g., churches or professional organizations). Different programs found that different methods worked for them; no one approach

seemed to be successful across all sites.

Most sites encountered challenges in recruiting mentors, both in newly established mentoring programs and in existing programs. In the latter, the increase

Across sites, a wide

variety of mentor

recruiting mechanisms

were used.
25

in the number of youth to be served through SafeFutures created a need for

more mentors than could be recruited in a relatively short time period, resulting

in delays before one-on-one mentoring could start. Most programs sought to

avoid potential concerns about cultural incompatibility by matching youth and

Enhancing Mentor Recruitment in St. Louis

To address recruiting difficulties, St. Louis Big Brothers Big Sisters

(BBBS) introduced two mentoring programs structured unlike the traditional BBBS model.

■ The “teammates” program allows two mentors to share mentoring

of the same child. Each mentor meets with the youth a minimum of

once per month, and a monthly group activity involves one or both of

the mentors. Thus, the youth has at least three mentor contacts per

month (two of which are one-on-one).

■ “Sports buddies” is modeled after a BBBS program initiated on the

west coast. Affinity for sports is used to attract male volunteers interested in going to sporting events or otherwise sharing their interest in

sports with youth. This program requires a 6-month commitment from

the mentor (instead of the usual 12 months) and involves a one-on-one

mentoring activity once a month, in addition to a monthly group

activity.

Program staff expect that once volunteers begin mentoring under these

more limited approaches, they will be “hooked” and will continue to

serve as mentors, perhaps increasing their commitment to the traditional

mentoring model. BBBS also made efforts to enhance recruitment by

facilitating employment-based mentoring, for example, by offering to

transport youth to the mentors’ downtown workplaces. This transportation eliminates mentor travel time and concerns about meeting youth in

potentially unsafe locations.

BBBS also made modifications to its usual recruiting procedures. It established an “African American Ambassadors’ Council” early in the initiative

under which business and community leaders lend their names to recruiting efforts and participate in limited activities geared collectively toward

recruiting 500 African American mentors, both male and female. In year

2, BBBS hired a director of community relations (whose function is volunteer recruitment) and a vice president of marketing and communication.

Although these positions are not funded through SafeFutures, recruiting

for SafeFutures is their priority. St. Louis BBBS’s new recruiting practices

and mentor structures and increased focus on minority and low-income

youth are regarded as systems change within that organization.

Most programs

sought to avoid

potential concerns about

cultural incompatibility.
26

mentors by gender and ethnicity whenever possible. Most programs sought

mentors willing to work with youth who had more problems than the youth

typically served by their organizations or encountered by most middle-class volunteers (typically the mainstay of many mentoring programs). St. Louis provides an example of an established mentoring program (operated by BBBS) that

experienced difficulties in recruiting sufficient additional mentors, particularly

African American and male mentors.

Cultural considerations affected recruiting in several programs, including those

in Boston, Fort Belknap, and Seattle, and also may affect parental or youth acceptance of mentoring.

Boston, MA. One Boston faith-based mentoring program operated by

Mattapan-Dorchester Churches in Action found that increasing numbers of

parents were uneasy about allowing their children to be alone with strangers or to be mentored by persons of a faith different from their own. As a

result, parents were not allowing their children to meet with mentors oneon-one. MDCA responded by including parents in their weekly meetings

of mentors and mentees, thereby enabling them to meet the mentors and

see their interaction with the children. Although not its intended purpose,

such an approach may increase parental involvement in youth activities

and contribute to family strengthening.

Fort Belknap, MT. Cultural issues also were encountered in Fort Belknap.

Gros Ventre and Assiniboine adults traditionally function as informal mentors to children, particularly to nieces and nephews. However, formal oneon-one mentoring was not a familiar concept to parents or potential mentors.

SafeFutures addressed this issue by initiating a group “cultural mentoring”

approach under which mentors work with four or five youth at a time, in addition to providing one-on-one mentoring. Mentors meet with youth in conjunction with ongoing cultural education activities (such as doing bead work

or making dance regalia in the afterschool programs) or one-time events,

such as field trips. In one SafeFutures site, several women who are “pipe

carriers” or are involved in traditional tribal societies (in effect, function

as tribal elders) participated in this form of mentoring. Cultural mentoring

also is used on a one-on-one basis. Male tribal leaders from the White

Clay society each mentored a youth who was having behavioral problems

in school. The men took their mentees on a “first hunt,” traditionally regarded as a sign of adulthood in terms of demonstrating responsibility by

providing for one’s family and tribe. The adults served as strong male role

models, conveying tribal beliefs and traditions as part of the hunt that also

became a source of pride for the participating youth.

Seattle, WA. Seattle’s initiative targeted primarily Asian American youth,

with an emphasis on immigrant and refugee communities. However, recruiting mentors from these communities was difficult because the concept of one-on-one mentoring is not part of the native culture for the Asian

Cultural

considerations affected

recruiting in several

programs.
27

groups with which the program worked. In addition, adults in these immigrant communities often work long hours at low-wage jobs to support

their families, leaving little time available for volunteer activities. There

were also concerns that providing such youth with a mentor might increase existing gaps between youth and their parents because youth typically acculturate more quickly than their parents. SafeFutures staff considered different approaches to address these cultural issues, such as

introducing mentoring in an incremental fashion, perhaps by starting

with tutoring and then expanding to mentoring after a comfortable relationship has been established.

Family Strengthening and Support

Services

Family strengthening and support programs focus on addressing gaps in

the community’s continuum of family-focused services. Specifically, this

component is intended to support planning and programming that facilitate

positive family interactions and support families in crisis (especially those with

children involved in the juvenile justice system). Such efforts may include the

establishment of an intensive family case management system that is integrated

with family-oriented programs and other SafeFutures components, the introduction of gap-filling family services, or the development of a resource guide of

existing programs that provide family strengthening and support services. For

this component, a maximum of $200,000 per year in funding is provided to

each SafeFutures site under Title II, Part C, of the JJDP Act of 1974, as

amended.

Although there is often debate about the relative importance of specific factors

in youth development, the literature leaves little doubt that family life plays a

critical role in social functioning. Damon (1988), for example, underscored the

importance of parents’ role in the moral development of children. Smith and

Paternoster (1987), Paternoster and Triplett (1988), and Arbuthnot, Gordon, and

Jurkovic (1987) note that empathy, altruism, and compassion are key protective

factors in preventing delinquency and that the inability to see others’ perspectives and a resulting lack of empathy is a key risk factor. Hawkins et al. (1988)

found that parenting practices were directly related to adolescent drug use. In

addition, all of the following have been demonstrated to have significant associations (either positive or negative) with delinquency: parental supervision,

parental rejection, and parent-child involvement (Loeber and StouthamerLoeber, 1986); parental monitoring, discipline, and positive parenting techniques (including consistent application of discipline and democratic decisionmaking) (Snyder and Patterson, 1987); antisocial behavior of parents (Slavin

and Rainer, 1990; Henggeler, 1989; Goodwin, 1985; Bohman, 1978); and

physical and emotional abuse (Doerner, 1987).

T he family

strengthening

component is intended

to support planning and

programming that

facilitate positive family

interactions and support

families in crisis.
28

Many researchers have found relationships between delinquency and parental

supervision (Campbell, 1987; Cernkovich and Giordano, 1987; Wells and

Rankin, 1986). Parental monitoring of children is a key component of positive

parenting, both as a predictor of delinquency (Fischer, 1984; Wilson, 1987;

McCord, 1979) and as a protective measure (Snyder and Patterson, 1987).

Higher levels of monitoring are associated with lower rates of sexual activity,

drug and alcohol use (Small, 1990), truancy, running away, and delinquency

(Dornbusch et al., 1985). Steinberg (1990) found that 10- to 16-year-olds whose

parents could not account for their children’s whereabouts were more susceptible to peer pressure.

Family dysfunction is an equally important predictor of delinquency. The delinquency that results from dysfunctional family functioning often begins a vicious

cycle in which a youth’s delinquent behavior leads to negative parental reactions, thus exacerbating the child’s misbehavior (Patterson, 1982) and introducing a cycle that is both cause and effect (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995). Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory posits that a

lack of attachment to societal norms, especially those developed through the

parent-child relationship, breaks the bond with society and leaves individuals

free to be criminal. Parental rejection of a child has been cited as one of the

strongest predictors of delinquency (McCord, 1983; Pfouts, Scholper, and

Henley, 1981; Loeber and Dishion, 1984; Kroupa, 1988; Nye, 1958). Similarly,

physical maltreatment of children is significantly related to delinquency

(Thornberry, 1994).

Effective family functioning that includes clear expectations for behavior and

monitoring and enforcement of those standards presumably provides protective

factors in developing a child’s notions of social responsibility (Baumrind, 1967,

1971). For example, in a survey of 10,000 high school seniors, Steinberg (1990)

found that (1) adolescents who rated their parents as firm, democratic, and accepting were more self-reliant, reported less anxiety and depression, and had a

lower risk of delinquent behavior and (2) ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and

family structure had no moderating effects. Poor discipline, defined as discipline that is both excessive and inconsistent, is often identified as a significant

indicator of future antisocial, self-destructive, and criminal behavior (Peterson

et al., 1994; Thornberry, 1994; McCord, 1988; Widom, 1989; Elder, Caspi, and

Downey, 1983; Huesmann et al., 1984; Yesavage and Widrow, 1985).

This section describes programs or services specifically identified by sites as

falling under the family strengthening and support component and also family

strengthening services provided under other components. In most SafeFutures

communities, family strengthening services were offered as part of programs

providing youth services funded though other SafeFutures components, such as

the delinquency prevention program or services for at-risk and delinquent girls

components. The Family-School-Community (FSC) program in Contra Costa

County and the Family Resource Centers (FRC’s) in Imperial County and St.

Louis are examples of such arrangements. Although those programs, and others,

P arental monitoring

of children is a key

component of positive

parenting, both as a

predictor of delinquency

and as a protective

measure.
29

made efforts to engage and provide services to parents, their primary focus for

the most part was youth services. Family strengthening generally represented a

relatively small share of the services provided in multiservice programs.

Case management/referrals and counseling (often provided more or less concurrently) were the most common SafeFutures family strengthening activities. Case

management and counseling for parents or siblings were typically provided in

conjunction with similar services for SafeFutures youth. Case management and

counseling appeared relatively informal in some programs, and some used paraprofessional staff who lacked training to provide counseling of a more clinical nature. However, these staff often had access to clinically trained staff, either to advise them or to work with parents or youth with more serious problems. Parenting

skills classes or workshops were provided through SafeFutures in some sites.

Imperial County, CA. Imperial County’s Probation Department has a

long-standing parenting skills program focused on changing destructive

adolescent behavior. Two members of the SafeFutures law enforcement

team (described in a later section) were trained as class facilitators, enabling provision of additional classes and expansion to target area communities not previously served. A support group for troubled teens has been

developed to complement the parenting skills classes.

The programs providing family strengthening services along with a range of

youth services in Contra Costa County, Imperial County, and St. Louis can be

viewed as examples of systems reform and interagency collaboration. All three

involved establishing school-based programs to deliver services to youth and family members at one or more sites. This approach requires bringing nonschool staff

into schools to provide youth and families with services not typically offered by

schools. Service delivery staff may be SafeFutures staff, as in Contra Costa, or

may include staff from a variety of social service agencies who are assigned to the

school site (on a part- or full-time basis), as in Imperial County. The schools provide space and, sometimes, other resources to support these programs. School

staff and the staff of these “centers” develop working relationships that transcend

their usual professional boundaries. School staff may play a role in shaping the

services or programmatic offerings of the centers. The main source of youth

referrals—primarily youth who exhibit behavioral or academic problems in

school—is typically school staff. The following examples briefly describe the different school-based configurations and the family strengthening aspects of their

programs.

Contra Costa County, CA. School-based resource specialists (paraprofessionals) in Contra Costa provide case management and informal counseling to parents and youth, in addition to providing afterschool and inschool activities for youth. Specialists conduct home visits to provide

support and assistance (which may be crisis support in some cases), particularly when there are difficulties. Some specialists help parents by providing transportation to appointments at school, court, service agencies,

Case management/

referrals and counseling

were the most common

SafeFutures family

strengthening activities.
30

and other locations. Specialists in two elementary schools initiated or enhanced “parent rooms” that serve as drop-in centers where parents can interact with teachers and other school staff, thus strengthening parentschool bonds. Youth or parents with more serious problems are referred to

the counselor of the agency that employs the specialists.

Imperial County, CA. Imperial County SafeFutures established an FRC in

Brawley High School to function as a “one-stop shop” for services, with collocated staff from a variety of agencies. Youth or families referred to three

or more services are placed on the FRC’s case management caseload, although others may receive referrals to services or receive services provided

by the FRC. Parents of all youth referred to the FRC are routinely involved

in initial intake interviews for their children (even for those not on the case

management caseload) and are referred to other services as needed. Two

FRC staff provide services that can be viewed as primarily focused on parents/family strengthening: a repositioned social service eligibility worker

helps parents access various services and an FRC guidance technician advises parents about school procedures related to expulsion and reinstatement. Mental health and substance abuse counselors also have been assigned to the FRC to provide counseling for those who need it.

St. Louis, MO. St. Louis initially established FRC’s in three school sites,

staffed by teams composed of a family therapist and a community outreach worker (the latter are certified parent educators). The teams provided case management, individual counseling, and family counseling and

worked with parents on an individual or small group basis to provide

parenting skills education and support. The FRC’s, which are no longer

operational, were intended to address the specific needs of the Community

Education Centers in which they were located; thus some provided other

services targeted to parents or participated in family strengthening services

offered through their CEC. For example, one CEC held a monthly “family

night” activity for parents and their children. These get-togethers emphasized literacy and language skills and typically included an activity parents

and children performed together to reinforce the literacy message and promote bonding.

Seattle incorporated family strengthening into a variety of its programs. This

action also enabled provision of culturally appropriate services.

Seattle, WA. The Asian/Pacific Islander Diversion and Family Support

Program, an alternative dispositional program for first-time nonserious

juvenile offenders, provides services for families and youth. A counselor

serves as interpreter and advocate for parents in the court process. SafeFutures

began funding this program in year 2 to support activities such as reaching

out to families prior to the initial hearing (including visiting families in their

homes), informing youth and families about what to expect during the upcoming proceedings, linking families to needed services in their own

S eattle incorporated

family strengthening

into a variety of its

programs.
31

community, providing quarterly community education classes on the

American juvenile justice system and available services, and networking

with the community to increase culturally sensitive services.

Seattle, WA. Seattle’s Cambodian Girls Group (CGG), renamed Help

Each Other Reach the Sky (HERS) in year 3, incorporates a number of

parent support services in conjunction with its at-risk and delinquent girls

programming. Parents are required to participate in the CGG parenting

class in order for girls to participate in the at-risk and delinquent girls/job

training program. Girls receive stipends for these jobs, but their stipends

are reduced if parents do not participate in all sessions. The parenting

classes are cofacilitated by an English-speaking teacher and a Cambodian

counselor. They address parenting skills and skills to help the immigrant/

refugee parents function in their new environment, such as opening a bank

account to save for their children’s college education, understanding police and court procedures, reading a report card, and interacting with

school staff. The classes also are intended to create a support structure for

parents. CGG staff have adopted culturally appropriate teaching styles

(e.g., use of proverbs and drama, which are traditional teaching/learning

methods for this population, but not role-playing, which is considered embarrassing) to reach this audience. CGG also arranges for counseling services for parents, including crisis intervention, mental health services to

parents with posttraumatic stress or other mental health needs, and family

therapy sessions with parents and their daughters. Home visits are conducted by a Cambodian case manager and a Caucasian therapist. These

visits enable followup regarding issues raised in the parenting classes and

therapy sessions.

Relatively few family strengthening services emphasized services to siblings,

although in many cases siblings might be enrolled in SafeFutures programs targeted directly to them or referred to other youth programs. Seattle’s Sibling

Support Program, discussed in the section “Mental Health Services for At-Risk

and Adjudicated Youth,” page 32, is an exception.

Participants in family strengthening services generally are identified through a

combination of self-referral and referral from other sources, including staff in

the same program or other SafeFutures programs or, sometimes, the juvenile

court. Several programs, including the FRC’s in St. Louis and Imperial County

and the FSC programs in Contra Costa, actively conduct outreach activities in

the community and otherwise publicize the services available. Many family

strengthening programs focus on populations that can be viewed as particularly

high risk. For example, referrals to the parenting skills classes in Imperial

County historically came from juvenile justice agencies. Court referrals also

were common for Fort Belknap’s Positive Indian Parenting classes. Seattle’s

Cambodian Girls Group and the SafeFutures Youth Center served immigrant/

refugee families (the latter focused on gang-involved youth), while the Asian/

Many family

strengthening programs

focus on populations

that can be viewed as

particularly high risk.
32

Pacific Islander Diversion program and Sisters in Common served families of

girls involved in the juvenile justice system. Sisters in Common provides case

management for girls involved in the juvenile justice system and family

strengthening services and case management for their parents.

Mental Health Services for At-Risk and

Adjudicated Youth

The Mental Health Services for At-Risk and Adjudicated Youth component is

intended to improve the accessibility, quality, and efficiency of mental health

services in communities and in juvenile facilities, with a particular focus on juvenile sex offenders. Mobile mental health units are an example of the type of

enhanced services envisioned by OJJDP, although none of the demonstration

sites have implemented such an approach to date. Other elements of this component include providing consultation and liaison services to law enforcement and

justice system personnel who work with at-risk and delinquent juveniles, developing forensic case management systems for incarcerated mentally disordered

youth, and providing training programs for mental health professionals who

provide services to detained or confined juveniles and juvenile sex offenders.

Services developed under this component are intended to include family participation and to be sensitive to ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Funding for this

component is provided at a maximum of $150,000 per year to each SafeFutures

site under Title II, Part C, of the JJDP Act of 1974, as amended.

Mental health problems in adolescents are reportedly widespread, with as many as

5 percent of adolescents suffering from serious emotional disturbances (Center for

Mental Health Services, 1997). Although the link between mental health disorders

and juvenile delinquency has not yet been firmly established, it has been shown

that mental health disorders and delinquency co-occur (Elliott, Huizinga, and

Menard, 1989). In general, studies to date have shown that a significant portion

of incarcerated youth are suffering from some form of mental health disorder

(Fagan, 1991; Hollender and Turner, 1985; McManus et al., 1984). Although the

disorders experienced by the juvenile offender population are less severe than

those of hospitalized youth, juvenile offenders nevertheless display a significantly

higher prevalence of mental health disorders than the general youth population

(Pumariega et al., 1995). Breda (1995, p. 210), for example, found that among

youth with serious delinquency problems, more than 80 percent had “clinically

significant psychopathology.” In addition, the study found that although there was

only a moderate link between mental health disorders and delinquency, delinquent

youth tended to have multiple mental health problems.

Juvenile sex offenders are responsible for a significant portion of sexual assaults, including an estimated 20 percent of rapes and 30 to 60 percent of

child molestation cases (Brown, Flanagan, and McLeod, 1984). The number

of juveniles arrested for sex offenses is growing steadily (Snyder and

I n general, studies

to date have shown that

a significant portion

of incarcerated youth are

suffering from some

form of mental health

disorder.
33

Sickmund, 1995). Furthermore, there is an established link between juvenile

sex offending and adult sex offending: about half of adult sex offenders began

offending as juveniles (Barbaree, Hudson, and Seto, in Barbaree, Marshall,

and Hudson, 1993). Although the literature is sparse in this area, it does appear that cognitive-behavioral models used to treat adult sex offenders can

be adapted to treat juvenile offenders. Some data suggest that effective therapies include reducing age-inappropriate sexual interests, improving sexual impulse control, enhancing social and assertiveness skills, cognitive restructuring, sex education, and relapse prevention (Becker and Kaplan, in Barbaree,

Marshall, and Hudson, 1993). However, basic work remains to be done in

this field. For instance, the Office of Justice Programs is currently working

toward the development of a juvenile sex offender typology that would distinguish among juvenile sex offenders based on such factors as victim selection,

level of aggression, and modus operandi. Such a typology could be used to assist judges and other court personnel in making appropriate disposition and

placement decisions.

In recent years, Multisystemic Therapy (MST) has attracted considerable attention as a viable approach to treating serious juvenile offenders and adolescent

sexual offenders and their families (Henggeler et al., 1996; Sutphen, Thyer, and

Kurtz, 1995). MST uses a family preservation model of service delivery to empower youth and families by supporting the development of resources and skills

needed to deal with difficulties effectively. Treatment plans are developed in

concert with the family and are designed to intervene within families and between family members, peers, and other central social relationships. Services

are delivered in real-world settings (e.g., at home, in school).

Because of the complexity of developing mental health programs or services,

there was a long lead time for implementation of this component in most sites.

Only three sites provided direct mental health services as part of SafeFutures

during year 1, although others engaged in planning efforts to devise strategic

responses. The configuration of services provided under this component varies

considerably across sites. Some (such as Contra Costa County and Fort

Belknap) established new residential facilities for mental health services; others

(such as Seattle and Imperial County) included mental health counseling as part

of the menu of services offered by multifaceted programs.

Most sites focused their efforts on youth in the juvenile justice system, as illustrated by the following examples, which also reflect varying degrees of collaborative effort and/or systems reform.

Contra Costa County, CA. Contra Costa opened its Summit Center,

which represents a collaborative effort, with funds or staff provided by

SafeFutures, the County Probation Department, and the County Office of

Education and California mental health funds matched by MediCal funds.9

Program staff (e.g., probation counselors and therapists) function as an

integrated team, not in separate departments, and have been cross-trained.

T reatment plans are

developed in concert

with the family and are

designed to intervene

within families and

between family

members, peers, and

other central social

relationships.
34

Youth are identified for participation by the Summit Center’s director,

who serves as a member of the Probation Department Screening Committee that meets weekly to review cases of youth recommended for placement other than custody (e.g., to group homes, residential facilities, etc.).

Most youth in the Center have had treatment failures in prior residential

placements; all have some kind of current or prior juvenile offense history.

The program serves 12- to 18-year-old males and can house 20 youth at a

time. Youth in the Center are not in custody but are under general probation

orders. Participation is voluntary; the youth and a parent or responsible adult

must agree to participate in the program. Parental/adult involvement is required because family therapy is an integral part of the treatment; there are

also multifamily groups led by a therapist and two parent support groups.

Youth participate in individual, group, and family therapy, based on individual treatment plans. They attend school at the Center (in a class taught

by a County Office of Education teacher and teacher’s aide), with individualized study plans to address their varying academic needs and status.

The Center operates substance abuse groups (youth also may attend

Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings

outside the Center) and groups addressing topics such as conflict resolution, anger management, and life skills. The program operates on a “level”

system, with youth earning additional privileges as they move through

four progressive levels of behavior and responsibility. Successfully completing (graduating from) the program takes approximately 6 months.

An aftercare component lasting approximately 1 year provides “wraparound” services using a model similar to multisystemic treatment. The

approach emphasizes the use of family, system, and community resources

(e.g., mental health or substance abuse resources). Wraparound teams are

formed shortly after youth enter the Summit Center. Youth and families

identify team members, which may include individuals such as parent(s),

sibling(s), other relatives, a neighbor, a member of the youth’s church, the

youth’s probation officer, and “outside” professionals, such as clinicians.

The team is intended to help the family address issues/needs to assist in

the youth’s transition back to the community. The Summit Center case

manager assigned to the team serves as its facilitator while the youth is in

the Center and for up to 1 year after Summit Center completion, although

the team itself is intended to continue after that. The team meets biweekly

or monthly while the youth is in the Center; after the youth graduates,

team meetings are generally held once per month in the youth’s home or

a community location.

Partly because of the perceived success and positive publicity associated

with the Center, the county has developed a comparable facility for girls

(modeled after the Summit Center), which became operational in late

1999. It serves 20 residential and 15 day-treatment clients.

Y outh participate in

individual, group, and

family therapy, based on

individual treatment

plans.
35

St. Louis, MO. St. Louis SafeFutures provided support to the city’s Mental

Health Board (MHB) to plan for this component.10 During the first 2 years

of the initiative, MHB played a leading role in conducting a children’s mental health needs assessment, developing a strategic plan, and finding resources to initiate change. Systems change was perceived to have occurred

even at this stage, in that the State mental health agency and the juvenile justice agencies had begun “talking to each other,” while in the past they had

not had positive interaction. Funding for implementation of the plan is being

provided by the Department of Mental Health, MHB, and SafeFutures, also

illustrating collaboration.

The mental health services being implemented in year 3 focus on youth in

the juvenile justice system. Two new programs are being funded: Child

Conduct Programs and Multisystemic Therapy. The Child Conduct Programs target 7- to 11-year-olds who are starting to become out of control

and their parents. The program focuses on effective parenting skills to

avert delinquency. Services may include medication, assistance to parents

in finding appropriate youth placement, special education, and other

resources. The MST program uses a team of practitioners, home-based

treatment, and family involvement to treat older youth. SafeFutures funds

will support the service coordinator and the screening of SafeFutures

youth and will likely assist staff training.

Youth receive an informal disposition (suspended interventions) pending

participation in the program. Trained court intake staff, working with a

mental health practitioner, use the Child/Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) to determine individual risk levels. When CAFAS

scoring indicates moderate or severe levels of impairment in a variety of

domains (home, school, peer relations, substance abuse, thinking), youth

are given a more comprehensive assessment. If mental health disorders are

not substantiated, youth return to the court; otherwise, a treatment plan is

devised. Services provided by the Department of Mental Health include

psychological consultation, medication, and placement in a group home.

Seattle, WA. Seattle’s Sibling Support Program (SSP) focuses on youth in

the juvenile justice system and their families.11 SSP, which is a continuation of a project piloted by King County’s Department of Youth Services,

represents a collaboration between SafeFutures, DYS, and the SSP provider (the Atlantic Street Center, a community-based nonprofit organization). SSP provides counseling and family therapy services to girls in the

juvenile justice system, their siblings, and their parents. Key objectives

include reducing recidivism and the likelihood that siblings will be offenders. Participation is voluntary; referrals typically come from probation officers, members of the Seattle Team for Youth, and judges. A credentialed

therapist initiates the process by screening the parents and explaining the

program’s requirements. A team (including some combination of probation officer, case manager, Child Protective Services professional, school

T he MST program

uses a team of

practitioners, homebased treatment, and

family involvement to

treat older youth.
36

officials, and relatives) is then assembled to monitor the offending youth’s

and siblings’ progress and make treatment recommendations. Although

there is no set course of treatment, the typical case progression appears to

include making and keeping regular appointments, getting the child back

into school or ensuring that the child remains in school, and getting the

child and parent to acknowledge substance abuse problems and participate

in therapy. Treatment for youth offenders may also include participation in

other programs or in individual or group therapy.

Delinquency Prevention Programs

The Delinquency Prevention Program encompasses a range of activities and

services for at-risk youth and juveniles who have had contact with the juvenile

justice system. This program promotes prosocial activities that can be offered in

any setting, including school. Suggested activities include tutoring and remedial

education, work awareness or employability skills, health and mental health

services, alcohol and substance abuse prevention, leadership development, or

recreational services. This component is intended to encourage positive approaches to delinquency prevention that emphasize healthy social, physical, and

mental development. Funding for this component is provided for a maximum

of $200,000 per year to each SafeFutures site under Title V of the JJDP Act of

1974, as amended. Although not required by OJJDP, many demonstration communities included case management and counseling among the activities provided by delinquency prevention programs.

In addition to offering enrichment activities and other opportunities (e.g., jobs)

for youth to engage in socially approved networks, much of the focus of this

component is on strategies that involve prevention education or social skills development to promote positive changes in juveniles’ behavior. These activities

are consistent with theoretical models that suggest individuals perform

antisocially because they lack the necessary skills for prosocial behavior or because they have limited opportunities and have weak commitment to conformity

(Leiber and Mahworr, 1995; Hirschi, 1969; Cloward and Ohlin, 1960). Several

approaches consistent with delinquency prevention have been described under

various SafeFutures components, such as afterschool programs or services for

at-risk and delinquent girls; others are noted below.

Prevention education (focused on mitigating substance abuse, gang involvement, or violence, for example) is intended to provide youth with factual information and the skills to identify and resist risky situations. In general, substance

abuse prevention education approaches that include training in resistance skills

(i.e., skills for effectively resisting social pressure) and broader based life skills

have been found effective, while approaches that emphasize just information

dissemination, fear, appeals to morality, or self-esteem and interpersonal growth

are largely ineffective (Sherman et al., 1997). Some gang and violence prevention programs teach interpersonal skills and incorporate cognitive-behavioral

T his program

promotes prosocial

activities that can be

offered in any setting,

including school.
37

strategies that appear promising in achieving prevention objectives; however,

more rigorous evaluation is needed to isolate critical elements correlated with

success.

Skills development may include academic instruction, vocational education, or

social skills training designed to facilitate positive peer interaction, anger management, or a prosocial work ethic. Comprehensive instructional programs that

are delivered over long timeframes designed to reinforce social skills have been

found to reduce delinquency if they focus on developing a range of competency

skills, including self-control, stress management, responsible decisionmaking,

techniques for effective problem solving, and enhanced communication

(Sherman et al., 1997). However, programs that focus on improving employability skills and job placement have generally not been successful in reducing

delinquency, with the possible exception of the residential Job Corps approach

(Sherman et al., 1997).

Most sites provided delinquency prevention programming through agencies

used to provide other SafeFutures components. In some cases, it is difficult to

separate delinquency prevention programs/activities from those associated with

other SafeFutures components. For example, the Imperial County Law Enforcement Team, created for SafeFutures, fits under the gang-free schools and communities component and the delinquency prevention program component, as

does Seattle’s SafeFutures Youth Center (these programs are discussed in the

section “Comprehensive Communitywide Approaches to Gang-Free Schools

and Communities,” page 39).

Imperial County and Fort Belknap developed innovative programs (which also

incorporated elements of systems reform) that were supported through both the

delinquency prevention program and serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offender program components. These programs involved graduated sanctions, a

key element under SVCJO, but the sites believed these initiatives primarily addressed delinquency prevention because they served first-time or minor offenders, with the intent of preventing further or more serious delinquency. In addition, both programs served some youth who were not involved in the justice

system.

Imperial County, CA. Imperial County established a peer court as a

graduated sanctions option (part of the county’s Court Alternative Program) for first-time minor offenders, who participate on a voluntary basis

(after admitting responsibility). Court sessions are held once per month

during the school year, and four or more cases are heard per session. A juvenile court judge or referee presides over the court, with students serving

as jurors, attorneys, and other court staff. Peers determine dispositions,

which usually include requiring the offender to serve as a juror in future

peer court sessions, in addition to sanctions such as community service

(e.g., graffiti removal) and essays or letters of apology.

Most sites provided

delinquency prevention

programming through

agencies used to provide

other SafeFutures

components.
38

The peer court operates as a student club at Brawley Union High School

(where it originated). The club has weekly meetings to prepare for hearings; volunteer attorneys and other court staff (e.g., bailiffs) assist the students who will take their roles in court. Club members (some of whom

hope to pursue law careers) rotate the various roles (e.g., clerk, bailiff, juror, attorneys). Students participating in the club receive credit toward the

school’s mandatory community service requirement. The court serves as a

mechanism to involve/familiarize youth with the juvenile justice system

and teaches participants about accountability—which contributes to the

delinquency prevention aspect of the program. The peer court also can be

viewed as developing job-related or leadership skills in youth.

Imperial County officials perceive the peer court as successful, and during

year 3, it expanded to two additional target area communities (Calipatria

and Niland). A previously existing peer mediation class in a Westmoreland school (a fourth target area) also has begun sending students to participate in the court. Activities preparatory to hearings are conducted at

each site, but youth are bused to Brawley for court procedures. Staff report

that mixing youth from all the schools in this forum has encouraged positive competition. The peer court is an example of systems reform: it added

a new form of graduated sanction to the juvenile justice system, and it involves collaboration between various segments of the juvenile justice and

school systems.

Fort Belknap, MT. The Tribal Ranch program in Fort Belknap was originally intended to provide job, entrepreneurial, and life skills to at-risk

youth through work experience at the Tribal Ranch. At the request of court

staff, it was refocused to serve as a graduated sanction program for youth

on probation who are sentenced to community service (generally first offenders). It also serves nonoffender youth who participate on a voluntary

basis. Youth receive instruction in, and perform, a variety of ranch chores

(a major form of employment/business in this rural setting) and receive

informal counseling from SafeFutures staff who operate the program.

Several communities offered multiple delinquency prevention activities, including case management and counseling, in the context of one program. This occurred in the three sites using school-based service delivery (Contra Costa

County, Imperial County, and St. Louis). These programs provided a variety of

activities, such as tutoring/academic assistance, life/leadership skills training,

anger management or mediation skills training, recreation, and support groups

of various kinds. Some of their activities were provided as afterschool programs. These programs were intended to address the needs of youth and the

schools in which the programs were located. Thus, the nature of these programs

varied across schools and also varied over time within a school.

Some programs focused on developing leadership skills as an alternative to

delinquency.

S everal communities

offered multiple

delinquency prevention

activities, including case

management and

counseling, in the

context of one program.
39

Boston, MA. Boston uses peer leadership in some of its delinquency prevention programming. In one such program, SafeFutures provides funds to

train and provide stipends for peer leaders who are assigned to three community centers located in public housing facilities. Although activities

vary at each center, the peer leaders perform functions such as helping

youth with homework, facilitating workshops, leading “rap sessions,”

identifying youth issues, coordinating field trips, and so on. Another peer

leadership effort, the Youth Advisory Board (YAB), is used as a mechanism for obtaining youth input to SafeFutures decisionmaking and as a

leadership development program. The latter function is intended to encourage youth to serve as peer trainers, public speakers, and ambassadors

for youth in the community and to provide informal employment readiness

and life skills training. Although YAB was operational during the first

year of the initiative, the administering agency was changed in years 2 and

3, and the program has experienced difficulty in retaining active membership in YAB.

As noted previously, delinquency prevention activities were often included in

programs supported by other components; some of these are discussed in following sections.

Comprehensive Communitywide

Approaches to Gang-Free Schools and

Communities

The comprehensive communitywide approaches to gang-free schools and communities component provides support for communities to follow the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model for reducing community youth gang problems. The evidence of the impact of gang membership on serious crime is widely supported

(see, for example, Thornberry, 1994; Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993; Klein, 1995).

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model, or the Spergel model, calls for the implementation of five strategies for dealing with gang-involved youth in communities

implementing the model. These strategies include (1) mobilizing community leaders and residents to plan, strengthen, or create new opportunities or establish linkages to existing organizations for gang-involved youth; (2) using outreach workers to engage gang-involved youth; (3) providing and facilitating access to

academic, economic, and social opportunities; (4) conducting gang suppression

activities and holding gang-involved youth accountable for their behavior; and

(5) facilitating organizational change and development to help community agencies better address gang problems through a team problem-solving approach that

is consistent with the philosophy of community-oriented policing (Burch and

Kane, 1999, p. 1). Although the SafeFutures sites are responsible for implementing all components of the Model, at this point in the demonstration phase, none

has fully done so. This section highlights selected features of sites’ innovative

approaches to various aspects of the Model.

OJJDP’s

Comprehensive Gang

Model calls for the

implementation of five

strategies for dealing

with gang-involved

youth.
40

The first component of the Model calls for a process to mobilize communities to

address such problems by creating a gang task force to develop a comprehensive community approach to implement recommended interventions. The Model

requires involvement of 11 agencies, including a range of justice system agencies (such as law enforcement, courts, corrections, parole, probation, and prosecution), schools, grassroots organizations, the overall community, and youth

employment and community-based youth agencies (Spergel et al., 1994). This

approach seeks to replace the benefits that at-risk youth may associate with

gang membership with more prosocial protective factors through prevention and

intervention. Essentially, the model marries suppression activities with community outreach to provide services such as employability training and job placement to gang-involved youth. Funding for this component is available for a

maximum of $400,000 per year to each SafeFutures site under Part D of the

JJDP Act.

Gang prevention programs apparently have been subject to relatively little critical evaluation (Sherman et al., 1997). Both Spergel (1995) and Howell (1997)

suggest that while no evaluation has revealed successful implementation of a

gang prevention strategy, some promising strategies do exist. Thompson and

Jason (1988) found that gang prevention classes with some afterschool options

led to very low rates of later gang participation, although the study was greatly

weakened by high attrition. Woodson (1981) looked at a program creating gang

“sanctuaries and summits” and found declining murder rates as a result. However, this study was seriously compromised by other efforts undertaken in the

city at the same time.

More attention has been focused on evaluating gang intervention programs, although many of these efforts were not methodologically rigorous (Sherman et

al., 1997). Three programs (Miller, 1962; Gold and Mattick, 1974; Torres,

1981) found no significant decline in delinquent and criminal behavior. Klein

(1968) and Spergel (1986, 1995) found that some types of programs, specifically crisis intervention, conflict mediation, job and school referrals, and direct

interventions to reduce gang cohesion, resulted in less serious violent crime by

gang members. Programs that use mediation or negotiation involving broader

segments of the community—including probation officers and civilians in addition to police and social workers—to reduce risk factors appear to be more successful (Sherman et al., 1997). Also, it has been suggested that encouraging individual cities to tailor their programs to the local gang situation would lead to

more positive outcomes (Klein, 1995).

The evaluation that was conducted of the first 3 years of the Little Village Gang

Violence Reduction Project in Chicago, IL—a prototype of the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model—reports some promising results. Although the components of community mobilization and organizational change were not fully

implemented, the program successfully employed a cohesive team to implement

the following strategies: social intervention by community youth workers;

provision of social opportunities in education, job training, and employment

Gang prevention

programs apparently

have been subject to

relatively little critical

evaluation.
41

through the development of local contacts and support networks; and targeted

suppression of gang violence through project police and probation teams.

Evaluation results indicated that this multimodal program was successful in

reducing or relatively lowering the rate of gang crime, especially serious gang

violence, for individual youth, targeted gangs, and the Little Village area

(Spergel et al., 1999).

Under this component, sites not only provide some direct services to youth but

also emulate the OJJDP Model by performing activities that do not entail direct

service (e.g., establishing gang task forces, developing gang databases, undertaking community mobilization). This section focuses on provision of services

to youth.12

Case management/referral was the most commonly provided activity across

sites under the gang-free component, although in some programs it appears to

have been fairly informal. Job skills training of some kind was provided by

most sites, consistent with the Model. Some sites, such as St. Louis, provided

employability training primarily as a free-standing program to which youth

could be referred by various partner agencies. Others blended employability

training into other programs, such as Contra Costa (described on page 44) and

Seattle’s Back to School Program, a joint effort between Central Youth and

Family Services and the Department of Youth Services, which includes a school

reentry component and a vocational component.

Several sites developed innovative programs under this component.

St. Louis, MO. St. Louis SafeFutures subcontracted with a peer outreach

program (Healthstreet/Community Outreach for Risk Reduction [CORR]),

initiated for drug-involved youth, to use a similar approach for outreach to

gang-involved youth (or those at risk for gang involvement). Outreach

workers, some of whom formerly were gang involved, seek to increase

awareness of viable alternatives to gang involvement, including

SafeFutures activities and services. Outreach workers (accompanied by a

supervisor) are in the community most weekdays to contact youth, establish relationships, and make referrals (primarily for job training and counseling). Healthstreet support staff perform more formal case management,

referral, and followup functions for youth who express interest in pursuing

the options described. During year 3, some of the staff also began working

with schools to obtain contact information on youth who had academic

difficulties and attendance problems and /or had been suspended or turned

away from school that day because of lateness. Outreach workers offer

such youth referrals to SafeFutures services and also function as advocates

and go-betweens to help these youth be readmitted (where applicable).

During year 3, the outreach efforts initiated under SafeFutures were combined with similar efforts associated with St. Louis’s implementation of

the Cease Fire model initiated in Boston. This citywide effort is led by the

Case management/

referral was the most

commonly provided

activity across sites

under the gang-free

component.
42

U.S. Attorney’s office. It includes a gang outreach program administered

by the Central Baptist Church, which works in neighborhoods outside the

SafeFutures target area. SafeFutures has referred youth ineligible for its services to the Central Baptist program; these referrals represent a broadening

of linkages. SafeFutures staff and Healthstreet/CORR staff participate in

monthly meetings of Cease Fire’s gang outreach subcommittee, and there

have been joint training sessions (some supported by SafeFutures) for outreach workers from both organizations. SafeFutures staff and CORR

workers teamed with Central Baptist staff and other Cease Fire partners

to implement a “Bright Side Blitz” aimed at mobilizing the community

and cleaning up the neighborhood in a priority “hotspot.”

After a recent gang-related homicide, the Cease Fire partners fanned out

within the affected neighborhood to try to prevent retaliatory violence by

diffusing the emotionally charged atmosphere. In addition to offering grief

therapy and victim services, SafeFutures staff arranged safe housing for

two youth who needed to be at a distance from the area.

Seattle, WA. In Seattle, the SafeFutures Youth Center (SFYC), which focuses on Asian/Pacific Islander youth, falls under both the delinquency

prevention program and gang-free schools and communities components.

SFYC provides case management for youth identified as needing such services, primarily gang members, juvenile offenders, or those with family

dysfunction (particularly abuse). SFYC has a Vietnamese and a Cambodian case manager to serve youth of those ethnicities, and there are plans

to add a Laotian case manager during year 4. Because juveniles on probation are mandated to remain in school, the program has focused on oneon-one tutoring and homework assistance to help youth meet this requirement. The center also provides afterschool activities, such as informal

support/discussion groups, recreation, and “hanging out.”

In year 3, SFYC added an academic reentry program for high school dropouts and those expelled from school. These youth receive high school

credit in general studies classes geared to help them return to the school

system. The program has a certified teacher and operates 5 days per week,

year round. In effect, the program functions as an alternative school for

these youth.

SFYC also provided parent education and support programs, including

home visits and two parent support groups (one each for Cambodian/

Laotian and Vietnamese parents). These programs offered monthly workshops on topics such as what the roles are of various systems (e.g., child

protective services, police department, schools, DYS, etc.), what to do if

one’s child has contact with law enforcement, and how to deal with

parent-child conflict. The last is a key issue because youth often acculturate rapidly and in ways that do not support ancestral values, while parents

often wish to retain their traditional heritage.

After a recent gangrelated homicide, the

Cease Fire partners

fanned out within the

affected neighborhood

to try to prevent

retaliatory violence.
43

The center moved from its initial site to a location closer to the High Point

housing project where most of the youth served by the program live. Center staff are involved in community efforts, such as a “Tattoo Summit,” a

collaborative effort with the Police Department Gang Unit and the King

County Department of Public Health to help youth who wish to terminate

their gang involvement by establishing a program for removing their gangrelated tattoos.

SFYC has obtained status as a nonprofit organization, which will facilitate

its sustainability after SafeFutures funding is no longer available.

Imperial County, CA. Imperial County’s Law Enforcement Team (LET),

also known as the Intervention Team, falls under both the delinquency

prevention program and gang-free schools and communities components.

Originally, the team was located in the police department and included

two juvenile probation officers, a deputy sheriff, and a Brawley police officer. Their work as a team represents a systems reform effort. During year

3, the team’s office was relocated to a police substation in a Brawley public housing complex located in the heart of gang territory. Also assigned to

the substation are two housing police officers and a Police Athletic League

(PAL)/Community Oriented Policing (COPS) officer, further expanding

justice system interaction, if not the team itself. Two LET members also

have an office at the high school to make them more accessible to youth

and families. In addition, during year 4, the team is being expanded to include outreach workers, a Family Resource Center coordinator, and other

key service providers.

Since the early stages of the initiative, the team has participated in identification of and intervention with gang members, joint “gang sweeps” between

probation and the Brawley Police Department (and, sometimes, other agencies), and joint home visits and patrol activities by the team’s probation officer and sheriff’s deputy. As the program matured, the team began implementing a more comprehensive gang intervention agenda to better address

the OJJDP Model guidelines. This led to new areas of emphasis, such as collecting gang data (including mapping areas of high gang activity), targeting

gang hotspots, and implementing a street outreach component.

LET members perform interventions with youth who have had contact

with law enforcement or the courts or who have been identified as at-risk

youth. These interventions may include one-on-one counseling with the

youth and/or parent or joint counseling/intervention with youth and

parent(s). Referrals to various services are made in conjunction with such

counseling. In addition, team members make presentations on delinquency

and gangs to schools and community groups. Team members also are involved in the probation office’s skills training program (a family strengthening effort). Two serve as instructors, while other team members make

presentations to these classes on topics such as drugs and gangs.

A s the program

matured, the team began

implementing a more

comprehensive gang

intervention agenda.
44

Some team members make periodic visits to elementary schools to informally

counsel youth referred by school staff for problem behavior, most of whom are

then referred to the FRC or other services. These visits were initiated during

year 1, and this effort was expanded during year 2 into a program involving presentations by gang-involved probationers to elementary school youth identified

as at risk of gang involvement. Schools also call on team members periodically

to counsel students after a fight or other incident. One of the probation officers

on the team also conducts “school drop-ins” to create a visible law enforcement

presence at schools and informally monitors nonprobation youth identified by

schools as gang involved. These kinds of interactions and information sharing

between schools and justice system agencies also reflect systems reform.

One LET probation officer supervises a reduced caseload of 25 actively

gang-involved youth. The lower caseload enables more intensive supervision. The other probation officer on the team supervises an informal probation caseload of 30 high-risk youth or first-time offenders, in addition to

her LET activities. Youth on either caseload (and members of their families) have been referred for a variety of services supported by SafeFutures,

including mental health or substance abuse counseling.

Contra Costa County, CA. Contra Costa established an aftercare program focused on gang-involved youth on probation (referred to as “core

team” youth) during year 2. This program was implemented as a variation

of an aftercare program that provides transitional aftercare for all youth

leaving the youth ranch facility (discussed in the section “Serious, Violent,

and Chronic Juvenile Offender Programs,” page 49). Participation is restricted to males because the ranch is an all-male facility. SafeFutures funds

a deputy probation officer (DPO) to provide intensive probation oversight

for a caseload of approximately 50 youth, typically for 4 to 6 months after

leaving the ranch. These youth are also assigned to a case manager through

the Youth Services Bureau (YSB) or the International Institute. (The three

YSB core team case managers are also assigned to middle or high schools as

FSC case managers, as discussed in the section “Family Strengthening and

Support Services,” page 27.) Case managers refer youth to a variety of services, including employment programs.

Core team staff members meet every 2 weeks to review the status of each

youth and discuss possible changes in services needed, whether probation

should be revoked, etc. These meetings also enable staff to share information about gang activity in general, which may provide insight into issues

or behaviors of a particular youth. In addition to the DPO and case managers, core team meetings are typically attended by the social worker and

SafeFutures supervisor from YSB, staff from the youth ranch, and the directors of the agencies that provide employment programs for core team

youth. The intention was that police representatives would attend these

meetings, but their participation has been irregular, in part because their

role with respect to this group does not seem clear to them.

S chools call on team

members periodically to

counsel students after a

fight or other incident.
45

A weekly group meeting of core team youth is held because these youth

expressed interest in coming together as a community. The youth dubbed

the group the “YSB Soldiers.” The case managers and YSB staff typically

participate in these meetings, which provide an opportunity for staff to

learn about current issues affecting the youth and about gang-related issues in the community. Meetings may include presentations or videos

(e.g., related to employment or youth violence). A meal is provided because staff perceive that “breaking bread” together helps to develop bonds

among the youth, even though they are of different ethnicities and belong

to different gangs. This reportedly has resulted in at least one case where

one core team member protected another—who was associated with a rival gang—from being hurt in a gang incident.

Two employment-related services receive SafeFutures support to serve

core team youth. One of these, YouthBuild (YB), is an existing employment training program for youth ages 17 to 24 who do not have high

school diplomas. YB provides extensive hands-on training and instruction

in construction skills combined with academic training leading to a general equivalency or high school diploma. The program also instills values

through leadership development and community service. SafeFutures

funds are used to reserve several YB slots for SafeFutures youth and for

stipends provided to SafeFutures youth. The second employment-related

service is an “employment aftercare” program provided through Opportunity West (OW). An OW employment specialist develops jobs (i.e., identifies willing employers) and places core team youth in them. This program

does not include formal job training, although the employment specialist

provides informal counseling, work orientation, and résumé assistance and

holds periodic workshops/meetings to address issues related to employment. The OW jobs, which are generally labor intensive (e.g., maintenance work in city buildings), are intended to develop basic work skills

and an employment track record for the youth. SafeFutures funds are used

to support the half-time employment counselor and to subsidize the salaries of youth during their “training period” (6 to 10 weeks, depending on

the number of hours worked per day), after which OW helps youth find

unsubsidized jobs.

Community-Based Day Treatment

Programs—Bethesda Day Treatment

Center Model

Community-based day treatment programs modeled after Pennsylvania’s

Bethesda Day Treatment Center are an optional component of the SafeFutures

initiative. Such centers provide intensive supervision, service coordination, and

counseling to youth and families (including home visits, parent or family

reaking bread

together helps to

develop bonds among

the youth.

B
46

counseling, and family intervention services). Individualized educational alternatives also may be developed for youth who have had difficulties (academic or

social) in mainstream education settings. SafeFutures funding is available for up

to $30,000 (under Part C of the JJDP Act) to permit the demonstration sites to

receive training to develop such centers in their communities.

Founded in 1983, Bethesda Day Treatment focuses on pre- and postadjudicated

youth who are referred to the program by juvenile justice agents. Male and female offenders are ages 10 to 17. Each youth is assessed, is assigned a caseworker, and has a service and treatment plan developed to meet his or her

needs. The average stay is 6 months. The program includes individual therapy

(counseling, supervision, and study skills development), group therapy (social

interaction, group counseling, life and job skills training, and group activities),

and family therapy (family and parent counseling, family intervention, and family training). The program also includes alternative schooling, short-term foster

care, and drug and alcohol counseling. In general, Bethesda Day Treatment offers an alternative to residential placement or can serve as an aftercare component for youth returning from a residential placement (Howell, 1995).

At this time, there has been relatively little research on community-based residential treatment centers. A small-scale evaluation of the Bethesda Day Treatment model found that the recidivism rate among juveniles participating in the

program was far below national and regional norms, at about 5 percent. Although this is promising, it should be noted that the scale of the survey was so

small (N=20) that the generalizability of the findings is questionable (Howell,

1995).

None of the SafeFutures sites has adopted the Bethesda model itself, and some

expressed concerns about its applicability for the target areas or population

served in their community. Several sites explored the possibility of implementing day treatment programs modeled after Bethesda by sending representatives

to visit the Bethesda Center or other day treatment programs. Some sites may

implement day treatment in the later stages of SafeFutures, although not necessarily following the Bethesda model, and some introduced day treatment as part

of the SVCJO component (discussed below).

Under SafeFutures, day treatment is seen as part of a community’s continuum

of care and can be used as (1) an alternative to placement in detention facilities,

(2) a treatment option prior to adjudication, or (3) an aftercare component for

youth leaving institutional care. Such day treatment would include intensive supervision, service coordination, and counseling for youth and families (including home visits, parent or family counseling, and family intervention services).

Other expected program elements are individual, group, and family therapy and

drug and alcohol counseling. Individualized educational alternatives or alternative schooling also may be developed for youth who have had difficulties (academic or social) in mainstream educational settings. Some sites, including Boston and Contra Costa County, are implementing day treatment as part of their

E ach youth is

assessed, is assigned a

caseworker, and has a

service and treatment

plan developed to meet

his or her needs.
47

continuum of care (discussed in the section “Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offender Programs,” page 49).

Continuum-of-Care Services for At-Risk

and Delinquent Girls

The continuum-of-care services for at-risk and delinquent girls component focuses on providing comprehensive gender-specific prevention, intervention, and

treatment services to young women, along with case management and followup.

Dryfoos (1990) notes that girls with low basic academic skills are five to seven

times more likely to become teen mothers. Acoca and Austin (1996) found that

about three-quarters of female offenders were exposed to violence as children.

Other risk factors include association with an antisocial peer group (Hugo and

Rutherford, 1992), dropping out of school (Snyder and Sickmund, 1995), substance abuse (Bergsmann, 1994; Dryfoos, 1990), and sexual abuse (Acoca and

Austin, 1996).

Numerous studies suggest that as many as 10 percent of young females are at

extremely high risk for serious criminal activity (Dryfoos, 1990; Reiss and

Roth, 1993; Wilson and Howell, 1993). Between 1983 and 1993, the number of

females involved in the juvenile justice system grew disproportionately compared with males, including faster increases in the number of person and delinquency offenses (Girls Incorporated, 1996). By 1994, girls constituted onequarter of all juvenile arrests (Poe-Yamagata and Butts, 1996). Female juvenile

offenders exhibit many of the same risk factors common to delinquent males,

including physical or emotional abuse, low economic status, and poor parenting

(Bergsmann, 1988; Crawford, 1988; Sarri, 1988, in Bergsmann, 1989), but tend

to receive fewer services, including fewer preventive services (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995). Burt, Resnick, and Matheson (1992) report that early

identification and treatment, long-term program commitment, individualized

attention, skill enhancement, life options, vocational orientation, and greater

community involvement can increase girls’ protective factors.

This component is intended to provide services that meet the unique emotional

and developmental needs of young women. A maximum of $120,000 per year is

available to each SafeFutures site under Part C of the JJDP Act. The anticipated

gender-specific programming may include health education (e.g., an introduction to female anatomy and self-care, basics on appropriate prenatal care, and

information about safe sex), health services, parenting skills, or childcare services for girls who are parents. It also may include activities supporting basic

education, job training, life management skills, and personal growth focused on

developing a more positive self-image and greater sense of responsibility.

As noted previously, funds for girls’ programming were sometimes combined

with funds from other components. Contra Costa County and Seattle, for example, combined funds from the juvenile mentoring program and the services

A s many as 10

percent of young females

are at extremely high risk

for serious criminal

activity.
48

for at-risk and delinquent girls components to support mentoring programs targeted to girls, and one of Seattle’s mental health programs (Sibling Support,

discussed previously) also targets this group. It should be kept in mind that

the programs specifically identified as serving at-risk girls were not the only

sources of gender-specific programming. The demonstration sites incorporated

gender-specific programming in other components (such as afterschool programs) to varying degrees.

Seattle’s Cambodian Girls Group (CGG) is an example of one of the more comprehensive gender-specific programs. It is also an example of cultural competency in programming.

Seattle, WA. The Cambodian Girls Group (renamed Help Each Other

Reach the Sky in year 3) provides intensive case management, mental

health services, job skills training, employment and career exploration opportunities, tutoring, and counseling to teenage Cambodian girls. Girls

served by CGG tend to have family members or friends who are involved

with gangs, with others who are gang involved, or with the justice system.

The girls come from immigrant/refugee families with high levels of conflict, and parents may be in treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder or

depression.

CGG includes participation in age-appropriate support groups, mandatory

tutoring (3 days per week), employment (5–6 hours per week) at various

organizations that provide job skills and compensation, and parental involvement in family therapy/parenting classes (discussed in the section

“Family Strengthening and Support Services,” page 27). Family therapy

sessions bring parents and daughters together for a limited number of sessions to discuss issues relevant to both parties. All girls are required to

participate in support groups, while one-on-one counseling is provided on

an as-needed basis. Girls must meet work/tutoring/therapy attendance requirements to receive full stipends for participation in the program.

Boston finalized its girls’ program model in the latter part of year 2, when it

subcontracted with an existing agency that provides a range of gender-specific

services.

Boston, MA. ReVision House provides transitional housing for young

mothers and their children for up to 2 years and a shelter serving women

for up to 6 months. Residents are required to participate in job training or

education activities and parenting workshops (which also address health

and hygiene). ReVision House promotes involvement in urban farming,

which is believed to facilitate access to agricultural, environmental, or horticultural careers. Staff provide training to promote self-sufficiency and

help residents find housing.

SafeFutures funding supports stipends for three resident interns (young

mothers in their late teens). Interns work 20 hours per week and spend

S eattle’s Cambodian

Girls Group is an

example of one of the

more comprehensive

gender-specific

programs.
49

their remaining time involved in activities offered or encouraged by

ReVision House, including chores, budgeting workshops, and appointments to seek housing (the primary goal for women in the program). Intern efforts at ReVision include working in the garden and fish farm, helping with the farmer’s market stand, and promotional activities. Interns also

help coordinate workshops for other residents on a wide range of topics.

The interns also work with at-risk girls (ages 14–18) from several

SafeFutures partner organizations (e.g., Boys & Girls Club, Franklin Field,

Perkins Community Center). Assignments have included providing training for a “double-dutch” jump rope competition and providing tours and

workshops about fish farming and herb cultivation. Some girls in the partner agency programs also receive peer leadership training at ReVision that

enables them to make presentations or perform other functions as designated by the partner agencies. For example, Franklin Field peer leaders

work with younger girls, and those at the Boys & Girls Club assist with

afterschool activities there. Peer leaders also spend time at ReVision, helping with garden work and the weekly farm stand.

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offender Programs

The serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offender (SVCJO) component involves the development of a system of graduated sanctions of increasingly intensive treatment and rehabilitation services, including immediate interventions,

intermediate sanctions, and secure confinement. Programs such as restitution,

community service, and victim mediation are to be included among the range of

sanctions adopted. Development of an aftercare program to assist juveniles

leaving residential facilities in their reentry to the community also may be part

of this component. The approach anticipates that youth will be assigned to appropriate levels of intervention or sanctions based on the use of risk and needs

assessment tools developed by the community. Secure confinement is expected

to be reserved for the most serious, violent, or chronic offenders. For those juveniles who are placed in residential facilities, aftercare programs are envisioned to facilitate positive reentry to the community. Funding for this component is provided for a maximum of $100,000 per year to each SafeFutures site

under Part C of the JJDP Act.

As noted earlier, approaches using graduated sanctions, although not fully implemented, have generally been shown to be associated with positive outcomes. A

study of the Massachusetts system of community-based programs found that the

“regions that most adequately implemented the reform measures with a diversity

of programs did produce decreases in recidivism over time” (Coates, Miller, and

Ohlin, 1978, p. 136). A second study of this program found that it had comparatively lower recidivism rates than other jurisdictions (Krisberg, Austin, and Steele,

S ecure confinement

is expected to be

reserved for the most

serious, violent, or

chronic offenders.
50

1989). A similar program in Utah was also found to have a “suppression effect”

that reduced the frequency and severity of delinquent offending (Krisberg et al.,

1988). However, it should be noted that not all programs of this type demonstrated positive outcomes (Howell, 1995).

Several specific aspects of the graduated sanctions model have been shown to

be associated with positive outcomes. The six most commonly cited are (1) continuous case management; (2) emphasis on reintegration and reentry services,

including reducing the influence of negative role models and increasing prosocial

bonding; (3) opportunities for youth achievement, emphasizing improved selfimage; (4) clear and consistent consequences for offending; (5) educational and

vocational training; and (6) individual, group, and family therapy (Altschuler and

Armstrong, 1984; Greenwood and Zimring, 1985).

Consistent with the focus of this component, various justice system agencies

were involved in the provision of virtually all SVCJO services. Two existing

community service/restitution programs were expanded under this component—

Payback in St. Louis and the DYS Work Crew in Seattle. Several sites blended

funds from SVCJO and other components to support particular programs, such

as Contra Costa’s Summit Center (discussed in the section “Mental Health Services for At-Risk and Adjudicated Youth,” page 32). Some graduated sanctions

programs, such as Imperial County’s Peer Court and Fort Belknap’s Tribal

Ranch program, were partly funded through the delinquency prevention component because they target first-time offenders, although they also address the

SVCJO graduated sanctions objective.

The SVCJO component also may involve developing risk and needs assessment

instruments for use in referring youth to appropriate graduated sanctions components. Most sites appear to lack formal tools along these lines, although some

have made steps in this direction. For example, Contra Costa’s Probation Department has been working on developing and testing such an instrument, and

SafeFutures has been assisting in this effort. King County Department of Youth

Services also is developing a risk assessment instrument to drive supervision

plans.

Two sites, Imperial County and St. Louis, implemented reduced caseloads for a

limited number of probation officers under this component. Reduced caseloads

enable closer supervision of youth, who are generally assigned to such

caseloads because they are, or are deemed likely to become, SVCJO’s unless

concentrated intervention is provided. Smaller caseloads enable probation officers to provide more intensive services than are usually feasible under typical

caseload scenarios. This includes more case management/counseling and referral, more family contact (which may also include referrals to services for parents or other family members), and more followup to ensure that services were

received. Reduced caseloads are considered an element of graduated sanctioning because they permit more intensive supervision of youthful offenders than

is possible under routine circumstances.

S everal specific

aspects of the graduated

sanctions model have

been shown to

be associated with

positive outcomes.
51

Imperial County implemented intensive community supervision specifically targeted to gang members, under the oversight of one of the probation officers assigned to the Law Enforcement Team (discussed in the section “Comprehensive

Communitywide Approaches to Gang-Free Schools and Communities,” page

39). St. Louis implemented reduced caseload programs under two justice

agencies.

St. Louis, MO, Family Court. Two Deputy Juvenile Officers (DJO’s) in

the Juvenile Division of Family Court are funded through SafeFutures to

provide intensive supervision and case management for youth who have

been adjudicated delinquent, live in the target area, are gang affiliated, and

have three or more prior offenses. The DJO’s have caseloads of approximately 20 youth each (15 formally placed on supervision and 5 informally—and voluntarily—under supervision without court processing).

SafeFutures youth reportedly receive a greater range of services (e.g.,

employability training, mentors) through referrals to SafeFutures partner

agencies and faster access to services than youth on regular supervision.

SafeFutures DJO’s have a minimum of one contact per week with youth

on their caseload but usually see them more frequently (as often as two to

three times per day). DJO’s visit schools weekly to check attendance and

meet with school social workers or counselors. They also follow up with

parents.

SafeFutures enabled establishment of an intermediate level of supervision

in what had been a two-tier system (in effect, a systems change). Formerly, the two tiers were regular supervision (with caseloads of 25–30

youth) and intensive supervision (with caseloads of 15 youth). The new

tier is for youth who have committed more serious crimes than first-tier

youth but not as serious as third-tier youth (the latter have committed repeated felony offenses, more of them and more serious in nature than

SafeFutures-level youth). Probation administrators noted that it would be

desirable to have this second tier available for the entire city, not just

youth in the SafeFutures target area.

St. Louis, MO, Department of Youth Services. St. Louis SafeFutures

also provides support to enable two Department of Youth Services (DYS)

service coordinators (case managers) to have reduced caseloads of 20 or

fewer adjudicated youth living in the SafeFutures target area. The normal

DYS caseload consists of 25–30 cases. Youth referred to DYS reportedly

constitute the more serious, violent, or chronic offenders; those assigned to

service coordinators typically are returning from secure or intermediate

care facilities (aftercare, in effect), although some are under “direct community care” (e.g., assigned to day treatment or other community-based

services).

The role of DYS service coordinators is similar to that of the DJO’s. They

meet with caseload youth a minimum of once per week (frequency and

S afeFutures enabled

establishment of an

intermediate level of

supervision in what had

been a two-tier system

(in effect, a systems

change).
52

length of contact vary according to the needs of the client). Service coordinators seek to involve families in services as much as possible and may

refer family members to services. Weekly visits are made to schools to obtain information on attendance and performance and discuss the youth’s

behavior with school staff (e.g., counselors) or school police officers.

Meetings with parents usually are followups to school contacts. Coordinators may refer youth to SafeFutures services that are unavailable to youth

under DYS supervision or to DYS-coordinated services, such as outpatient

or residential drug treatment programs.

In contrast to the sites that revised their supervision practices under

SafeFutures, Fort Belknap lacked a juvenile justice system (other than the

Children’s Court judge). Under SafeFutures, components of an integrated juvenile justice system have been implemented, representing a significant systems

change. During year 3, the Tribal Code was revised to include the court

positions and functions developed through SafeFutures; this revision enhances

the sustainability of this effort.

Fort Belknap, MT. SafeFutures funds support three staff assigned to the

juvenile court: a juvenile probation officer, presenting officer, and family

court counselor. The three work together to address common issues and

service needs, work fairly closely with SafeFutures staff (a memorandum

of understanding was developed to enable information sharing), and refer

youth to SafeFutures for services. They also developed cooperative working relationships with off-reservation agencies that commonly serve courtinvolved youth, such as the county social service agency and the juvenile

probation department for the region (which supervises youth on probation

for offenses committed off the reservation). Such linkages also represent

systems change.

The juvenile probation officer (JPO) provides supervision and case management functions typical of probation officers. The JPO presides over informal hearings held to address minor offenses such as curfew violation or

possession of alcohol. The presenting officer performs preliminary review

and investigation of youth referred to the court, presenting the case to the

judge with recommendations and making referrals to the family court or

family services counselor. The family court counselor is assigned to the

court that addresses neglect, abuse, and domestic violence. The counselor

provides case management and counseling for parents and youth. The

counselor also initiated, and has served as the facilitator for, a women’s

support group.

Court staff introduced several new graduated sanctions options including

house arrest, restitution, fines, and community service, primarily at the Tribal

Ranch (discussed in the section “Delinquency Prevention Programs,” page

36). Court staff developed arrangements for temporary placement of youth to

give them time to find an appropriate placement (e.g., the detention facility at

T he juvenile

probation officer

provides supervision

and case management

functions typical of

probation officers.
53

Rocky Boy Reservation, foster homes, or therapeutic foster homes). They also

have identified or developed a number of service options not previously available to court-involved youth, often on an ad hoc basis. For example, because

of concerns about confidentiality of services on the reservation, sexual abuse

cases are referred to a licensed clinical social worker off the reservation.

Two sites, Boston and Contra Costa County, developed day treatment programs. Contra Costa’s Probation Department plans to open a day treatment/

transition program in calendar year 2000. It will serve up to 20 youth released

from the youth ranch 2 to 3 weeks early to enter this program. It will include

education, community service, vocational training, and job search training. This

program is expected to be supported by county funds, but it is viewed as part of

the continuum of sanctions and services that SafeFutures has helped develop in

Contra Costa.

Boston, MA. Boston’s day reporting center, implemented in spring 1999,

targets youth returning to the community from locked State DYS facilities

and includes four levels of supervision. Programming at the center includes a transitional education program, therapeutic groups (for example,

for substance abuse and anger management), and recreational activities. A

mentoring program is planned for youth phasing out of intensive services/

supervision. Youth are monitored through home visits, meetings at school,

and daily contact at the center.

This program represents a systems reform effort in that it involves a contract between the State’s DYS and a community-based organization,

Roxbury Youthworks (RYW). The latter has a history of working with

court-involved youth, including managing detention diversion programs

and clinics. DYS staff provide case management, tracking, and enforcement, while RYW staff provide programmatic aspects, such as workshops,

scheduling, outreach, and tracking/monitoring for levels 3 and 4 youth

(those needing less intensive supervision). SafeFutures and DYS provide

funding for the program.

Contra Costa developed an aftercare program under the SVCJO component,

which also is viewed as a systems reform.

Contra Costa County, CA. Contra Costa’s Youth After Care Program

(YACP) was developed through the support of SafeFutures funds, which

enabled the hiring of a second probation officer for the Orrin Allen Youth

Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF), a residential youth ranch operated by

the probation office for adjudicated boys (typically 14 to 18 years old).

Having two probation officers (PO’s) enables each to be assigned to assist

youth in their transition back to the community after release, in addition to

supervising youth at the ranch. A third officer was added to the ranch in

year 3 (because of expansion of the ranch). The addition of this officer,

who also provides aftercare supervision and in-ranch supervision, reflects

T wo sites, Boston

and Contra Costa

County, developed day

treatment programs.
54

commitment to the program. The funding of this position through “hard”

county funds is an indication of the future sustainability of the program.

Approximately 35 youth are on each aftercare caseload at a time, in addition to those in the ranch who are also on caseload.

Upon entry to the OAYRF, youth are assigned to a probation officer who

supervises their stay at the ranch and, as a result of this program, provides

aftercare supervision for 45 days postrelease. This arrangement enables

the youth and PO to develop relationships before release (the PO also

works with parents at that stage) and helps familiarize the PO with the

youth’s experiences while at the ranch. The aftercare component includes

more frequent contact than is the case with regular community supervision. It also ensures that youth have contact with a PO immediately after

release, whereas prior to the YACP, youth often spent some period of time

before having any contact with their assigned PO. Aftercare supervision

generally includes visiting the youth at school two to three times weekly,

meeting with the youth in the PO’s office in the community, and contacting parents regularly (generally by telephone). In combination, these

forms of contact enable identification of problems earlier than would be

the case otherwise. Probation officers also refer youth to services, as

needed.

A key feature of the aftercare program is ensuring that youth return to

school after release from the ranch. To facilitate this, the probation department established a “community school” for the YACP in cooperation with

the County Board of Education. The County Board provides a teacher and

an aide for a “transition classroom” serving up to 25 youth. The approach

of the community school is more flexible than that of regular schools and

uses an individualized learning approach to address the different ability

levels of youth in the classroom.

After 45 days in the community, the youth has a court date to assess his

behavior and attitude and is transferred to a different PO for the remainder

of his probation. (If the youth is having problems, the 45-day aftercare period can be extended or the judge can revoke parole and return him to the

ranch.) Because of the aftercare, the youth and parents are expected to be

more adjusted to the youth being back in the community when the new PO

begins working with them than would be the case otherwise.

Lessons Learned

A variety of lessons can be drawn from the early implementation of the SafeFutures

initiative. Some lessons are common to any complex demonstration; others are

encountered less frequently and may result from SafeFutures’ emphasis on collaboration combined with implementation of specific component programming.

The findings identified here are grouped into three categories: lessons related to

A key feature of the

aftercare program is

ensuring that youth

return to school after

release from the ranch.
55

funded demonstration projects, lessons related to community-based collaboratives, and lessons related to service provision. Classifying a given point is not

always easy because some findings undoubtedly apply to more than one category.

Funded Demonstration Programs

■ An iterative, flexible approach is needed on the part of funders and demonstration sites to implement complex, multifaceted initiatives. SafeFutures

uses cross-site cluster conferences for this purpose, in addition to the ongoing training and technical assistance on key program elements.

Cross-site conferences have facilitated an ongoing dialog that has clarified

and shaped the viewpoints of both local administrators/program staff and

Federal agency representatives regarding how SafeFutures should be implemented with respect to systems reforms and specific programmatic components. Cross-site conferences also provide opportunities for sites to exchange

information and to learn from each other’s experiences—facilitating crossfertilization of successful or innovative programs or techniques employed to

address challenges or issues. Electronic communication also can serve this

purpose.

OJJDP modified some policies in response to difficulties encountered by

sites. For example, in year 3, OJJDP modified its expectations related to

mentoring programs to allow sites flexibility regarding the costs of making

and supporting each “match.” OJJDP originally required sites to meet the

cost estimate of $1,000 per match (which was based on a study of costs associated with Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring programs). After several

sites reported difficulty matching this cost, OJJDP reviewed the study and

costs associated with other mentoring programs. OJJDP determined that this

amount might not be an appropriate “benchmark” for the kinds of mentoring

programs operated by SafeFutures sites (e.g., focusing on high-risk youth or

those already in the juvenile justice system) and that the requirement could

be relaxed where sites could justify their inability to meet it.

■ Communities need access to ongoing training and technical assistance to

help implement components with highly structured requirements—such as

mentoring or the gang-free schools and communities component with its

required implementation of the Spergel model of gang intervention—and to

adapt generic models to the local context. Assistance also is needed to reconcile differing interpretations by local and Federal actors with respect to

the theoretical principles underlying SafeFutures and their practical use

(e.g., what constitutes adequate procedures to accomplish community risk

and resource assessments). Training and technical assistance resources also

have been deployed to assist sites with implementation of evolving concepts

and approaches.

Flexibility in providing additional training and technical assistance regarding areas with which sites are experiencing difficulty also is desirable. For

Cross-site

conferences also provide

opportunities for sites to

exchange information

and to learn from each

other’s experiences.
56

example, OJJDP enabled sites to obtain additional technical assistance regarding systems change and the Spergel model, aspects of SafeFutures that

were perceived as particularly challenging. Further, to facilitate collaborative, multidimensional initiatives such as SafeFutures, training and technical

assistance supported by OJJDP has gone beyond traditional “categorical”

approaches focused on a single program to address topics such as systems

improvement and comprehensive strategic planning.

Continuity of technical assistance providers is important—particularly with

those the community views as a “good fit” for them and with whom the

community has established a satisfactory working relationship.

■ Small service providers generally need more and different types of technical

assistance and training than large, well-established organizations. Small,

community-based organizations are often less familiar with some aspects of

program implementation such as accountability, recordkeeping and record

reporting, program evaluation, and other requirements commonly associated

with demonstration programs. Staff of such organizations often are particularly concerned about recordkeeping and tracking requirements associated

with monitoring clients to assess the outcomes of a demonstration program.

This is due partly to concerns about maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive information. In addition, service delivery staff are primarily focused on

working with youth/families and may believe that recordkeeping and monitoring take time away from their service provision role. Local program administrators frequently need to spend more time and effort with such organizations to ensure that they understand and are able to comply with various

requirements of an initiative.

■ Demonstration sites need flexibility to exercise cultural sensitivity and competence in program implementation. Although several programs in each

SafeFutures community were specifically tailored to the cultural context of

a targeted population, staff and service providers encountered difficulties

adapting some components, such as mentoring, to ensure their relevance to

the cultural context. Two sites experienced problems because the concept of

one-to-one mentoring is not part of the culture of the respective target populations in those sites.

■ Communities and program staff appear to be reluctant to impose eligibility

criteria to ensure that they serve youth at highest risk or in greatest need.

Many staff seem to regard all youth residing in target areas as being at risk,

without seeing a need to make efforts to identify those at greater risk. Some

programs rely heavily on self-referral or parental referral for client recruitment. This is logical from the perspective of ensuring that clients are willing

to participate in program activities, but it may result in a failure to serve

youth at highest risk because such individuals might be less likely to selfselect for participation. By the end of year 3, several sites began using tools

and processes to identify and focus on higher risk youth.

Demonstration

sites need flexibility

to exercise cultural

sensitivity and

competence in program

implementation.
57

Communities have varied in the type and number of youth on whom their initiatives, or specific program components, focus. Some sites have chosen to

spread resources around to reach as many youth in the community as possible,

while others have concentrated resources to provide more intensive services

to a smaller number of higher risk youth. The former approach is more commonly associated with prevention programs, while the latter is more common

to intervention programming.

■ Replication of programs that worked in other communities (or under different circumstances within the local community) does not guarantee similarly

positive results in a new setting. It may be difficult to isolate and completely

duplicate the features specifically responsible for success. The original

program’s success may have been due to charismatic leadership that is not

easily transplanted. Other program factors also may not translate well in a

new environment, and adapting a program may dissipate and undermine its

effectiveness.

■ It is desirable to address program sustainability well in advance of anticipated termination of Federal support. Some SafeFutures programs—such as

Volunteers in Probation (mentoring) in Contra Costa County—took steps to

establish selected programs as nonprofit entities. This enables these programs to begin fundraising and building a base of support before

SafeFutures Federal funding ends.

Communities often seek to sustain a demonstration program by applying for

other grant funds for its continuation. This approach may seem more expedient and feasible than securing “hard money” from budgets of local governments or service providers. However, it often results in modifying key

features of an existing program to make it fit the objectives of the next

funder. It also may result in piecemeal sustainability, in which some elements of the initiative’s continuum of services receive ongoing support,

while others fade away.

Community-Based Collaboratives

■ Implicit in the SafeFutures approach is an emphasis on bringing about more

comprehensive and more holistic treatment of youth and families. The road

to systems reform can be seen as a continuum with gradations and permutations. Bringing together actors from different institutional contexts who

logically need to interact, but have not previously done so, can be viewed as

an early indication of systems reform. At the other end of the continuum is

wholesale systems change, including changes in policies and practices of

institutions brought about collaboratively/jointly to accomplish mutually

agreed-upon reforms. Systems change can also occur within a single institution, not only across several institutions. Some reform efforts might be

implemented in a single location or may be introduced on a limited scale

with the intent of expanding them systemwide if they appear successful.

Replication of

programs that worked in

other communities does

not guarantee similarly

positive results in a new

setting.
58

The SafeFutures sites provide evidence of systems reform at various stages

along the continuum.

■ It takes a considerable amount of time for communities to develop viable

collaborations. These are complex mechanisms that involve organizations

with different institutional climates and levels of autonomy, flexibility, and

power; individuals with differing levels of experience and expertise; and

diverse cultural contexts that give rise to different ways of defining issues

and solutions. Organizations need to develop the trust necessary to agree on

how to work together and to decide what to do. Once established, collaborative relationships need to be nurtured and maintained over time. Consequently, collaboration is not easy and takes much time and effort. Organizations must work to overcome histories that include turf issues, longstanding

isolation, dissension and mistrust among key parties, and real shortages of

resources.

■ In collaborative ventures, the differing perspectives of staff from different

systems need to be recognized and respected if partnerships are to succeed.

For example, staff from juvenile justice system agencies and social service

agencies may work together to deliver a particular service or program, as in

Contra Costa County’s Summit Center. In doing so, they bring different perspectives on the appropriate way to address particular types of youth behavior, which may lead to conflict among staff. Partners need to “learn each

other’s language” and develop an understanding of the values and norms of

their respective fields in order to work as a team. Cross-training helps

promote team development and extends staff abilities to deliver holistic

services.

■ Successful collaborations need individuals in positions of authority to exert

their leadership to secure resources and support. Given the complexity and

cross-cutting nature of comprehensive community initiatives, higher level

forces—often external to the collaboration or even the local community

(e.g., State-level officials)—can exert positive or negative influence on an

initiative. High-level decisionmakers in the public arena and key local or

regional private-sector actors should be informed about the critical nature of

an initiative, to gain their support at the outset. (For funded demonstrations,

it may be useful for the funders to do this.) Such individuals would not be

expected to be active members of the local collaborative (in the sense of

hands-on involvement in committees or direct service delivery) but might

be asked to use their clout in support of the initiative and to mitigate obstacles that threaten to undermine the achievement of key objectives.

■ Key community leaders face multiple demands for participation in various

collaborative and strategic planning efforts. Many initiatives—of Federal or

local origin—request (or require) collaboration and/or strategic planning.

Some communities have multiple initiatives of this type in operation at the

same time. As a result, the same key leaders are called upon to participate

in multiple periodic planning, needs assessment, or similar events for the

S uccessful

collaborations need

individuals in positions

of authority to exert

their leadership to secure

resources and support.
59

various initiatives. Because of the multiple demands on their time, it becomes more difficult for staff of a particular initiative to secure participation

of these key leaders. Increasingly, as funders mandate comprehensive interagency strategies, local communities will need to develop mechanisms to

“collaborate the collaboratives.”

■ Turnover among elected officials and administrators of key partner agencies

can have a negative impact on collaborative efforts. The presence of new

leaders may introduce different visions and strategies that dramatically

diverge from those previously endorsed.

Turnover in leadership positions may undercut the pursuit of a coherent

policy, undermining the credibility of the effort and staff morale. At the

least, in such cases, time must be spent rebuilding relationships with the

new administration and reestablishing an understanding of the initiative and

its objectives. Turnover in elected legislative and judicial positions often

leads to subsequent changes in department heads and other influential appointed positions. As a result, program directors may have to cope with

multiple cases of turnover in relatively short time periods. Turnover can

be particularly disruptive if there are prolonged periods where there is an

“acting” administrator, who may have little incentive to maintain ties to the

collaborative or little power to bring to bear on its behalf. In one site, for

example, the departure of the police chief created a leadership void in the

gang task force, which became virtually inactive for a period of months

when that position was held by acting chiefs.

■ Implementation of services and activities in multiple components took

longer than either the local communities or the funders originally anticipated. Sites that had well-developed preexisting strategies were able to

implement program services or activities more quickly, to the extent that

SafeFutures categoric requirements permitted the incorporation of the preexisting local plans. Some sites primarily provided services through subcontracts or other agreements with agencies that already operated similar programs (e.g., afterschool or mentoring programs). This usually facilitated

relatively early implementation of programming, but the downside may be

the continuation of “business as usual” rather than the careful consideration

of whether reforms are necessary. In cases where staff had to be hired and

new programs established, services to youth were invariably delayed by

startup activities.

■ The SafeFutures sites introduced a variety of accountability mechanisms

over the course of the initiative, in part to ensure that multiple service providers were fulfilling their obligations. For example, St. Louis instituted a

monthly reporting system for case-managed youth at the start of the initiative. This management information system (MIS) is used to record information on service needs and referrals. The MIS has been used to make decisions about retaining partner agencies and to encourage agencies to make

more referrals. Boston created positions for contract monitors among its

T urnover among

elected officials and

administrators of key

partner agencies can

have a negative impact

on collaborative efforts.
60

administrative staff to provide better oversight of subcontractors. SafeFutures

administrators hold mandatory monthly grants management meetings with

contractors to convey information about administrative and reporting requirements and other contracting issues. Sanctions are imposed when contractors are not in compliance with their contracts. In Seattle, the city government recently introduced outcome-based budgeting, which affects all

city agencies and subcontractors, including those working with SafeFutures.

As a result of this initiative, contractors are required to set quarterly outcome goals and face funding reductions if they fail to meet them.

■ Programs operated in partnership with other agencies can be discontinued

for reasons unrelated to the initiative—even in cases where the program is

considered successful. In one site, an afterschool/family strengthening program that was being replicated because SafeFutures partners believed it was

successfully reaching and retaining high-risk youth was discontinued because of a decision by the Board of Directors of the agency that operated the

program. This decision was related to financial difficulties of that organization, not to the effectiveness of the program. In such cases, the local initiative may have little or no ability to influence the decision of the agency responsible for the program, unless it is able to provide full funding to enable

continued operation.

Service Provision

■ Communities are willing and able to implement programming that is innovative in the local area. To some extent, each of the demonstration sites engaged in risk taking by implementing at least some services or activities that

no one had ever tried or that were new to their locale. For most communities, implementing innovative programming had both beneficial and detrimental effects. New approaches were enticing in that they offered the opportunity to fill a previously unmet need or gap in service; however, there

was no formulaic approach to success that could be followed. In most cases,

service providers experienced learning curves and had to find creative ways

to redress unanticipated difficulties, many of which were logistical. For instance, in one site, staff learned that they could not combine programming

for at-risk girls and girls who were juvenile offenders since the latter intimidated the former and undermined the purpose of the group.

■ Staff turnover in leadership and other key positions can seriously hinder

program implementation and stability. Several SafeFutures sites experienced turnover in the position of project director during the first 2 years of

the initiative—and some sites had more than one turnover in the same position within the first 3 years. Turnover affects the continuity of program

implementation and requires site staff to reestablish linkages and, in some

cases, restart programs that lapsed during periods of staff change. Loss of

institutional memory also occurs in such cases, especially if the program

F or most

communities,

implementing innovative

programming had both

beneficial and

detrimental effects.
61

does not have written guidance and other documentation detailing specific

project operations to facilitate such transitions.

■ Filling positions—especially positions involving specialized skills—can be

a problem, particularly in rural areas that have a limited professional

workforce. The relative isolation and low wages common to rural areas

make it difficult to recruit individuals with relevant expertise to fill certain

positions. Programs that arrange to provide training to make the existing

workforce more qualified may then face the possibility of losing those staff

after their enhanced skills make them more desirable to other agencies.

■ Recruiting mentors and other volunteers is particularly challenging in lowincome areas. Transportation and poverty issues also affect programs’ abilities to attract and work with volunteers. In rural areas and large counties, the

need to travel long distances works against attracting individuals to serve as

mentors or work as volunteers. Distance also makes it difficult to meet with

volunteers as a group, either to provide training or to hold periodic meetings

to support volunteer efforts. Difficulties in recruiting and retaining mentors

in rural settings also make each match more expensive. In low-income areas, it is apparently more difficult to find adults who have the ability or motivation to donate their time. Many of these adults work more than one job,

are preoccupied with the need to find a job, and/or are struggling to raise

their own families with limited resources. In addition, some adults have personal or legal histories that make it inadvisable to use them as mentors (or

as volunteers in other roles).

In some cases, new mentoring programs established for SafeFutures by

small, community-based organizations had difficulty recruiting mentors because they were competing for volunteers with large, well-known mentoring

programs (such as BBBS) with more resources and experience in recruiting.

Corporations and other organizations welcome recruiting efforts by such

entities, but are less willing to provide access to their staff to unfamiliar

organizations.

Recruiting mentors is also more challenging for programs that serve youth

already involved in the juvenile justice system or youth who may be perceived as high risk by potential mentors.

■ “Hidden” resource requirements can pose challenges to program implementation. Several programs encountered unanticipated costs associated with transportation and food (discussed separately below). One program designed to

reenroll clients in school found that once they helped youth return to school,

these students lacked appropriate clothing to attend classes. The program was

unprepared to meet that need or youth’s other needs related to school participation (e.g., activity cards, sports attire/gear, band equipment). At least one

youth could not officially reregister in school until settling $180 in outstanding school library fines (the program helped negotiate a payment plan). Similarly, programs geared to youth employment unexpectedly found that clients

Recruiting mentors

and other volunteers is

particularly challenging

in low-income areas.
62

had no way to get to their jobs or lacked money for lunches (one program

arranged for free lunch program deliveries).

■ The ability to offer food is an important element of many programs that

serve a low-income population. Providing food and opportunities for group

dining can play a part in enhancing group bonding, modeling prosocial behavior (e.g., etiquette, respect for others), and meeting the service needs of

low-income youth/families or those in unstable home environments. Many

programs provided healthy snacks during afterschool activities, both to attract participation and in an effort to address the nutritional needs of youth

(who did not always receive adequate nutrition at home). The PREPP program in St. Louis provided a hot meal each afternoon, to which parents also

were welcome, as an incentive to youth and to encourage parental involvement. In Contra Costa County, the weekly meeting of gang-involved youth

includes a shared meal, since staff perceive that “breaking bread” together

helps youth involved in different gangs to bond with each other and with

program staff. Serving food also is viewed as an important drawing card for

programs intended to attract parents or the community in general. Demonstration sites experienced some confusion or concern about the use of Federal SafeFutures funds to pay for food in various contexts. Some programs

drew on other resources to underwrite food costs, while a few sought donations for this purpose.

■ Transportation and location are critical considerations in programs serving

low-income and at-risk youth. Providing easy access to programs (particularly afterschool programs) was a challenge in some sites. Transportation

problems were commonly related to the relative lack of public transportation in low-income areas, the absence of a family vehicle, or the lack of a

family member who could drive the youth to a program. In the rural

SafeFutures sites, these problems were compounded by long travel distances between various locations. Some programs addressed the problem by

arranging for free bus/subway tokens; others bought or made arrangements

to share vans.

Distance and accessibility concerns were further heightened in some cases

by concerns about the safety of the neighborhood in which a program is located or whether it is located in an area perceived as the turf of a particular

gang. The latter issues were key concerns in selecting the location of the

SafeFutures Youth Center in Seattle, for example. Some programs made an

effort to locate programs in areas that were considered gang neutral or

sought to define their sites as such.

Conversely, selecting an appropriate site for a program may pose challenges

due to the “at-risk” characteristics of the clientele. One site that initiated

school-based services for youth and families found that elementary school administrators were not comfortable with the older adolescents these programs

were intended to attract and the schools did not welcome their presence. The

site ultimately closed two of the programs based in elementary schools.

T ransportation and

location are critical

considerations in

programs serving

low-income and at-risk

youth.
63

■ It is difficult to get families of at-risk youth to support services for their

children or to participate in family-focused services. Despite the emphasis

in OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders on families as the primary providers of care for children, few

sites have been able to meaningfully involve parents in the programs or services designed to support their children. For the most part, at-risk youth and

juvenile offenders were being served independently of their families. There

appear to be several reasons for the difficulty in engaging parents. Some

parents may feel intimidated by the institutional settings or staff. Others

may be used to resolving personal issues within family/kinship networks

or skeptical about risking privacy to accept assistance from outsiders. Further, there are parents who fear that program participation might reveal their

own dysfunctional behaviors, such as substance abuse, gang involvement,

criminal behavior, or poor parenting practices. The transience of some lowincome families also works against establishing relationships with them.

Similarly, the severity of family problems (e.g., substance abuse, imprisonment, death of parent or sibling) makes service provision more challenging.

In some cases, parents are not truly supportive of changes that they perceive

as turning the child away from the family or displacing the values or authority of the parents. Some parents undermine program efforts, for example, by

canceling meetings between the mentor and their child, not letting the child

participate in specific program activities, or failing to reinforce programsupported behaviors at home.

Logistical challenges also affect programs’ abilities to involve parents in

services for themselves or in parent activities associated with youth programming. Limited access to transportation (public or private) in lowincome areas (especially rural communities), work hours that may not conform to a “9 to 5” schedule, jobs that do not provide time off to participate

in family activities, and absence of childcare to enable participation in activities are among the factors that make participation difficult for parents

who wish to receive, or be involved in, services.

Parents also may be reluctant to participate in classes or programs designed to

improve parenting skills because they believe this indicates that they are not

perceived as good parents. To overcome such feelings, some SafeFutures

programs have made efforts to present such classes in ways that do not imply

that participants lack parenting skills. In Boston, for example, case managers

at health centers and public housing facilities reach out to parents with information on how the school and juvenile justice systems work, to engage parents who might resist activities labeled as parenting classes.

■ The considerable stigma associated with mental health services affects providers’ ability to obtain clients or to serve those in need of such assistance.

Reluctance to participate in mental health services—on the part of youth or

on the part of parents (who are reluctant to receive such services or allow

their child to receive them)—is fairly common, particularly in low-income

I t is difficult to get

families of at-risk youth

to support services for

their children or to

participate in familyfocused services.
64

or minority communities. In some cases, parents have opted to have their

child spend time in a juvenile detention facility rather than participate in

residential mental health treatment since the former is viewed as a common

(and therefore acceptable) occurrence in their community and usually involves a shorter stay than the latter. Some youth/parents may simply be resistant to mental health or substance abuse treatment and may require the

additional leverage of a court order (for juvenile offenders).

■ Programs need to be developmentally appropriate in terms of both substance and setting. Programs seemingly experienced more difficulty attracting and retaining older teens than they did middle or elementary school-age

children. Many SafeFutures programs, particularly afterschool programs,

experienced this problem. There are several possible reasons for difficulties

attracting older teens.

■ They may be more deeply entrenched in peer groups that support higher

risk activities.

■ Older teens appear to be reluctant to be associated with programs that

are perceived as serving children and younger teens.

■ The types of activities commonly offered in afterschool programs, such

as loosely organized sports, free play, and arts and crafts, may not appeal to older youth.

■ Older teens may have more options for their free time (e.g., afternoon

sports practice in high schools).

■ Low-income youth’s need (or desire) for afterschool jobs apparently

mitigates against their participation in programs.

Programs that focused exclusively on older youth, such as Seattle’s SafeFutures

Youth Center, did not appear to have as much difficulty attracting older teens as

those that included a broader range of ages. Some programs, such as Imperial

County’s Boys & Girls Club, scheduled activities for older youth at different

times than those for younger ones.

Staff attempting to attract older youth often are hard pressed to identify programming that will hold the interest of older adolescents, many of whom are

involved in gangs or the justice system and not all of whom are committed

to engaging in a prosocial lifestyle. In working with such youth, staff often

seek to engage them long enough to have a chance to shape their behavior.

Staff are often reluctant to enforce rules or requirements that might cause

youth to leave a program since participation itself is often seen as an initial

indication of movement toward prosocial behavior.

P rograms need to

be developmentally

appropriate in terms of

both substance and

setting.
65

■ It is more difficult—and takes longer—to see results of program efforts with

youth who are beyond the at-risk stage, such as those already deeply involved in the juvenile justice system, gangs, or substance abuse. Prevention

programs often are able to see changes in client behavior and attitude in the

short run. Intervention programs may see little or no real change after

considerable lengths of time. The lack of measurable program outcomes in

such cases makes it difficult for administrators and funders to determine

whether intervention programs are working and should continue receiving

support or whether modifications, or alternative programs, are needed.

Endnotes

1. Each community is eligible to receive approximately $1.4 million per program year. A supplement of $25,000 was available during year 3 to implement a management information system to support client tracking.

2. Secondary analysis to date has included review of documents such as the

SafeFutures solicitation and sites’ original proposals to OJJDP, OJJDP

guidance for subsequent years and sites’ continuation applications,

workplans and initial strategic plan documents, progress reports, and materials describing discrete project activities and services. In general, two to

three multiday visits were conducted at each demonstration community during each of the first 3 years of the initiative. For each visit, two- or threeperson research teams toured the targeted areas, interviewed program managers and other key actors (such as justice system stakeholders and

SafeFutures service providers), observed project activities, and collected

relevant local documents. After each site visit, evaluators reported the site

visit agenda, together with highlights of the local program’s status and issues. These findings were disseminated as detailed site-specific memos, intended to support the formative evaluation interests of OJJDP and the local

collaboratives. Relevant information contained in those documents has been

reworked for inclusion in this Summary.

3. Note that programs receiving funds provided under Title II, Part C of the

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as

amended (i.e., programs that address at-risk and delinquent girls, family

strengthening, mental health, and serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders) permit some flexibility. Communities with sufficiently strong programs in place in any of these component areas could receive permission to

use Part C funds (designated for a particular component) to supplement

other SafeFutures components. All six sites initiated activities in most Part

C components, however. Further, community-based day treatment modeled

after Pennsylvania’s Bethesda Day Treatment Center is an optional component that none of the sites adopted, although some have introduced other

types of day treatment.

I t is more difficult—

and takes longer—to see

results of program

efforts with youth who

are beyond the at-risk

stage.
66

4. In addition to delivering services to a defined target population, SafeFutures

sites are required to conduct planning and implement systems change

throughout their jurisdiction.

5. Unless otherwise noted, the information contained in this section and the

section covering community risk factors was extracted from applications

submitted to OJJDP for first- and second-year funding of SafeFutures demonstrations. These documents were submitted in spring/summer 1995 and

1997.

6. Formerly the Department of Housing and Human Services.

7. This Summary is not intended to provide an exhaustive review of the literature. Taken together, the relevant studies often report mixed results and are

frequently challenged as insufficiently rigorous to justify definitive conclusions. Despite these difficulties, Federal agencies and practitioners—

whether part of demonstration programs or not—have tried to apply promising approaches identified by research to improve their own efforts. This

information on research, therefore, is included to identify some of the studies that lend support to the various SafeFutures components.

8. On a cautionary note: although afterschool recreation programs can mitigate

risk factors and increase protective factors, it is also possible that close

proximity to other at-risk juveniles will increase risk factors due to contamination, such as has been shown in some gang interventions (Sherman et al.,

1997). The literature addressing the relative merits of afterschool programs

suggests that specific types of components are crucial to outcomes; regrettably, there is only limited knowledge of which components are most successful individually and in combination.

9. The Summit Center, planned prior to the SafeFutures initiative, was conceptualized as a locked mental health unit for serious, violent, and chronic offenders in Juvenile Hall. However, in order to receive MediCal funding, the

Center operates as an unlocked facility adjacent to, but independent of, Juvenile Hall.

10. MHB distributes funds collected through a local property tax to agencies

providing mental health and substance abuse services for adults.

11. Seattle provides mental health services under SSP and also as part of the

Cambodian Girls Group, discussed in the section “Continuum-of-Care

Services for At-Risk and Delinquent Girls,” page 47.

12. Because efforts to produce gang-free schools and communities (GFSC) are

closely linked conceptually to the delinquency prevention component and

the serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders component, some sites

used funds from more than one of these to support programs addressing

goals bridging components. This section focuses on the gang-free schools

and communities elements of such programs, where applicable.
67

References

Acoca, L., and Austin, J. 1996. The crisis: Women in prison. Report submitted

to the Charles E. Culpeper Foundation. Draft. Available from National Council

on Crime and Delinquency, 685 Market Street, Suite 620, San Francisco, CA

94105.

Altschuler, D., and Armstrong, T. 1984. Intervening with serious juvenile offenders. In Violent Juvenile Offenders, edited by R. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and

R. Allinson. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency,

p. 140.

Arbuthnot, J., Gordon, D.A., and Jurkovic, G.J. 1987. Personality. In Handbook

of Juvenile Delinquency, edited by H.C. Quay. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

pp. 139–183.

Barbaree, H.E., Marshall, W.L., and Hudson, S.M., eds. 1993. The Juvenile Sex

Offender. New York: Guilford Press.

Baumrind, D. 1967. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool

behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs 75:43–88.

Baumrind, D. 1971. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental

Psychology Monographs 4:1, Part 2.

Bazemore, G., and Day, S. 1996. Restoring the balance: Juvenile and community justice. Juvenile Justice: A Journal of the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention 3(1):3–14.

Bergsmann, I.R. 1988. State Juvenile Education Survey. Washington, DC:

Council of Chief State School Officers.

Bergsmann, I.R. 1989. The forgotten few: Female juvenile offenders. Federal

Probation (March):73–78.

Bergsmann, I.R. 1994. Establishing a foundation: Just the facts. In A Time For

Change, Monograph from the 1994 National Juvenile Female Offenders Conference, Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association and U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, pp. 3–14.

Bohman, M. 1978. Some genetic aspects of alcoholism and criminality.

Archives of General Psychiatry 35:269–276.

Breda, C.S. 1995. Delinquency and mental illness: The intersection of problems

and system. In 8th Annual Research and Training Center Conference Proceedings, Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.

Brown, F., Flanagan, T., and McLeod, M., eds. 1984. Sourcebook of Criminal

Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
68

Brown, R.C., Jr., and Dodson, D.W. 1959. The effectiveness of a Boys’ Club in

reducing delinquency. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Sciences 322:47–52.

Burch, J., and Kane, C. 1999. Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang

Model. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Burt, M.R., Resnick, G., and Matheson, N. 1992. Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

Campbell, A. 1987. Self-reported delinquency and home life: Evidence from a

sample of British girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 16(2):167–177.

Center for Mental Health Services. 1997. Children’s and Adolescents’ Mental

Health. Online Fact Sheet. Available at: www.mentalhealth.org/publications/

allpubs/CA-0004/C&amh.htm.

Cernkovich, S.A., and Giordano, P.C. 1987. Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology 25(2):295–321.

Chaiken, M. 1997. Youth Afterschool Programs and Law Enforcement. Research Preview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Cloward, R., and Ohlin, L. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity. Glencoe, IL:

Free Press.

Coates, R., Miller, A., and Ohlin, L. 1978. Diversity in a Youth Correctional

System. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Connell, J.P., Aber, J.L., and Walker, G. 1995. How do urban communities affect youth? Using social science research to inform the design and evaluation of

comprehensive community initiatives. In New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts, edited by J.P. Connell,

A.C. Kubisch, L.B. Schorr, and C.H. Weiss. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, pp. 93–126.

Crawford, J. 1988. Tabulation of a Nationwide Survey of Female Inmates.

Phoenix, AZ: Research Advisory Services.

Damon, W. 1988. The Moral Child: Nurturing Children’s Natural Moral

Growth. New York: Free Press.

Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. 1993. Communities That Care:

Risk-Focused Prevention Using the Social Development Strategy—An Approach to Reducing Adolescent Problem Behavior. Seattle, WA: Developmental

Research and Programs, Inc.
69

Doerner, W.G. 1987. Child maltreatment seriousness and juvenile delinquency.

Youth and Society 19(2):197–224.

Dornbusch, S.M., Carlsmith, J.M., Bushwall, S.J., Ritter, P.L., Leiderman, H.,

Hastorf, A.H., and Gross, R.T. 1985. Single parents, extended households, and

the control of adolescents. Child Development 56:326–341.

Dryfoos, J.G. 1990. Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Elder, G.H., Caspi, A., and Downey, G. 1983. Problem behavior in family relationships: A multigenerational analysis. In Human Development: Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by A. Sorensen, F. Weinert, and L. Sherrod. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., and Menard, S. 1989. Multiple Problem Youth: Delinquency, Substance Use, and Mental Health Problems. New York: SpringerVerlag.

Elliott, D.S. 1994. Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and

termination: The American Society of Criminology 1993 Address. Criminology

32:1–21.

Esbensen, F.A., and Huizinga, D. 1993. Gangs, drugs and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31(4):565–590.

Fagan, J. 1991. Community-based treatment for mentally disordered juvenile

offenders. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 20(1):42–50.

Fischer, D.B. 1984. Family size and delinquency. Perceptual and Motor Skills

58:527–534.

Fleisher, S.J., Avelar, C., Latorre, S.E., Ramirez, J., Cubillos, S., Christiansen,

H., and Blaufarb, H. 1995. Evaluation of a judo/community organization program to treat predelinquent Hispanic immigrant early adolescents. Hispanic

Journal of Behavioral Sciences 17(2):237–248.

Freedman, M. 1992. Kindness of Strangers: Reflections on the Mentoring

Movement. New York, NY: Ford Foundation.

Girls Incorporated. 1996. Prevention and Parity: Girls in Juvenile Justice. Indianapolis, IN: Girls Incorporated.

Gold, M., and Mattick, H.W. 1974. Experiment in the Streets: The Chicago

Youth Development Project. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Goodwin, D.W. 1985. Alcoholism and genetics: The sins of the father. Archives

of General Psychiatry 42:171–174.
70

Greenwood, P., and Zimring, F. 1985. One More Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Santa Monica,

CA: RAND Corporation.

Grossman, J.B., and Garry, E.M. 1997. Mentoring: A Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hamilton, S.F. 1990. Apprenticeship for Adulthood. New York, NY: Free Press.

Hawkins, J.D., and Catalano, R.F. 1992. Communities That Care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and Miller, J.Y. 1992. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood:

Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin 112:64–

105.

Hawkins, J.D., Jenson, J.M., Catalano, R.F., and Lishner, D.M. 1988. Delinquency and drug abuse: Implications for social services. Social Service Review

62(2):258–284.

Henggeler, S.W. 1989. Delinquency in Adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Henggeler, S.W., Cunningham, P., Pickrel, S., Schoenwald, S., and Brondino,

M. 1996. Multisystemic therapy: An effective violence prevention approach for

serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Adolescence 19:47–61.

Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Hollender, H., and Turner, F. 1985. Characteristics of incarcerated delinquents:

Relationship between developmental disorders, environmental and family factors, and patterns of offense and recidivism. Journal of the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 24(2):221–226.

Howell, J.C., ed. 1995. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. 1997. Promising approaches for youth gang violence prevention

and intervention. In Report of the Study Group on Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Huesmann, L.R., Eron, L.D., Lefkowitz, M.M., and Walder, L.O. 1984. Stability of

aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology 20:1120–1134.
71

Hugo, K.E., and Rutherford, R.B., Jr. 1992. Issues in identifying educational

disabilities among female juvenile offenders. Journal of Correctional Education

43(3):124–127.

Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F.A., and Weiher, A.W. 1991. Are there multiple paths

to delinquency? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82:83–118.

Klein, M. 1968. From Association to Guilt: The Group Guidance Project in Juvenile Gang Intervention. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.

Klein, M. 1995. The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence and Control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Krisberg, B., Austin, J., Joe, K., and Steele, P.A. 1988. The Impact of Juvenile

Court Sanctions. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Krisberg, B., Austin, J., and Steele, P.A. 1989. Unlocking Juvenile Corrections.

San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Krisberg, B., Currie, E., Onek, D., and Wiebush, R. 1995. Graduated sanctions

for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. In Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kroupa, S.E. 1988 (Spring). Perceived parental acceptance and female juvenile

delinquency. Adolescence 23(89):171–285.

Leiber, M.J., and Mahworr, T.L. 1995. Evaluating the use of social skills training and employment with delinquent youth. Journal of Criminal Justice

23:127–141.

Lipsitz, J. 1984. Successful Schools for Adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Books.

Loeber, R., and Dishion, T.J. 1984. Boys who fight at home and school: Family

conditions influencing cross-setting consistency. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 52(5):759–768.

Loeber, R., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. 1986. Family factors as correlates and

predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In Crime and Justice:

An Annual Review of Research, vol. 7, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 29–149.

McCord, J. 1979. Some child-rearing antecedents of criminal behavior in adult

child-rearing men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:1477–1486.

McCord, J. 1983. A forty-year perspective on effects of child abuse and neglect.

Abuse and Neglect 7:265–270.
72

McCord, J. 1988. Parental behavior in the cycle of aggression. Psychiatry

51:14–23.

McCord, J. 1991a. The cycle of crime and socialization practices. The Journal

of Criminal Law and Criminology 82:211–228.

McCord, J. 1991b. Family relationships, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. Criminology 29:397–417.

McManus, M., Alessi, N., Grapentine, W., and Brickman, A. 1984. Psychiatric

disturbance in serious delinquents. Journal of the American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry 23(5):602–615.

Miller, W.B. 1962. The impact of a “total-community” delinquency control

project. Social Problems 9:168–191.

Morrill, W.A., and Gerry, M.H. 1990. Integrating the delivery of services to

school-aged children at risk. Paper sponsored for the Conference on Children

and Youth At Risk by the U.S. Department of Education and Organization for

Economic Development.

National Crime Prevention Council. 1985. Making a Difference: Young People

in Community Crime Prevention. Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention

Council.

Nye, F.I. 1958. Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1995. Fiscal Year 1995

Competitive Discretionary Program Listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1997 (March). Guidance for the Development of Applications for Year Two: SafeFutures: Partnerships to Reduce Youth Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Paternoster, R., and Triplett, R. 1988. Disaggregating self-reported delinquency

and its implications for theory. Criminology 165(4):591–647.

Patterson, G.R. 1982. Coercive Family Process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Peterson, P.L., Hawkins, J.D., Abott, R.D., and Catalano, R.F. 1994. Disentangling the effects of parental drinking, family management, and parental alcohol

norms on current drinking by black and white adolescents. Journal of Research

on Adolescents 4(2):203–227.
73

Pfouts, J.H., Scholper, J.H., and Henley, H.C., Jr. 1981. Deviant behaviors of

child victims and bystanders in violent families. In Exploring the Relationship

Between Child Abuse and Delinquency, edited by R.J. Hunter and Y.E. Walker.

Montclair, NJ: Allandeld, Osmun, pp. 79–99.

Poe-Yamagata, E., and Butts, J.A. 1996. Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Pumariega, A.J., Atkins, L., Hardin, S., Montgomery, L., Kowalski, T., and

Culley, D. 1995. Psychopathology and symptomatology in incarcerated versus

hospitalized youth. In 8th Annual Research and Training Center Conference

Proceedings, Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.

Reiss, A.J., Jr., and Roth, J.A., eds. 1993. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Rossman, S.B., Kopczynski, M., and Morley, E. 1999. Performance Monitoring

in the SafeFutures Initiative: Moving Toward Results-Based Management and

Accountability. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Rossman, S.B., Morley, E., Kopczynski, M., Gouvis, C., Buck, J., and Roman,

J. 1998. Early Implementation of the SafeFutures Partnerships to Reduce Youth

Violence and Delinquency. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Sarri, R.C. 1988. Keynote remarks. Conference on Increasing Education Equity

for Juvenile Female Offenders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School

Officers.

Schinke, S.P., Orlandi, M.A., and Cole, K.C. 1992. Boys & Girls Clubs in public housing developments: Prevention services for youth at risk. Journal of

Community Psychology, Office for Substance Abuse Prevention (OSAP) Special Issue:118–128.

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and

Bushway, S. 1997. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s

Promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Slavin, L., and Rainer, K. 1990. Gender differences in emotional support and

depressive symptoms among adolescents: A prospective analysis. American

Journal of Community Psychology 18(3):407–421.

Small, S.A. 1990. Preventive Programs That Support Families With Adolescents. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development Working Papers. Washington, DC: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.

Smith, D.A., and Brame, R. 1994. On the initiation and continuation of delinquency. Criminology 32:607–629.
74

Smith, D.A., and Paternoster, R. 1987. The gender gap in theories of deviance:

Issues and evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 24(2):140–

172.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1995. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A Focus on Violence. Statistics Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Snyder, J., and Patterson, G. 1987. Family Interaction and Delinquent Behavior. In Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency, edited by H.C. Quay. New York,

NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 216–243.

Spergel, I.A. 1986. The violent gang in Chicago: A local community approach.

Social Service Review 66(1):121–140.

Spergel, I.A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Spergel, I.A., Chance, R., Ehrensaft, K., Regulus, T., Kane, C., Laseter, R.,

Alexander, A., and Oh, S. 1994. Gang Suppression and Intervention: Community Models. Research Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Spergel, I.A., Grossman, S.F., Wa, K.M., Choi, S., and Jacob, A. 1999. Evaluation of the Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project: The First Three

Years: Executive Summary. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information

Authority.

Steinberg, L. 1990. Authoritative Parenting and Adolescent Adjustment Across

Varied Ecological Niches. Madison, WI: National Center of Effective Secondary Schools.

Sutphen, R.D., Thyer, B., and Kurtz, P. 1995. Multisystemic treatment of highrisk juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 39(4):327–334.

Thompson, D.W., and Jason, L.A. 1988. Street gangs and preventive interventions. Criminal Justice and Behavior 15:323–333.

Thornberry, T.P. 1994. Violent Families and Youth Violence. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Thornberry, T.P., Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M.D., Farnworth, M., and Jang, S.J.

1991. Testing interfactional theory of reciprocal causal relationships among

family, school and delinquency. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

82:3–35.
75

Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., and Resch, N.L. 1995. Making a Difference:

An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private

Ventures.

Tolan, P., and Guerra, N. 1994. What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence:

An Empirical Review of the Field. Report submitted to the Center for the Study

and Prevention of Violence. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.

Torres, D. 1981. Gang Violence Reduction Project: Fourth Evaluation Report.

Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. Juvenile Justice: Minimal Gender Bias

Occurred In Processing Noncriminal Juveniles (GAO/GGD–95–56). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.

Wells, L.E., and Rankin, J.H. 1986 (February). The broken homes model of

delinquency: Analytic issues. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

23(1):68–93.

Widom, C.S. 1989. Child abuse, neglect and violent criminal behavior. Criminology 27:251–271.

Wilson, H. 1987 (Summer). Parental supervision re-examined. British Journal

of Criminology 27(3):275–301.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993. Comprehensive Strategy For Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Woodson, R.L. 1981. A Summons to Life: Mediating Structures and the Prevention of Youth Crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Wynn, J., Rubenstein, R.A., and Littell, J. 1988. Communities and Adolescents:

An Exploration of Reciprocal Supports. Washington, DC: Youth and America’s

Future: William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and

Citizenship.

Yesavage, J.A., and Widrow, L. 1985. Early parental discipline and adult selfdestructive acts. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 173(2):74–77.
Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it

in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and any

other authors found on the title page. We are also interested in your feedback, such

as how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org
Online:

OJJDP Home Page:

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

To Order Materials:

www.ncjrs.org/puborder

E-Mail:

askncjrs@ncjrs.org (to ask questions 

about materials)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS

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

Fact Sheets and Bulletins are also available

through fax-on-demand.

Fax-on-Demand:

800–638–8736, select option 1 and listen for

instructions.

To ensure timely notice of new publications,

subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic

mailing list.

JUVJUST Mailing List:

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

Type subscribe juvjust your name

In addition, JJC, through the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), is the repository for tens of thousands of criminal and

juvenile justice publications and resources 

from around the world. They are abstracted 

and placed in a database, which is searchable

online (www.ncjrs.org/database.htm). You are

also welcome to submit materials to JJC for 

inclusion in the database.

The following list highlights popular and recently published OJJDP documents and videotapes, grouped by topical areas.

The OJJDP Publications List (BC000115) offers

a complete list of OJJDP publications and is

also available online.

In addition, the OJJDP Fact Sheet Flier

(LT000333) offers a complete list of OJJDP

Fact Sheets and is available online.

OJJDP also sponsors a teleconference initiative, and a flier (LT116) offers a complete list of

videos available from these broadcasts.

Corrections and Detention

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of

Confinement for Youth in Custody. 1998, 

NCJ 164727 (116 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997

Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement:

Lessons Learned From Five States. 1998, 

NCJ 173420 (12 pp.).

NCJ 181204 (16 pp.).

RESTTA National Directory of Restitution 

and Community Service Programs. 1998, 

NCJ 166365 (500 pp.), $33.50.

Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court:

An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions. 1998,

NCJ 172836 (112 pp.).

Youth Courts: A National Movement Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171149 (120 min.), $17.

Delinquency Prevention

1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile Mentoring

Program (JUMP). 1999, NCJ 173424 (65 pp.).

1998 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. 1999, NCJ 176342 (58 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Report).

1996, NCJ 157106 (200 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The 

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan

(Summary). 1996, NCJ 157105 (36 pp.).

Effective Family Strengthening Interventions.

1998, NCJ 171121 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

Strategic Planning Guide. 1999, NCJ 172846

(62 pp.).

Parents Anonymous: Strengthening America’s

Families. 1999, NCJ 171120 (12 pp.).

Prenatal and Early Childhood Nurse Home

Visitation. 1998, NCJ 172875 (8 pp.).

Treatment Foster Care. 1999, NCJ 173421 

(12 pp.).

Gangs

1997 National Youth Gang Survey. 1999, 

NCJ 178891 (82 pp.).

Gang Members on the Move. 1998, 

NCJ 171153 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998, NCJ 167249

(20 pp.).

The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connection. 1999, NCJ 171152 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs in America Teleconference 

(Video). 1997, NCJ 164937 (120 min.), $17.

General Juvenile Justice

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice in State 

Legislatures Teleconference (Video). 1998, 

NCJ 169593 (120 min.), $17.

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

With Disabilities in Need of Support. 1998, 

NCJ 167248 (52 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume VII, Number 1. 2000,

NCJ 178256 (40 pp.).

Portable Guides to Investigating Child A

(13-title series).

Protecting Children Online Teleconferenc

(Video). 1998, NCJ 170023 (120 min.), $

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Su

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

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 19

NCJ 173393 (20 pp.).

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juv

Justice System. 1998, NCJ 167889 (92 

Preparing for the Drug Free Years. 1999

NCJ 173408 (12 pp.).

Violence and Victimization

Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in

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

Guide for Implementing the Comprehens

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chron

Juvenile Offenders. 1995, NCJ 153681 

(255 pp.).

Report to Congress on Juvenile Violence 

Research. 1999, NCJ 176976 (44 pp.)

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. 

NCJ 170027 (8 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: 

Factors and Successful Interventions Te

ence (Video). 1998, NCJ 171286 (120 min

State Legislative Responses to Violent J

Crime: 1996–97 Update. 1998, NCJ 172

(16 pp.).

White House Conference on School Saf

Causes and Prevention of Youth Violenc

Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 1733

(240 min.), $17.

Youth in Action

Community Cleanup. 1999, NCJ 171690 

Cross-Age Teaching. 1999, NCJ 171688 

Make a Friend—Be a Peer Mentor. 1999

NCJ 171691 (8 pp.).

Plan A Special Event! 1999, NCJ 17168

(8 pp.).

Planning a Successful Crime Prevention 

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

Stand Up and Start a School Crime Wat

1998, NCJ 171123 (8 pp.)

Two Generations—Partners in Preventio

1999, NCJ 171687 (8 pp.).

Wipe Out Vandalism and Graffiti. 1998, 

NCJ 171122 (8 pp.).

Youth Preventing Drug Abuse. 1998, 

NCJ 171124 (8 pp.).

R
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 183841

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300