The rate of juvenile arrests for violent offenses (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) in 1999 was at its lowest level since 1988. Nevertheless, protecting the public from serious, violent juvenile offenders and helping improve law enforcement agencies� responses to both offenders and crime victims remained priorities at OJJDP in FY 2000.

For example, the Office continues to be especially concerned about juvenile gun violence and is helping three communities develop effective comprehensive partnerships to reduce gun violence. Through an intensive training and technical assistance program, OJJDP also is helping law enforcement agencies develop and implement strategies to respond to serious youth crime. Youth gang violence is of special concern to OJJDP, and the Office has designed a multifaceted, comprehensive approach that involves several programs, which are discussed in chapter 7. Underage drinking is a national problem, and OJJDP continues to help communities and law enforcement agencies across the country enforce underage drinking laws. School safety also remains a serious concern in the Nation�s communities, and a new OJJDP program is training school resource officers to address this concern.

Responding to child victims of crime, including child abuse and neglect, is just as important as protecting citizens from serious juvenile crime, and OJJDP supports a number of initiatives that are helping law enforcement agencies in this area. One of these initiatives is examining the effect of transferring child protective investigations from social service agencies to law enforcement agencies. Another is helping to mitigate the impact that witnessing violence has on children and families. OJJDP also supports a comprehensive program of training and technical assistance that helps law enforcement agencies improve their responses to missing, exploited, and abducted children; this program is described in Training and Technical Assistance.

This chapter highlights programs designed to help protect the public from serious juvenile crime and improve law enforcement efforts. These programs, combined with delinquency prevention and intervention strategies, represent the continuum of programs and services needed to enhance public safety and help communities and law enforcement respond more effectively to juvenile delinquency and violence.

Child Development-Community Policing

The Child Development-Community Policing (CD�CP) program is an innovative partnership between the New Haven (CT) Department of Police Services and the Child Study Center at the Yale University School of Medicine. The program addresses the psychological burdens that witnessing violence imposes on children and families. OJJDP is working with the Yale Child Study Center to replicate the program in several new communities. In FY 2000, CD�CP staff worked with police and mental health representatives in five sites—Bridgeport, CT; Gainesville, GA; Nassau County, NY; San Diego, CA; and Topeka, KS—to replicate the program. The Yale Child Study Center also continued to work with nine communities with existing CD�CP programs to develop plans to sustain the programs after Federal funding ends in FY 2001. The grantee also provided training on developmental stages of youth to staff at Connecticut�s three juvenile detention centers and interdisciplinary training for New Haven police officers, mental health clinicians, and probation officers.

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program

Since 1998, OJJDP has been working with States to address the problem of underage drinking through a multifaceted effort that includes block grants, discretionary programs, training and technical assistance, and a national evaluation. The Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) Program is helping the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the territories to develop comprehensive and coordinated initiatives to enforce laws that prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors (individuals under 21 years of age) and to prevent the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors. OJJDP awarded FY 2000 block grants of $360,000 each to all States and the District of Columbia. Recipients are using these funds to support activities in one or more of the three areas outlined in the EUDL legislation: enforcement, public education activities, and innovative programs.

Whereas the EUDL block grant program is designed to enhance State-level responses to underage drinking, the discretionary grant program is designed to foster State-local partnerships to address this problem. Since 1998, OJJDP has competitively awarded a total of 28 discretionary grants to 22 States to implement the EUDL Program at the local level. These States have provided subgrants to approximately 160 local jurisdictions, which are using EUDL funds to implement a variety of programs in concert with State agencies responding to underage drinking. Communities are using the funds to support EUDL coordinators; develop community coalitions; encourage youth leadership and participation in program activities; design needs assessments and strategic plans; increase enforcement efforts; review and improve policies, regulations, and laws; increase prevention and awareness efforts; and document accomplishments and processes. OJJDP also has awarded discretionary funds to support the demonstration of the EUDL Program in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Indian and Alaska Native communities, including the Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribe of Alaska, Juneau, AK; the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Assiniboine and Sioux tribes, Poplar, MT; the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Pawnee, OK; the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Ponca City, OK; the Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni, NM; the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Redlake, MN; the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, Niobrara, NB; and the Southern Ute Tribe, Ignacio, CO.

As part of the FY 2000 discretionary grant program, OJJDP required States submitting applications for both block and discretionary funding to document the progress of their EUDL programs over the past 2 years and to describe gaps in their programs and enhancements needed to strengthen the programs and increase their effectiveness. OJJDP selected 11 States and 1 territory to receive FY 2000 discretionary grants based on each applicant�s progress and achievements in establishing its EUDL program and the applicant�s plan for building and sustaining that work. FY 2000 discretionary grants were awarded to Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin.

OJJDP also funds a comprehensive training and technical assistance program designed for State EUDL coordinators and representatives from alcoholic beverage control, law enforcement, traffic safety, health and human services, education, and other State and local agencies. The training and technical assistance services are provided by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) of Calverton, MD. PIRE has involved a range of partners in its training program, including American Indian Development Associates of Albuquerque, NM; Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) of Dallas, TX; the National Crime Prevention Council of Washington, DC; the National Liquor Law Enforcement Association of Raleigh, NC; and the Police Executive Research Forum of Washington, DC.

During FY 2000, PIRE provided training and technical assistance to more than 4,060 individuals through a variety of activities. PIRE conducted nearly 20 regional and local EUDL training events and conducted 10 onsite technical assistance workshops at the request of coordinators and State and local communities seeking to develop or enhance underage drinking prevention and enforcement initiatives. PIRE also developed 12 monthly audio-teleconferences, in which a total of 1,265 individuals participated. In October 2000, PIRE also held the second annual National Leadership Conference in Reno, NV. The Conference was attended by more than 400 State coordinators, youth, high-level enforcement representatives, and other participants.

• Costs of Underage Drinking, Updated Edition.

• Environmental Strategies To Prevent Alcohol Problems on College Campuses.

• A Guide for Enforcing Impaired Driving Laws for Youth.

• A Guide to Zero Tolerance and Graduated Licensing: Two Strategies That Work.

• How To Use Local Regulatory and Land Use Powers To Prevent Underage Drinking.

• A Practical Guide to Preventing and Dispersing Underage Drinking Parties.

• Reducing Alcohol Sales to Underage Purchasers: A Practical Guide to Compliance Investigations.

• Regulatory Strategies for Preventing Youth Access to Alcohol: Best Practices.

• Strategies for Reducing Third-Party Transactions of Alcohol to Underage Youth.

Recognizing the need to know how well the EUDL Program works, OJJDP awarded a grant to Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, NC, to evaluate how States and local communities are using their EUDL block and discretionary grants and to evaluate the impact of the program in a sample of communities. OJJDP awarded a supplement to the grant in FY 2000 to identify promising practices as part of the national evaluation.

The evaluation design includes 4 major components: a telephone survey of key actors in the initiative in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, indepth case studies of program implementation in 6 States, a telephone survey of police and sheriff�s offices in a sample of grant recipient States, and telephone surveys of a sample of youth (ages 16�20) in the same States. Early findings from these surveys indicate that the EUDL Program is bringing together groups that have not previously worked together—particularly law enforcement and substance abuse and treatment agencies. Some States appear to be facing challenges in program implementation, especially among agencies that have limited experience in working together (such as Alcohol Beverage Control agencies, which are reported to be highly involved in EUDL programs in 66 percent of States). The surveys also found that citizens� groups, such as MADD, are significantly involved in only 28 States.

Data from the youth survey underscore the magnitude of the underage drinking problem. About half (46 percent) of the sample of youth reported current alcohol use (within the past 30 days), 27 percent reported alcohol use over the past 7 days, and 21 percent reported binge drinking (having five or more drinks in a row on at least one occasion during a 2-week period). Moreover, substantial numbers of youth reported engaging in risky behaviors associated with alcohol use, such as driving while under the influence of alcohol and riding with a driver who had been drinking. Negative consequences of drinking reported by current drinkers included experiencing headaches and hangovers, being unable to remember what happened after a drinking incident, passing out, getting into a fight, having sex without birth control, breaking or damaging property, missing school, and being the victim of a forced sex attempt. An OJJDP Bulletin summarizing the evaluation�s first year of findings will be published in 2001.

Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program

OJJDP provides instructional training and specialized assistance to State, local, and tribal law enforcement professionals through a grant to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA. The program aims to reduce juvenile delinquency and violence by facilitating effective techniques and programs for planning and delivering law enforcement services. It encourages the use of local collaborations to increase juvenile accountability for delinquent and criminal behavior and reduce juvenile violence. It also promotes a more positive approach to the Nation�s youth.

The program examines core issues related to youth violence, using methods that are consistent with effective police practices. It provides leaders throughout the juvenile justice system�in law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, corrections, probation, and other agencies�with strategic information, materials, and training and technical assistance aimed at solving managerial issues that hinder implementation of effective youth crime prevention strategies.

The program covers a range of youth violence issues, including youth firearm possession and use; school violence and safety; youth-oriented community policing; gang and drug involvement; serious, violent, and habitual juvenile offenders; multidisciplinary youth violence strategies; police management of youth programs; tribal juvenile crime; and chief executive officers� responses to delinquency and violence.

In FY 2000, 18 pilot workshop sessions were conducted, with nearly 2,000 participants. The pilot workshops included the Chief Executive Officer Forum, Managing Juvenile Operations, School Administrators for Effective Police Operations Leading to Improved Children and Youth Services, Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program, and Youth Gang, Gun, and Drug Policy. Revisions to the training designs are based on feedback from law enforcement advisory groups and workshop participants. A new workshop—Tribal Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance—is in the design phase.

Partnerships To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence

According to the OJJDP Bulletin Fighting Juvenile Gun Violence, a teenager today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than of disease or other natural causes. Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death for juveniles in the United States. For every fatal shooting of a juvenile, there are about three nonfatal shootings. Suicides and unintentional gunshot injuries claim the lives of even more juveniles than gun-related homicides. The national increase in homicides of juveniles in the late 1980s and early 1990s—and the recent declines—were almost entirely related to the use of firearms by juveniles and young adults. Clearly, any comprehensive effort to reduce juvenile crime and delinquency must target gun violence. Recognizing the severity of the problem, OJJDP is helping selected local jurisdictions develop comprehensive partnerships to reduce juvenile gun violence. These efforts are based on community assessments of local needs and include suppression, intervention, and prevention components.

In FY 1997, OJJDP initiated a 3-year gun violence reduction partnership effort in four sites: Baton Rouge and Shreveport, LA; Oakland, CA; and Syracuse, NY. Shreveport withdrew from the program, but the remaining three communities each developed a comprehensive plan that integrates suppression, intervention, and prevention strategies and facilitates changes in the policies and procedures of participating public and private agencies. From this planning process, OJJDP and the grantees have learned four principal lessons:

• A comprehensive and accurate needs assessment is critical to strategic planning.

• Partnerships should use a logic model process to develop a comprehensive strategic plan (i.e., they should succinctly and logically link problem identification statements with methods to address the problems and with expected results).

• As partnerships refine their gun violence strategies, they can use performance data to keep program planners and task force members informed.

• Key stakeholders need to make a commitment to the program and be active participants in the partnerships.

The three demonstration communities are experiencing positive results. For example, homicides in Baton Rouge decreased from 71 in 1996 to 48 in 1999. In the partnership�s high-crime target area, the decrease was even more dramatic. Gun-related homicides in the target area declined from 19 in 1996 to 9 in 1999. In addition, 110 gun cases were referred to the U.S. Attorney�s Office in 1999; 70 of these have resulted in convictions to date. In Oakland, the police department recovered 2,255 firearms between October 1998 and June 1999, and the Syracuse police department recovered 1,238 firearms between January 1997 and July 1999.

OJJDP also is funding an evaluation of this program by COSMOS Corporation of Bethesda, MD. Researchers are documenting and evaluating the process of community mobilization, planning, and collaboration needed to develop the comprehensive, collaborative approach to reducing gun violence among juveniles that OJJDP envisioned. Evaluators are examining the demonstration sites� logic models to identify relevant process and impact measures and also are assessing the sites� capacity-building efforts and achievement of short-term and long-term outcomes. Evaluators also have developed a training and technical assistance protocol package, which will be offered to selected communities that are focused on reducing gun violence through a collaborative planning process.

The OJJDP Bulletin Fighting Juvenile Gun Violence describes this program. The Bulletin is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

School Resource Officers

Data from OJJDP�s Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report indicate that children are safer at school than away from school. Nevertheless, families, school administrators, and communities continue to be concerned about school safety. In response to this concern, many police departments and schools are hiring school resource officers (SROs)—career law enforcement officers assigned to work with school and community-based organizations—to help prevent and respond to school crime. An SRO�s role as law enforcement officer, counselor, teacher, and liaison between law enforcement, school, community, and family requires training beyond that received at a police academy.

Fox Valley Technical College (FVTC) of Appleton, WI, in partnership with OJJDP�s National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) of Alexandria, VA, has developed a training program to help schools, communities, and juvenile justice agencies implement and sustain effective SRO programs. The training program, which is funded through the Department of Justice�s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), includes three components:

• The Chief Executive Officer Safe School Forum, designed for superintendents, police chiefs, chief probation officers, social services administrators, and chief prosecutors, discusses critical roles and responsibilities, information sharing, and policy issues related to school safety and juvenile justice.

• The School Resource Officer Leadership Program discusses standards of excellence and best practices and is designed for police officers designated to be SROs, their supervisors, school district and university police officers, and other school staff.

• The third component, Safe Schools Interagency Team Planning, brings together chief executives of schools and community, social service, and juvenile justice organizations to discuss information sharing, cooperation, and coordination efforts.

A technical assistance component, designed to sustain and support program development, also is available to eligible teams and participants who have completed training and have begun to implement an SRO program. An OJJDP Fact Sheet, School Resource Officer Training Program, is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Transfer of the Responsibility for Child Protective Investigations to Law Enforcement Agencies

In response to concerns about increasing demands on public child welfare agencies, the safety of children, and the capacity of law enforcement and social service agencies to deliver critical services, the State of Florida passed legislation in 1998 that allows jurisdictions to transfer the entire responsibility for child protective investigations to a law enforcement agency. OJJDP, through an interagency agreement with the National Institute of Justice, is funding an evaluation of this activity. Evaluators are comparing child protection-related outcomes in three Florida counties where responsibility for investigation is being transferred to sheriff�s offices with outcomes in three counties where social service agencies retain responsibility. The project is concerned primarily with whether children are safer when law enforcement agencies assume responsibility for child protective investigations, whether perpetrators of severe child abuse are more likely to face criminal sanctions, and whether there are impacts on other parts of the child welfare system. Also, a thorough process evaluation will be conducted to describe and compare the implementation process across the three counties. The evaluation is being conducted by the School of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA.