An Urgent Call to Action

This Nation must take immediate and decisive action to intervene in the problem of juvenile violence that threatens the safety and security of communities -- and the future of our children -- across the country. Demographic experts predict that juvenile arrests for violent crimes will more than double by the year 2010,1 given population growth projections and trends in juvenile arrests over the past several decades. (See figure 1.)

There is, however, reason for hope. Juvenile violent crime arrests are increasing, but only a fraction of youth (one-half of 1 percent) is arrested for violent crimes each year.2 We can interrupt this escalation of violence based on identified positive and negative characteristics -- protective and risk factors -- that are present or lacking in communities, families, schools, peer groups, and individuals. These factors either equip a child with the capacity to become a healthy, productive individual or expose that child to potential involvement in crime and violence. Of equal importance, communities are learning that they can make dramatic changes in delinquency levels by taking steps that successfully reduce the risk factors and strengthen the protective factors in children's lives.

In partnership with State and Federal agencies, communities are beginning to mobilize to combat juvenile delinquency through prevention, early intervention, and community-building strategies that address local needs. They are taking steps to reduce serious and violent juvenile delinquency by using multi-agency, coordinated approaches and innovative programs and services in the juvenile justice system.

In support of these efforts, the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention offers The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan. The Action Plan, summarized in this document, is an eight-point statement of objectives and strategies designed to strengthen State and local initiatives to reduce juvenile violence, increase the capacity of the juvenile justice system to respond, and prevent delinquency. The primary audiences for the Action Plan are State and local leaders, juvenile justice practitioners, and community members who are initiating or engaging in these activities and are seeking guidance, support, and resources. Educators, crime victims, law enforcement, service providers, parents, religious organizations, youth, probation officers, judges, community and business leaders, legislators, mayors, and governors -- all of these individuals can benefit from and use this plan to coordinate State and local initiatives and integrate proposed Federal actions and resources into local plans.

What We Can Accomplish Together

To combat juvenile violence, all citizens must recognize that they can make a difference in their communities, both through individual action and by joining with others in comprehensive, collaborative initiatives. Efforts to reduce juvenile violence can be as basic as parents setting clear expectations and standards for children's behavior or as far-reaching as a local government implementing community oriented policing. Many national organizations are committed to supporting the implementation of community-based anti-violence initiatives and can provide products and services related to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. A list of these national organizations appears in Appendix C, Matrix of Technical Assistance Resources. The full Action Plan includes an annotated bibliography that is a comprehensive compilation of publications that address juvenile violence.

The Action Plan supports State, local, and community-based implementation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders3 and its recently published Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders,4 which provide a framework for establishing a continuum of programs and services designed to reverse the trend of increased juvenile violence and delinquency.

To support implementation of State, local, and community activities, the Action Plan provides:

Information in the Action Plan can help the reader undertake activities such as organizing a neighborhood meeting on the problem of juvenile violence, starting a teen court, supporting job training programs for youth, providing opportunities for youth to become involved in service to their communities, developing a conflict resolution or mentoring program, or volunteering as a court-appointed special advocate. Communities can also benefit from information designed to help parents raise their children without abuse, provide safe corridors to ensure safe passage for children on their way to and from school, create a community resource bank listing local organizations that offer counseling and other services, get involved in neighborhood cleanup activities, and much more.

While the Action Plan recognizes the important Federal role of providing support and a national perspective, State, local, and individual commitment is critical if these efforts are to succeed.

Objectives of The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan

The Action Plan is a blueprint for community action designed to address and reduce the impact of juvenile violence and delinquency. It presents a framework for the handling of delinquent offenders, including possible transfer of the most serious and violent offenders to the criminal justice system, and describes programs that increase opportunities for youth to have a stake in their future. The Action Plan also provides tools for rebuilding the dependency court system to better assist children who are victims of abuse and neglect. Its broad spectrum of strategies can help mobilize youth and adults to strengthen their own neighborhoods and inform the public about preventing juvenile violence.

No single individual, organization, or agency -- in isolation -- can address the causes of juvenile violence. Working together, however, State and local leaders, representatives of public and private groups, and individual community members -- including youth -- can bring about measurable change based on strategies that work by directing their energies to meet the eight objectives of the Action Plan. The following objectives, all of equal importance, can be achieved by communities that are willing to address public safety concerns while making a commitment to services for children.

Objective 1. Provide immediate intervention and appropriate sanctions and treatment for delinquent juveniles.

Safe communities and juvenile accountability are central to the Action Plan. It proposes a strong juvenile justice system that provides a continuum of services for juveniles who come into the system for a variety of reasons, such as truancy, homelessness, drug abuse, mental illness, or delinquent offenses. The juvenile justice system must be given the tools to assess the risk the juvenile offender poses to the community, determine rehabilitative needs, and provide graduated sanctions and treatment commensurate with both conduct and needs. It must also be able to meet the needs of dependent, abused, and neglected children and status offenders.

The juvenile justice system response to delinquent conduct should be based on the balanced and restorative justice philosophy, which balances the need for offender accountability to the victim and the community, the need to provide for public safety, and the system's goal of helping youth become competent, contributing members of society. However, an effective response to victims' concerns must be balanced with reasonable confidentiality protections for juvenile offenders.

The Action Plan emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary assessment teams and centers that bring together a broad range of juvenile service workers (e.g., intake, probation, parole, education, social services, mental health) in a single place. These teams or centers can efficiently perform functions that are required to accurately identify the sentencing, treatment, or rehabilitative needs of each juvenile and assess risk to the community. Assessment centers offer a systematic and coordinated way for youth to enter or be diverted from the system that is likely to result in cost-effective, individualized treatment plans.

A system of graduated sanctions is the recommended mechanism for attaining treatment and accountability goals for delinquent offenders. Graduated sanctions encompass three levels:


The Bethesda Day Treatment Center Program in West Milton, PA, provides services to delinquent and dependent youth without removing them from their homes.


Levels of sanctions should be based on consideration of the offense and offense history (risk) and the offender's treatment and rehabilitation needs.

The Action Plan provides examples of effective programs designed to systematically identify treatment needs. For example, Family Assessment Service Teams, a part of the Norfolk (VA) Police Assisted Community Enforcement effort, use an interagency approach to coordinate resources and improve the effectiveness of juvenile services. Reports show that crime and fear of crime have dropped markedly in neighborhoods targeted by this program.5

The Bethesda Day Treatment Center Program in West Milton, PA, provides services to delinquent and dependent juveniles without removing them from their homes. A preliminary study shows recidivism rates far lower than State and national norms.6 Also in Pennsylvania, Student Assistance Programs (SAP's) are addressing truancy, school dropout, violence, and drug abuse through education. The development of effective working relationships among education, juvenile justice, law enforcement, school-based probation officers, other social service agencies, and families has been one of the program's most important accomplishments. SAP has been implemented in 29 Pennsylvania counties in recognition of its success in helping students make impressive academic and behavioral gains.7

The Florida Environmental Institute (FEI), also known as "The Last Chance Ranch," targets Florida's most serious juvenile offenders. Located in a remote area of the Florida Everglades, FEI offers both a residential phase and a nonresdential aftercare program. Two-thirds of its referrals are adjudicated delinquents from the criminal justice system. Yet, because of its strong emphasis on education, hard work, social bonding, and aftercare, recidivism rates of juveniles who have gone through the program are substantially less than rates of traditional training school programs: 30 percent instead of 50-70 percent.8

The Action Plan also supports intensive aftercare programs to provide juveniles who are returning to the community with high levels of social control and transitional support. Strengthened cooperation between schools and probation departments is a critical component of aftercare programming.


The Florida Environmental Institute (FEI), also known as "The Last Chance Ranch," targets Florida's most serious juvenile offenders.


Critical tasks for States and local communities are to determine what is being accomplished to prevent juvenile violence and to ensure that a system of graduated sanctions is put in place to provide immediate intervention and appropriate sanctions and treatment for delinquent juveniles. Key elected officials, grassroots community leaders, youth groups, crime victims, and other key participants should be included in community planning and implementation of a comprehensive multidisciplinary strategy to address juvenile delinquency. Local leaders can establish a prevention policy board to assess risk factors for delinquency; review current juvenile programs, laws, and ordinances; identify gaps in service delivery; and establish priorities for addressing them, including the development of strategies that address gender issues and disproportionate minority confinement.

To support State and local efforts, Federal action will:

Objective 2. Prosecute certain serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders in criminal court.

The purpose of this objective is both to protect the public and to separate certain serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders from those juveniles who can benefit from treatment and rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system. Statistics show that a small percentage of the juvenile offender population is responsible for most of the serious and violent juvenile crime.9 Transferring to criminal court those targeted juvenile offenders who are the most chronic and who commit the most serious and violent crimes enables the juvenile justice system to focus its efforts and resources on the much larger group of at-risk youth and less serious and violent offenders who can benefit from a wide range of effective intervention strategies.

However, States and the Federal Government should review their statutory transfer mechanisms to ensure that they are appropriately applied. The transfer alternative should only be considered for those juveniles whose criminal history, failure to respond to treatment, or serious or violent conduct clearly demonstrates that they require criminal justice system sanctions. We must also remain vigilant about a juvenile's right to effective counsel and cognizant of the potentially harmful impact of placing juveniles in adult jails, lockups, and correctional facilities, including problems associated with overcrowding, abuse, youth suicide, and the risk of transforming treatable juveniles into hardened criminals. Most of all, a recognition of the continuing need for transfer of juveniles to criminal court must strengthen our resolve to prevent delinquency and intervene early to decrease the risk of future criminal conduct.

The Action Plan proposes a two-tier system of extended jurisdiction in the juvenile court for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders and consideration of innovative blended sentencing options for juvenile offenders under criminal court jurisdiction. This system would permit the transfer of some juvenile offenders contingent upon age, presenting offense, and offense history, allowing greater prosecutorial discretion for the older, more serious offender. State laws should consider appropriate discretionary powers for prosecutors to proceed to criminal court as the ages of juvenile offenders and the severity of the offense increase, thereby allowing for individualized case review and decisionmaking.

Extended jurisdiction of the juvenile court can be predicated upon a judge's determination that a juvenile is a serious, violent, or chronic offender based upon the current offense and the juvenile's prior history in the justice system. The court could be authorized to use this extended jurisdiction to keep an adjudicated delinquent in the system beyond age 21 if there were a reasonable expectation of successful treatment.

The use of innovative blended sentencing options can function as a supplement to the provision of extended jurisdiction by authorizing the criminal or juvenile court judge to utilize or, when appropriate, to combine juvenile and adult responses into a continuum of sanctions appropriate to the offense history and age of the juvenile. The Action Plan advocates a clear judicial role in either the decision to proceed against a juvenile as a criminal offender or at the dispositional stage through discretion in sentencing options, as previously outlined. However, while not advocating for statutory exclusion or lowering the age for criminal court jurisdiction, the Action Plan recognizes that, in some instances, State law may use more than one transfer mechanism and expressly provide for the imposition only of criminal sanctions for specific classes of offenses at specific ages.

If the graduated sanctions model recommended in the Action Plan is fully implemented in a jurisdiction with adequate programming and resources, then the numbers of juveniles being transferred into the criminal court or classified for extended jurisdiction should decrease. In the interim, however, a more flexible mechanism is needed that ensures public safety and provides appropriate sanctions for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. With flexibility in court sentencing, the criminal court judge can access juvenile court programming as a "last chance" option for these offenders, while also enhancing the supervision of the court and heightening the motivation of the offender, who is accountable to the criminal court and faces a potential prison sentence upon violation of sentencing conditions.

Once the juvenile justice system is strengthened to work more effectively with the serious, violent, and chronic offender, as advocated in the Action Plan, the number of juveniles who need to be transferred to the criminal court for public safety reasons should be reduced.

The Action Plan presents effective sentencing strategies to help meet this objective while providing flexibility and individualized justice. In Minnesota, for example, a blended sentencing law creates a new category of juvenile offenders called "extended sentence jurisdiction juveniles" who receive both a juvenile disposition and a suspended criminal sentence. The criminal sanction can be imposed if a juvenile fails to conform to the requirements of the juvenile disposition.

Similarly, Florida's three-tiered approach gives prosecutors expanded discretionary power in making jurisdictional decisions as the ages of defendants and the severity of offenses increase.10 In Florida's criminal courts, the judge has a variety of sentencing options and can sentence the offender as an adult or as a juvenile.

At the Federal level, the Action Plan also suggests examining the advisability of amending the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Code to remove procedural barriers to the transfer of juveniles under Federal jurisdiction for criminal prosecution, including adding prosecutorial transfer authority (direct file) for certain serious and violent offenses.

State and local juvenile justice and law enforcement responses to serious and violent juvenile delinquency are critical. They include prosecuting, adjudicating, and sentencing juveniles; implementing transfer mechanisms; and establishing and maintaining automated recordkeeping systems in local juvenile courts. State legislators, victims, child advocates, researchers, and the media also play critical roles in shaping and influencing proposed juvenile justice laws and policies, as well as ensuring that the system is meeting its goals.

To support State and local efforts, Federal action will:

Objective 3. Reduce youth involvement with guns, drugs, and gangs.

Youth access to guns is related to the increased youth homicide rate we are witnessing in this country. A strong relationship between illegal gun possession by juveniles, delinquency, and drug use has been found in an OJJDP-sponsored longitudinal study on the causes and correlates of delinquency. The study found that nearly three-quarters of youth who possessed guns illegally committed some type of street crime; one-quarter committed a gun-related crime; and 4 out of 10 used drugs.11


The Kansas City Experiment formed a working group consisting of law enforcement, human service agencies, and community organizations to focus police efforts in high-crime neighborhoods.


Drug activity appears to exacerbate youth violence, and firearms are more prevalent around drug activity.12 In 1984, the United States saw a dramatic increase in youth gun homicide, coinciding with the introduction of crack cocaine into urban communities. Studies show that as the use of guns by drug-involved youth increases, other young people obtain guns for their own protection. This cycle of fear or "diffusion" theory13 is supported by forthcoming research on the "ecology of danger."14

Today, youth gangs exist in nearly every State. One expert estimates that more than 3,875 juvenile gangs with a total of more than 200,000 members are established in the 79 largest U.S. cities.15 More disturbing is that gang violence has spread from the streets into areas traditionally considered safe havens, such as schools.


A joint effort between the Chicago Police Department and the Chicago Housing Authority Police Department provides another successful model.


The Kansas City (MO) Experiment is a project supported by the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the Kansas City Police Department. These groups have formed a coalition consisting of law enforcement, human service agencies, and community organizations to focus police efforts in high-crime neighborhoods by routinely stopping traffic violators, youth in violation of curfews, and individuals involved in other infractions of the law. Special gun-intercept teams have proven to be 10 times more cost effective than regular police patrols.16

A joint effort between the Chicago Police Department and the city Housing Authority Police Department provides another successful model. Funded by BJA, partners in the Building Interdiction Team Effort (BITE) work together to secure the perimeters of buildings, challenge suspicious persons, patrol and search common areas and vacant apartments, and conduct searches of occupied units with tenant consent. This concentrated effort on the part of police is sending a clear message to gangs that these buildings contain family homes and are neither havens for criminal activity nor turf to be claimed. Preliminary results indicate that the strategy has improved overall safety and reduced drug trafficking in one housing development and drug-related violence in another.17

The Action Plan supports the coordination of Federal, State, and local law enforcement teams to improve investigative efforts and successful prosecution of gun-, gang-, and drug-related cases. It also recognizes that law enforcement has taken a lead role in implementing juvenile crime prevention and intervention strategies as part of a comprehensive community oriented policing approach. The Action Plan supports these efforts by promoting youth-focused community oriented policing that is effectively linked with the juvenile justice system and that can contribute significantly to reducing crime, disorder, and fear in communities. The Action Plan also supports implementation of effective gang prevention strategies and the development and consideration of model juvenile handgun legislation.


Nuestro Centro (Our Center) Gang, Drug, and Dropout Intervention Program took a grassroots preventive approach to the problem of juvenile violence.


Nuestro Centro (Our Center) Gang, Drug, and Dropout Intervention Program in Dallas, TX, inaugurated in 1991 with OJJDP funds, took a grassroots preventive approach to the problem of juvenile violence. Citizens and community leaders in a predominately minority neighborhood decided to take back their streets by converting an abandoned fire station into a community-run youth center. Participants in the afterschool program are unemployed and undereducated youth affected by drug abuse, gangs, school problems, family problems, physical and sexual abuse, and delinquency. Through the dedicated work of counselors and volunteers, most of whom live in the neighborhood, the program has shown significant success in deterring gang violence and drug use, with 95 percent of the participants surveyed involved in educational activities.18

State and local actions to address gun, drug, and gang violence require a combination of tough and smart law enforcement and prevention activities including: seizing firearms from juvenile offenders in school and turning them over to appropriate law enforcement agencies for tracing; supporting technological innovations in gun and ammunition manufacturing that will help reduce the accessibility of lethal weapons; developing appropriate intervention programs for gang-involved youth; and involving youth in planning and implementing youth-focused community oriented policing programs. The Action Plan also supports advances in drug and alcohol prevention and treatment strategies as effective anti-violence strategies.

To support State and local efforts, Federal action will:

Objective 4. Provide opportunities for children and youth.

Comprehensive neighborhood-based programs that help children develop positive life skills and minimize risk factors, give them support and direction, and create opportunities for community involvement and service have proven to be the most effective defense against violent delinquency. Additionally, programs that address the needs of at-risk youth and juvenile status offenders provide a cost-effective and successful approach to delinquency prevention and intervention and help ensure future public safety.

Integrated prevention and intervention programs should be initiated early in a child's development, must be culturally appropriate, and must target multiple risk factors for delinquency. The Action Plan supports such integrated programs for two fundamental reasons.

First, delinquency prevention is cost effective. According to one conservative estimate, the average cost of incarcerating a juvenile for just 1 year is close to $34,000.19 Others put the figure between $35,000 and $64,000.20 The total cost of a young adult's (age 18-23) serious, violent criminal career is estimated to be $1.1 million.21 In contrast, the current cost of Head Start's intervention program, which is effective in developing school readiness skills among high-risk children and reduction in later delinquency, is $4,300 per year per child. Similarly, a delinquency prevention program in California produced a direct savings to law enforcement and the juvenile justice system of $1.40 for every $1 spent on prevention.22 Such savings, when combined with the indirect benefit of producing healthy, engaged, and contributing youth, are invaluable.

Second, program evaluations have documented that "prevention works."23 Effective prevention strategies reduce certain factors that increase the risk that a youth will engage in delinquent or violent behavior, and they strengthen or complement certain protective factors that help youth avoid delinquent behavior and make healthy life choices.24 To successfully reduce youth violence, prevention strategies must engage the entire spectrum of individuals and community systems impacting a young person's life, including families, schools, peers, and other adults in the community.


The Madison Square Boys & Girls Club in Brooklyn, NY, helps strengthen protective factors for children.


Effective strategies combine programs such as truancy reduction, mentoring, conflict resolution, afterschool tutoring, vocational training, cultural development, recreation, and youth leadership in multipurpose family resource and neighborhood centers in school and community settings.

The Madison Square Boys & Girls Club in Brooklyn, NY, is a notable example of a program that strengthens protective factors for children by providing cooperative educational activities. According to a Columbia University study, Boys & Girls Clubs have been effective in increasing rates of school attendance and improving academic performance. In addition, Clubs in public housing projects have reduced the juvenile crime rate by 13 percent.25

The BJA-funded Teens as Resources Against Drugs project inspired teens in New York City, Evansville (IN), and three South Carolina communities to successfully fight drug activity through peer teaching, messages on murals, fine arts productions written and choreographed by youth, and community events such as fairs and substance-free New Year's Eve parties. One measure of success is that the initial Federal funding has been replaced by local resources, and most of the program sites remain active today.26

Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, IL, has developed a Mentoring and Rites of Passage program designed to assist adolescents in their transition to adulthood. Mentors meet with small groups of young people to discuss self-concept, sexual awareness, communications, and appreciation for cultural heritage. Program evaluators ask participants to report on their social interactions, incidents involving violent behavior, hospital visits related to violence, and calls to police about violence in the housing project.

Delinquency prevention initiatives at the Federal, State, and local levels are key elements in the Action Plan. By preventing delinquency, communities can reduce juvenile crime and deter youth from eventual involvement in crime as adults, decreasing both the current threat to public safety and future levels of funding for prosecution and incarceration.


The Elmira (NY) Home Visitation Program provides maternal and child health services to low-income, unmarried teens during pregnancy and the first 2 years of their children's lives.


To support State and local efforts, Federal action will:

Objective 5. Break the cycle of violence by addressing youth victimization, abuse, and neglect.

Many violent juveniles have themselves been victims of neglect, abuse, and violence. There is a clear link between violence in the home and a juvenile's later involvement in violent delinquency.27

The Action Plan proposes strengthening three priority areas to help communities interrupt the cycle of violence. First, it advocates strengthening families' capabilities to supervise and nurture the positive development of their children in nonviolent homes and communities. Family strengthening programs can provide support through assistance with effective parenting skills, home visitation, and teen-parent groups designed to prevent child abuse and neglect and to foster healthy development.

Second, if family strengthening efforts fail and abuse and neglect occur, juvenile and family courts can play a critical role in identifying cases of child abuse and neglect, making referrals to supportive services, and providing followup. To be effective, child protective service and dependency court personnel must be well trained and have manageable caseloads. They must also be equipped with sensitive intake protocols that allow them to identify abuse and neglect cases, thoroughly investigate them, and provide prompt and appropriate services.

Third, for children at substantial risk for continued familial abuse and neglect, the Action Plan recommends stable, high-quality foster care to prevent further victimization. Equally importantly, it calls for timely planning for permanent placement or reunification to avoid multiple placements during a child's formative years.

The Elmira (NY) Home Visitation Program is a successful program that strengthens families' abilities to supervise and nurture the positive development of their children. It provides a wide range of maternal and child health services to low-income, unmarried teens during pregnancy and the first 2 years of their children's lives. The program has resulted in a 75-percent reduction in cases of child abuse and neglect and a 32-percent reduction in emergency room visits for 2-year old children.28

Children removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect need safe shelter, counseling, and assistance to adapt socially and academically. In Cincinnati, OH, members of the Hamilton Juvenile Court, the Cincinnati Bar Association, and the Junior League developed ProKids to serve as court appointed special advocates (CASA's) for abused and neglected children. When ProKids was created in 1981, only 25 programs in the Nation used community volunteers as child advocates for abused and neglected children. By 1994, ProKids had trained more than 450 child advocate volunteers, and 1,200 children have been served by the program.29

Early prevention programming is supported by some of the strongest research on program effectiveness. State and local implementation of early prevention programming can include fostering substance abuse treatment approaches for addicted parents, supporting adolescent pregnancy prevention programs, or providing mental health and treatment services and parenting skills for incarcerated abusers, including young offenders who are victims of abuse, to interrupt the cycle of violence.


In Cincinnati the Hamilton Juvenile Court, the Cincinnati Bar Association, and the Junior League developed ProKids to serve as court appointed special advocates (CASA's) for abused and neglected children.


To support State and local efforts, Federal action will:

Objective 6. Strengthen and mobilize communities.

Juvenile violence stems in large part from a breakdown of family and community structures. Every community has the capacity and resources to address this breakdown by nurturing strong families, providing social support systems, and reinforcing healthy cultural norms and values. Too often, however, services are not developed, coordinated, or integrated to support these resources, leading to frustration and ineffective efforts to build positive community institutions.

Mobilizing and strengthening communities means enabling residents to recognize and solve their own problems and creating opportunities for everyone to take responsibility for finding solutions. Effective problemsolving requires involvement by adults and youth, working in partnership with local service providers, to assess problems and set priorities and to ensure that scarce energies and resources are used wisely.

A communitywide approach to reducing youth violence and delinquency is promising for two reasons. First, it affects the entire social environment by focusing on community norms, values, and policies as well as on conditions that place children at risk for adolescent problems. Second, all members of the community can apply their expertise where it is most effective. Community mobilization holds the promise of investing every local resident in solving what is truly a shared goal: helping young people grow up to maximize their potential and reduce their likelihood of involvement in violence and delinquency. Federal and State governments can assist communities by showing them the most effective ways to tap into fiscal and human resources.

There are many examples of communities that have reduced despair and fear, involved a wide variety of citizens, and produced concrete results to improve circumstances for their children and youth. The Oakland (CA) Community Organization brought together local citizens, law enforcement, and municipal regulatory agencies to eliminate drug activity in their neighborhood. They organized a neighborhood cleanup and closed down more than 300 drug houses.30

In the Texas City Action Plan To Prevent Crime (T-CAP), the National Crime Prevention Council worked with seven municipal governments, local leaders, private entities, and citizens to adopt and implement strategies to reduce violence. Nearly 600 people contributed time and effort to the process, logging over 30,000 volunteer hours in 12 months. The results of T-CAP were manifested in many ways, including the formation of a business crime council and improved communication in crime-besieged neighborhoods. In one city, the perspectives of the T-CAP coalition became the basis for reorganizing the city police department and for the creation of a citywide resource center for crime prevention information.31


The Oakland Community Organization brought together neighborhood residents, law enforcement, and municipal regulatory agencies to take action to eliminate drug activity.


OJJDP's Title V Initiative, Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs, provides an example of effective resource allocation combined with training. During 1994, the Title V Initiative distributed grants to 49 States and 6 Territories to promote local planning and attract local financial and human resources. Nearly 2,500 participants attended OJJDP-sponsored training sessions and learned how to implement an effective prevention planning framework, design new approaches to interagency collaboration, and conduct valuable risk and resource assessments.32

The Action Plan supports this process of developing partnerships on many levels. It advances a new paradigm that calls upon each community resident to play a role in preventing juvenile violence. The keys to success lie in adult guidance, youth responsibility, a responsive media, and an engaged private sector.

The Coordinating Council is a Federal model of interdisciplinary cooperation and leadership, encouraging each State and community to tailor these Action Plan steps to identified State and local priorities, needs, and resources.

The primary goal of community action is to involve citizens and create partnerships. Community efforts can also include: using the Federal communications infrastructure to gather information about successful prevention and intervention programs that can be adapted to a local implementation strategy; engaging in neighborhood crime watches and cleanups; and enforcing local ordinances, housing codes, health and fire codes, anti-nuisance laws, and drug-free rental clauses in residential and business environments.

To support State and local efforts, Federal action will:

Objective 7. Support the development of innovative approaches to research and evaluation.

Juvenile delinquency and violence statistics come from both the juvenile justice system and data on delinquent behavior generated by other disciplines. Ideally, data collection systems should complement and enhance each other. For example, analysis of juvenile arrests should reveal information about causes of delinquency and entry into the juvenile courts and corrections systems. One goal of this objective is the effective coordination and integration of data and statistics.

To enhance evaluation and research efforts, the Action Plan advocates innovative approaches in three critical areas: national statistical information and systems on the nature and extent of juvenile delinquency and violence; longitudinal research to strengthen our understanding of the complex relationships between risk and protective factors; and rigorous evaluation of programs designed to address juvenile delinquency. In each of these areas, we must develop data collection instruments that are sensitive to ethnicity, culture, and gender and that can better measure the complete context of juvenile delinquency.

Efforts to improve juvenile justice statistics and research will include an OJJDP plan to collect and analyze national indicators on risk and protective factors; expand juvenile custody information systems and include data on juvenile detention populations; build a knowledge base on criminal justice system handling of juveniles; coordinate data collection among the juvenile justice, mental health, and child welfare systems; and improve existing data collection systems and eliminate duplication of effort.

In addition, the Action Plan recommends that Federal agencies support or continue efforts to strengthen public and private research on the causes and correlates of violence; the role of drugs in delinquency; the nature and extent of youth gangs; the system response to juvenile sex offenders; and youth development.

The Action Plan advocates strong support for a juvenile program evaluation strategy that includes the following critical elements:

Groups at State and local levels should engage in and support research and evaluation to ensure accurate and useful program results. The Action Plan encourages individuals and projects to develop linkages with colleges and universities that can provide the expertise, staffing, or funding to conduct research on local youth violence concerns and program evaluation. The Action Plan also supports expanding and coordinating management information systems across youth-serving agencies, involving youth or community members in surveying residents about their needs, and recording the development of projects so that others may replicate successes.

To support State and local efforts, Federal action will:

Objective 8. Implement an aggressive public outreach campaign on effective strategies to combat juvenile violence.

A well-designed public information campaign is essential to the success of any juvenile violence reduction plan. The Action Plan advocates a national and local partnership with the media to mount a public information campaign designed to persuade young people to avoid violence and dangerous lifestyles, to teach adults about proven anti-violence strategies, and to involve all segments of the community in the fight against juvenile violence. The Action Plan also supports an aggressive media campaign that will help juvenile justice system and social service professionals be more effective. Communicating the types of actions that work in addressing juvenile violence to a wide variety of audiences will motivate community leaders and residents to work collaboratively.

One goal of public information efforts is to change public perception about the nature and extent of juvenile violence and inform the community about strategies that have proven to be successful in reducing or preventing juvenile violence. An effective public information campaign can also convince adults and youth that their active involvement can make a difference.

Communities that conduct local targeted public information campaigns should include an evaluation mechanism that will provide important data on the effectiveness of their efforts. These data will help not only with planning for future public campaigns but also with the design and implementation of local anti-violence public awareness events. Evaluating public awareness efforts also serves as a mechanism for attracting local financial and other resources.

Several organizations have accumulated substantial experience in media campaigns and partnerships and are available to assist local jurisdictions. The National Crime Prevention Council, for example, distributes an action kit, Partner With the Media To Build Safer Communities, that includes reproducible materials to help communities reach the public with their anti-crime, anti-violence messages.33

The National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign conducted a large-scale public education effort, symbolized by McGruff®, the "crime dog." An independent evaluation in 1991 determined that the campaign can generate individual action at a cost of only 2.9 cents per person. The campaign's public service messages generate $50 or more in donated print space and air time for every $1 of Federal funds spent in their development.34


The Turn Off the Violence campaign engaged the help of local print and electronic media to convince residents that violence is an unacceptable way to resolve conflict.


The Turn Off the Violence campaign, inaugurated in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, engaged the help of local print and electronic media to convince residents that violence is an unacceptable way to resolve conflict. The campaign also encouraged media to reevaluate its own violent entertainment programming. This grassroots initiative, which required limited funding, has spread throughout Minnesota and is being adopted by other States and cities.35

Highlighting successes and sharing positive information about youth violence reduction efforts serves as a catalyst for encouraging community residents to address juvenile violence problems in their own neighborhoods. The local media can bring attention to the complex issues that surround juvenile crime and violence and can play a role in publicizing positive youth activities. Young people can create and distribute newsletters, produce a cable teen talk show, or plan and implement an annual event such as a drug awareness fair. Elected officials and community leaders can write opinion and editorial pieces or sponsor radio public service announcements. Together, these efforts can help to get the message out.

To support State and local efforts, Federal action will:

Endnotes

1. Snyder, H., M. Sickmund, and E. Poe-Yamagata. 1996 (February). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

2. Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

3. Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. 1993. Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Howell, J.C. ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

5. Pratt, G. 1994 (December). Community-based comprehensive wrap-around treatment strategies (paper presented at the Arizona Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Research Symposium. Phoenix, AZ).

6. Howell, 1995.

7. Delinquency Prevention Works. 1995 (May). Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

8. Howell, 1995.

9. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995.

10. Thomas, C.W., and S. Bilchik. 1985. Prosecuting juveniles in criminal courts: A legal and empirical analysis. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 76(2):439-479.

11. Huizinga, D. et al. 1994. Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

12. American Psychological Association. 1993. Violence and Youth: Psychology's Response. Washington, D.C.

13. Blumstein, A. 1994. Youth Violence, Guns, and the Illicit-Drug Industry. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.

14. Fagan, J. 1995. What Do We Know About Gun Use Among Adolescents? Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado.

15. Spergel, I. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

16. Sherman, L.W., J.W. Shaw, and D.P. Rogan. 1995 (January). The Kansas City Gun Experiment. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

17. Delinquency Prevention Works.

18. Ibid.

19. Cohen, M.A. 1994. The Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

20. Camp, G.M., and C.G. Camp. 1990. Corrections Yearbook: Juvenile Corrections. South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute.

21. Cohen, 1994.

22. Lipsey, M.W. 1992. Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T.D. Cook et al., eds. Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

23. Delinquency Prevention Works.

24. Hawkins, J.D., and R.F. Catalano. 1993. Communities That Care: A Risk-Focused Approach to Reducing Adolescent Problem Behaviors. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.

25. Howell, 1995.

26. Given the Opportunity: How Three Communities Engaged Teens As Resources in Drug Abuse Prevention. 1992. Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council.

27. Thornberry, T.P. 1994 (December). Violent Families and Youth Violence. Fact Sheet #21. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

28. Delinquency Prevention Works.

29. ProKids: Speaking Up for Abused and Neglected Children in Hamilton, Ohio (brochure). 1994. Cincinnati, OH: ProKids.

30. Rosenbaum, D.P. et al. 1994. Community Responses to Drug Abuse: A Program Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

31. Taking the Offensive To Prevent Crime: How Seven Cities Did It. 1994. Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council.

32. 1994 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. 1995 (March). Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

33. This kit is available from the National Crime Prevention Council, 1700 K Street NW., Second Floor, Washington, DC 20006-3817.

34. O'Keefe, G.J., D. Rosenbaum, and P. Lavrakas et al. 1993. The Social Impact of the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.

35. National Crime Prevention Council. 1994. Working Together To Stop the Violence: A Blueprint for Safer Communities. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.


Contents | Foreword | Acknowledgments | Introduction | Summary
Figures | Objectives | | Conclusion | Appendixes