Strengthening the capacity of juvenile justice systems to prevent and respond to delinquency is an ongoing challenge for all States and communities. Supporting their efforts to address this challenge is a longstanding priority at OJJDP. Each year, the Office’s core Formula Grants program funds a variety of State and local juvenile justice activities—from prevention to corrections—throughout the Nation. Other major programs sponsored by OJJDP encourage States and communities to improve their juvenile justice systems by implementing accountability-based reforms and responding to specific challenge areas.

By strengthening the corrections component of the juvenile justice system, States and communities enhance public safety, ensure that court sanctions are implemented appropriately and effectively, and take advantage of an important opportunity to help offending juveniles make better choices and lead productive lives. OJJDP continues to develop and fund a variety of programs to strengthen all components of the juvenile justice system. The programs highlighted in this chapter illustrate the types of activities that are underway and on the horizon.

Accountability-Based Training for Staff in Juvenile Confinement Facilities

The Accountability-Based Training for Staff in Juvenile Confinement Facilities program offers state-of-the-art training to direct-care staff in juvenile confinement facilities around the Nation to help them better handle and care for confined youth. The program, funded by OJJDP for 6 years, is administered by the National Juvenile Detention Association’s (NJDA’s) Center for Research and Professional Development (CRPD). Through the program, CRPD has provided more than 101,600 training hours to line staff in juvenile justice facilities and programs in 33 States. NJDA also offers comprehensive technical assistance to State and local juvenile detention centers experiencing problems with their operations.

During FY 2002, CRPD will add a new 40-hour curriculum (BARJ-ing Into Juvenile Confinement: Practical Application of BARJ Principles for Line Staff) to its existing materials and curriculums. CRPD will also develop and pilot advanced training curriculums on suicide prevention and the management of mentally ill residents and revise its curriculum for juvenile detention caseworkers.

In addition, NJDA will make intensive technical assistance available to jurisdictions having problems with overcrowding in their juvenile confinement facilities. NJDA also will assist facilities experiencing difficulties with operations, staffing, or planning. NJDA maintains a consultant pool of experts who understand the problems faced by overcrowded facilities and can provide alternatives to secure detention. During FY 2002, NJDA will conduct at least six jurisdictional Team Trainings to combat overcrowding and address other problems relating to the general operations of a juvenile confinement facility.

Assessing Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Disorders Among Juvenile Detainees

Between 1987 and 1996, the volume of cases handled by juvenile courts increased 49 percent. As a result, more youth than ever before became involved in the juvenile justice system. Mental health professionals believe, based on limited data, that a high percentage of these youth have alcohol, drug, and mental disorders and that many fail to receive necessary mental health and substance abuse services. The Northwestern Juvenile Project (at the Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, IL) is exploring this problem.

Since November 1995, the Northwestern Juvenile Project has been studying alcohol, drug, and mental disorders among a large sample of youth—1,829 juveniles (1,172 males and 657 females) held in the Cook County (Chicago) Juvenile Temporary Detention Center. The project’s investigators have conducted psychiatric interviews of youth in detention and collected extensive archival data to assess the extent of alcohol, drug, and mental disorders in the sample and determine whether the youth are receiving necessary services. The study also explores the development and interrelationship of high-risk behaviors related to violence, substance abuse, and HIV/AIDS.

A longitudinal component was added to the study in November 1998 and is funded by OJJDP, other Federal agencies, and private foundations. This component allows researchers to assess the developmental course of substance abuse and mental disorders among juvenile detainees; examine service availability, service use, and barriers to service access among juvenile detainees; and identify longer term patterns of risky behavior in the areas of violence, substance use, and HIV/AIDS.

Investigators have used extensive and thorough procedures to track youth and have repeatedly reinterviewed virtually all members of the original sample, regardless of whether the youth have returned to the community, remained incarcerated, or left the immediate area. The large sample size provides sufficient statistical power for the researchers to study rare disorders (including co-occurring conditions), patterns of drug use, and risky, life-threatening behaviors.

Assessing Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Disorders in Juvenile Detainees, an OJJDP Fact Sheet (FS–200102) published in January 2001, describes the goals and status of the Northwestern Juvenile Project, suggests some preliminary findings, and discusses the findings’ implications for the juvenile justice system. The Fact Sheet is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Publication of an OJJDP Bulletin on the Northwestern Juvenile Project that compares subjects’ self-reported substance use with the results of urine screens conducted shortly after arrest is planned.

Community Assessment Centers

Many communities are searching for more effective and efficient ways to identify and intervene with juveniles at risk of becoming serious, violent, and chronic offenders. Research shows that delinquent youth often face multiple risk factors and that, as risk factors accumulate, higher levels of delinquency and other problem behaviors result. Consequently, youth with multiple risk factors often are involved with several different systems (e.g., juvenile justice, mental health, and/or alcohol and other drug treatment) that may not communicate adequately with one another. OJJDP’s Community Assessment Center (CAC) program currently is helping two communities—Denver County, CO, and Orange County, FL—test the CAC model’s ability to address these problems. OJJDP originally funded four CAC sites: two planning sites (Denver County, CO, and Lee County, FL) and two implementation/enhancement sites (Jefferson County, CO, and Orlando, FL).

A CAC’s main purpose is to facilitate earlier and more efficient delivery of prevention and intervention services. The CAC model includes four key elements that, when implemented properly, have the potential to positively affect youth and divert them from the path of serious, violent, and chronic delinquency:

• A centralized point of intake and assessment for youth who have come or are at risk of coming into contact with the juvenile justice system.

• Immediate and comprehensive assessments of youth’s circumstances and treatment needs.

• A management information system to manage and monitor youth served, which ensures the provision of appropriate treatment and rehabilitation services and prevents the duplication of services.

• Integrated case management for youth, including service recommendations, improved access to services, followup, and periodic reassessments.

In 1997, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) began a national evaluation of assessment centers at the four sites originally funded by OJJDP. NCCD’s report on the evaluation covers 1997 through mid-1999.

NCCD’s evaluation examined five factors:

• Context (the environment in which CACs operate).

• Identification (techniques, procedures, and criteria used to identify, screen, assess, and refer youth).

• Intervention (the range of programs or reforms in system processing used to meet a CAC’s objectives).

• Linkages (formal and informal relationships and agreements that affect the establishment of a new CAC or the modification of an existing facility).

• Goals (the measurable outcomes of CACs).

NCCD’s data collection methods included a review of information in official records and reports; interviews of key leaders, youth, and parents; surveys of individuals involved in CAC operations but not interviewed in the key leader interviews (e.g., patrol officers and case managers); a random sample of cases in the two enhancement sites; and an analysis of information on assessment, services, and recidivism extracted from the enhancement sites’ automated management information systems.

NCCD’s evaluation revealed several reasons for developing CACs, including rising problems of juvenile crime and deficiencies in the way that delinquent and at-risk youth are handled by the juvenile justice system. Jefferson County pointed to highly publicized juvenile crimes, lengthy delays in case processing, crowded detention facilities, and the need for more prevention services for at-risk youth as reasons for its decision to develop a CAC. In Denver County and Lee County, fragmented juvenile justice systems and a lack of effective prevention and intervention services for youth led to CAC planning.

NCCD also examined sites’ goals for the assessment centers, which may include:

• Preventing delinquency.

• Providing comprehensive services for youth and their families.

• Improving information sharing and communication between agencies.

• Providing a cost-effective response to juvenile crime.

• Reducing the length of time between arrest and treatment by expediting case processing.

In terms of overall lessons learned, comments that NCCD gathered from key leaders in Denver County and Lee County centered on three themes: the need for collaborative and inclusive planning, the value of beginning small and having definite timelines, and the importance of clearly identifying goals and educating new players and the public about such goals. Information from Orange County revealed that the CAC approach has led to substantial savings in law enforcement officers’ time, the availability of more information (thus contributing to faster case processing), and greater collaboration and cooperation. NCCD’s examination of rearrest rates showed little difference in the recidivism rates of youth who received assessments and those who did not. The data reveal slightly lower rearrest rates for a matched sample of assessed youth.

In sum, NCCD’s preliminary evaluation shows that the assessment center concept is promising and that the collaboratives overseeing the centers’ development and functioning are working hard to meet ambitious goals. CACs have had positive effects on integration, collaboration, and juvenile justice system functioning, but several issues remain. For example, many youth and families interviewed by NCCD did not fully understand the nature of voluntary consent. Due process, legal representation, access to files, and the need for clear confidentiality standards are also important concerns.

An OJJDP Bulletin published in March 2000, The Community Assessment Center Concept, describes challenges faced by the four communities chosen to be part of OJJDP’s CAC demonstration effort and discusses the CAC model and its key elements. The Bulletin is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Formula Grants Program

The Formula Grants program, established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, provides funds directly to States, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia to help them implement comprehensive State juvenile justice plans based on detailed studies of needs in their jurisdictions. (The term “States,” as used throughout this section, refers to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.)

During FY 2001, OJJDP awarded more than $76 million to the States under the Formula Grants program to support a variety of juvenile justice activities, from prevention efforts to incarceration. Allocations are based on the number of juveniles in a State and in FY 2001 ranged (other than for territories) from $635,000 (Washington, DC) to $8.366 million (California). The Governor of each State designates a State agency to implement the Formula Grants program. Contact information for each State’s administering agency for Formula Grants and other grants can be found at www.ojp.gov/state.htm. Although the awards go to this agency, the JJDP Act requires that two-thirds of all Formula Grants funds be passed through to programs of units of general local government, local private agencies, and Indian tribes that perform law enforcement functions.

To participate in the Formula Grants program, a State must address 25 State planning requirements set forth in the JJDP Act and comply with 4 core protections for juveniles involved in the justice system:

• Deinstitutionalizing status offenders and nonoffenders (DSO).

• Separating adult and juvenile offenders in secure institutions (separation).

• Eliminating the practice of detaining or confining juveniles in adult jails and lockups (jail and lockup removal).

• Addressing the disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles in secure juvenile justice system facilities and jails and lockups where such overrepresentation exists (DMC).

Under OJJDP’s leadership, States continue to make significant progress in achieving or maintaining compliance with these core protections. The majority of the 54 States participating in the Formula Grants program (South Dakota and Wyoming are not participating)³ are now in full compliance (or in full compliance with de minimis exceptions) with the first 3 requirements and are making satisfactory progress in meeting the DMC requirement (added as a core protection when the JJDP Act was amended in 1992). Most States have completed the initial identification and assessment phases for this provision and are implementing the intervention phase. Three States, in addition to completing the identification and assessment phases in earlier years, continue to monitor DMC trends each year and have updated assessment studies, implemented intervention strategies to address identified contributing factors to DMC, and conducted evaluations of their DMC efforts. Thirteen States have submitted updated DMC data, evidencing ongoing monitoring efforts. More detail on individual States’ compliance with the core protections of the JJDP Act is presented in the tables.

Research and Evaluation Associates (REA) is one of several OJJDP grantees responsible for supporting States’ efforts to determine whether the proportion of minorities in confinement exceeds their proportion in the population and, if so, to demonstrate efforts to reduce it. In FY 2001, REA developed a set of strategic tools and materials to help jurisdictions address DMC and was responsible for delivery of intensive technical assistance to five States. In working with the States, project staff established a protocol for the delivery of technical assistance in response to DMC issues. This protocol will help States identify and prioritize interventions that have both immediate and long-term effects on DMC. In FY 2002, REA’s activities will include identifying and training consultants to support the expansion of intensive technical assistance, evaluating the use of the protocol in delivering technical assistance, and continuing to develop strategies and approaches that will help States address DMC.

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program

OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) program strengthens the juvenile justice system by encouraging States and local jurisdictions to implement accountability-based reforms. Under the program, OJJDP awards block grants to States, which, in turn, distribute funds to local jurisdictions. JAIBG also supports program-related research, demonstration, evaluation, training, and technical assistance activities.

During FY 2001, 56 eligible jurisdictions (including all 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia) received JAIBG awards totaling $231 million. The awards can be used to fund programs in 12 purpose areas, including construction of juvenile detention and corrections facilities; development of accountability-based sanctions programs for juvenile offenders; hiring of prosecutors, public defenders, and judges to address drug, gang, and youth violence more effectively; and the establishment and maintenance of interagency information-sharing programs to promote more informed decisionmaking in the control, supervision, and treatment of juvenile offenders (see complete list of Program Purpose Areas).

To help States and local jurisdictions implement JAIBG programs, OJJDP provides training and technical assistance through Development Services Group, Inc. (DSG), of Bethesda, MD, and 11 other training and technical assistance providers. During FY 2001, the training program featured six regional training sessions for State and local JAIBG grantees and six Web-based training sessions and two regional training sessions for JAIBG coordinators and juvenile justice specialists. OJJDP and the Bureau of Justice Statistics also established the JAIBG Technical Support Center to help States calculate the amount of JAIBG funds to be allocated to local jurisdictions.

DSG coordinates a JAIBG Training and Technical Assistance Alliance, which consists of 11 providers (including the American Correctional Association, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the American Probation and Parole Association, and the National Institute of Corrections) that deliver various services to States and localities implementing JAIBG programs. Since its inception in 1998, the Alliance has provided technical assistance in response to more than 3,750 requests. To support the JAIBG program, the Alliance has conducted 618 training events, workshops, presentations, and videoconferences reaching more than 51,270 practitioners, including juvenile justice specialists, judges, probation officers, law enforcement officers, court and school personnel, prosecutors, and detention staff. By directly training State and local practitioners on best practices in juvenile accountability and graduated sanctions, OJJDP helps State and local governments improve their juvenile justice systems’ capacity to address accountability.

In FY 1999, Abt Associates Inc., of Cambridge, MA, began a 48-month national evaluation of the JAIBG program that focuses on its administration, including how grants are used by State and local recipients and what types of programs are funded. The study is also documenting State and local programs’ access to and use of training and technical assistance, practitioners’ and policymakers’ attitudes toward the JAIBG program, and States’ responses to the JAIBG purpose areas. In addition, evaluators are conducting a mail survey of State and local practitioners and policymakers to assess their attitudes about the JAIBG program and their perceptions of how it was implemented in their jurisdictions. The national evaluation is expected to be completed by late 2002.

OJJDP continues to publish its series of JAIBG Bulletins, which present up-to-date information about one or more specific JAIBG program purpose areas. During FY 2001, OJJDP published the following Bulletins in the JAIBG series:

• Increasing School Safety Through Juvenile Accountability Programs (NCJ 179283).

• Juvenile Drug Court Programs (NCJ 184744).

Increasing School Safety describes activities that reflect OJJDP’s commitment to promoting school safety by holding students accountable for their behavior. In particular, it describes common features and key elements of effective programs and recommends a comprehensive, collaborative approach that involves students, parents, and school officials.

Juvenile Drug Court Programs discusses juvenile drug courts—intensive treatment programs established within and supervised by juvenile courts to provide specialized services for eligible drug-involved youth and their families. Since 1995, more than 100 juvenile drug courts have been established in the United States, and another 100 are being planned. By providing local officials the experience and perspective of juvenile justice policymakers and practitioners who have been involved with juvenile drug court programs during the past several years, this Bulletin facilitates the development of constructive, well-conceived programs that improve juvenile justice systems’ ability to hold youthful offenders accountable for their behavior while enhancing public safety and strengthening existing State and local programs.

Both Bulletins are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

The final two Bulletins in the series, Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability and Providing Treatment and Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability: Overview, will be published in 2002.

National Training and Technical Assistance Center

Practitioners in the field of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention face enormous challenges in their efforts to change existing practices in ways that will improve outcomes. Because quality training and technical assistance (T&TA) can facilitate such efforts, OJJDP established the National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC) in 1995 to facilitate the systematic coordination of OJJDP’s T&TA resources. In particular, NTTAC was established to increase responsiveness to consumer needs, promote the use of best practices in the provision of T&TA, and assist in the overall enhancement of OJJDP’s T&TA service delivery system. Operated by Caliber Associates of Fairfax, VA, the Center coordinates the services of more than 60 OJJDP T&TA providers. The Center also identifies and assesses T&TA resources in the field, collects and provides access to the best available T&TA materials, develops new T&TA materials, and disseminates model T&TA protocols and guides.

During FY 2001, NTTAC responded to more than 500 T&TA requests from throughout the United States. Using a customized online data management tool for collecting and cataloging information, the Center developed a protocol for updating the OJJDP Training and Technical Assistance Resource Catalog. NTTAC also revamped its marketing and outreach strategy and created a “family of products” look for the Center’s marketing materials. As part of its new marketing and outreach strategy, NTTAC expanded and enhanced its Web site (www.nttac.org) by developing an online bulletin board and a monthly “Web Sites to Watch” series—increasing its usership approximately 40 percent.

During FY 2002, NTTAC plans to:

• Disseminate the core performance standards and a tool kit series of fact sheets and bulletins to facilitate implementation of the standards.

• Continue to develop an Information Resource Management System that will include a mechanism for tracking T&TA requests and coordination, a consultant repository, a training delivery repository, a provider directory, and a media resource repository.

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

• Convene the annual OJJDP T&TA grantee and contractor meeting.

• Update and disseminate the OJJDP Training and Technical Assistance Resource Catalog and continue to broker quality T&TA services on behalf of the OJJDP provider network.

• Help State juvenile corrections training academies facilitate the reoccurring revisions and updates of basic job descriptions and serve as a repository of training materials developed by academies for dissemination to academies.

Performance-based Standards Project

In 1995, OJJDP launched a major initiative, now known as the Performance-based Standards (PbS) project, to improve the conditions of confinement and the services provided in juvenile corrections and detention facilities. OJJDP initiated the project in recognition of the need for national performance standards for such facilities and in response to findings from OJJDP’s 1994 congressionally mandated Conditions of Confinement Study, which revealed that then-existing standards failed to protect the health and safety of youth and staff. The study found that several factors—such as high rates of suicidal behavior among youth in residential placement, few timely and professionally conducted health and mental health screenings, and pervasive overcrowding—were related to high rates of injury to youth and staff and high levels of staff turnover in juvenile corrections facilities.

In response to these findings, OJJDP issued a request for proposals to develop and implement a set of standards that would improve conditions and services for confined youth. OJJDP competitively selected the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) of South Easton, MA, to develop and implement performance-based standards. The support CJCA has received from agency directors across the nation has advanced the initiative significantly.

During its 7 years of development and implementation, PbS has grown into a system for continuous improvement that includes the following elements:

• A set of performance-based standards that address seven areas—safety, order, security, programming, health/mental health services, the justice of facility operations, and reintegration. Each standard is linked to an overarching goal, and performance is assessed by one or more outcome measures that count occurrences, measure rates, and reflect changes over time.

• Data collection tools used to gather and organize the information required to produce the outcome measures.

• Reports that provide a graphic representation of a facility’s results for each outcome measure, compared with both the group average and the individual site’s results over time.

• A range of resources, including the consulting expertise of recognized experts and staff from participating facilities, research reports, studies, and relevant organizations and Web sites.

As of the end of FY 2001, 96 facilities in 29 States and localities were implementing the PbS system. Thirteen States had adopted PbS agencywide, which has enabled them to facilitate systemic implementation and improve performance in all of their facilities. Detailed information on participating facilities is available on the PbS Web site (www.cjca.net/sitecode/cjca_projects_pbs.html).

In 1998, CJCA began implementing performance-based standards and data collection tools at 32 juvenile facilities across the nation. These facilities have completed five rounds of data collection (June 1998, August 1999, April 2000, October 2000, and April 2001). Since the project’s inception, OJJDP has identified several opportunities to enhance and expand the project. Enhancements have included demonstration program funding, improvement of the PbS Web site, publication of resource guides, support of additional facilities, and a national evaluation. The PbS Web site is currently being redesigned and improved for the next round of data collection, scheduled for May 2002.

Experience to date confirms that PbS makes a difference for youth and staff. Juvenile corrections and detention facilities have made measurable improvements, including reducing the use of isolation and room confinement, increasing the number of youth who receive health and mental health screenings, reducing assaults on youth and staff, and decreasing staff turnover. One facility, Connecticut’s Long Lane School, which joined the project in 1997—following a youth suicide at the facility and major criticism from the media, policymakers, and the public—has showed dramatic improvements. For example, in August 1999 (just 1 year after implementing PbS), April 2000, October 2000, and April 2001, 100 percent of the youth sampled at Long Lane had received an intake screening for risk of suicide before being assigned housing (compared with only 1 of 30 youth sampled in June 1998). Long Lane’s data between June 1998 and April 2001 also show a considerable decline in the number of youth injured at the facility and a decrease in the number of occurrences involving the use of restraints. Over the same period, the facility’s use of isolation and room confinement was cut in half, and fewer escapes occurred. Each of these areas had been the subject of public criticism and targeted for improvement.

OJJDP is supporting a formative evaluation of the PbS project through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce. The evaluation is being conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration of Washington, DC. Recent survey results from the evaluation have been positive, in terms of both the adoption of PbS and improvements in facility outcomes. Even though nearly one-third of participating facilities reported significant difficulties with the initial implementation of PbS, they felt strongly that the standards would ultimately be accepted and benefit youth corrections and detention facilities. Researchers confirmed that PbS goals are widely shared by facility administrators and staff.

While working with facilities to implement PbS, the project team recognized the need to expand the standards that addressed the reintegration of youth back into their communities. In response to this need, the PbS team in FY 2000 began working with representatives of OJJDP’s Intensive Aftercare Program to develop standards on how to prepare youth for reintegration into their community following release from a confinement facility. The draft standards and outcome measures were created in FY 2001 and are now being tested. Data collection will begin in selected jurisdictions in 2002. The standards will subsequently be revised and incorporated into the PbS system.

Performance-based Standards: A System of Continuous Improvement, an OJJDP Bulletin on the PbS project and its history, achievements, and future direction, is planned for release in FY 2002. It will be available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Planning of New Institutions for Juveniles

As a result of widespread crowding and substandard conditions, many juvenile detention and corrections facilities across the nation need to be replaced or renovated. Before renovating or replacing facilities, however, jurisdictions should engage in careful planning to ensure that alternatives to confinement have been considered and that new or expanded facilities are constructed only when necessary. Recognizing the need to help jurisdictions plan for the construction or renovation of juvenile facilities, OJJDP and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Corrections Program Office (CPO) approached the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) about developing workshops for officials planning to build or renovate juvenile facilities. The resulting Planning of New Institutions for Juvenile Facilities (Juvenile PONI) workshop program helps jurisdictions make well-informed planning decisions about building new secure juvenile facilities or about renovating or expanding existing facilities. OJJDP and CPO fund the program, and NIC oversees the development and presentation of the training workshop.

Jurisdictions participating in the Juvenile PONI program select six-person teams to attend the 5-day workshop. Each team must include officials with statutory responsibility for funding, operation, and administration of the facility to be constructed or renovated. A team may also include judges, program administrators, citizens, financial officers, and/or architects and planners under contract to the jurisdictions. Since the first Juvenile PONI workshop in November 1998, the sponsoring agencies have offered three workshops each year at the NIC Academy in Longmont, CO. Five to six jurisdictions have participated in each session. Jurisdictions that attend workshops may also request followup technical assistance.

The curriculum for the 5-day Juvenile PONI workshop consists of 16 modules. Several of the modules—including a historical overview of juvenile justice management and attitudes, an overview of the facility development process, and aspects of direct supervision—use a traditional lecture-discussion format. Others—such as clarifying team roles, framing a vision statement, developing functional space programs, and relating staffing plans to facility plans—use break-out sessions that involve hands-on activities and teamwork and require participants to create and present their own work product. All of the modules present information as part of a real-life case study of a facility near the Academy. Toward the end of the workshop, participants have an opportunity to tour the facility and participate in a question-and-answer session with the facility director and staff.

In response to the success of the initial Juvenile PONI workshops, OJJDP and CPO allocated funds to continue the program through 2002. In addition, OJJDP will contract with NIC to develop a Transition and Activation curriculum to provide training to jurisdictions that will be opening new juvenile confinement facilities. The HONI (How to Open a New Institution) Training will be piloted in August 2002.

An OJJDP Fact Sheet, Planning of New Institutions: Workshops for Juvenile Facilities (January 2001), describes the Juvenile PONI program and identifies considerations that should guide jurisdictions’ renovation, expansion, and new construction projects. The Fact Sheet is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

State Challenge Activities

OJJDP’s State Challenge Activities Program (State Challenge), established by the 1992 reauthorization of the JJDP Act of 1974, provides incentives for States participating in the Title II, Part B, Formula Grants program to improve their juvenile justice systems by developing, adopting, or improving policies and programs in 1 or more of 10 specific State Challenge program activities. (See sidebar for a complete list of the State Challenge activities.) Only States participating in the Formula Grants program are eligible to receive State Challenge grants.

In FY 2001, OJJDP awarded nearly $9 million in State Challenge grants to 48 States, the District of Columbia, and 5 territories (see table for a list of participating States). The State Challenge activities most often addressed were alternatives to suspension and expulsion (24 States), gender bias policies and programs (20 States), aftercare (reentry) services (19 States), community-based alternatives (17 States), and basic system services (17 States). The State Challenge activities least often addressed were violent juvenile offender facilities (no States), State agency coordination/case review (one State), State Ombudsman (three States), and access to counsel (four States). Detailed information on State Challenge activities during FY 2001 appears in the table and figure.

States have used State Challenge funds to bring about far-reaching systemic changes in their juvenile justice systems. Over the past several years, States generally have focused their efforts on the following broad categories of activities:

• Using data to produce policy changes and legislative reforms.

• Using research to guide reforms in service delivery.

• Increasing public awareness and professional competence through training conferences, publications, and technical assistance.

• Developing curriculums on gender-specific issues for juvenile justice personnel and service providers.

• Developing curriculums on gender-specific issues for female offenders.

• Drafting program regulations, policies, and/or procedures for statewide use by drawing on recent and specific program experience.

• Developing screening instruments to guide service planning.

• Implementing demonstration programs at additional sites.

• Filling a significant service gap in a substantial way.

• Forming ongoing and sustained partnerships to provide coordinated services.

• Developing capacity in the private sector to increase the overall capacity of the service system.

Such State Challenge activities have generated many publications and other useful products that can help jurisdictions across the nation improve juvenile justice systems. An FY 2000 OJJDP Bulletin, System Change Through State Challenge Activities: Approaches and Products, defines characteristics and requirements of system change and summarizes and discusses the categories of system change approaches mentioned above. The Bulletin is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. To further help States implement system change, OJJDP developed the State Challenge Activities Program Monitoring Checklist to help State Juvenile Justice Specialists focus on system change as an essential goal of this grants program.

On the Horizon

In FY 2001, OJJDP initiated work on a variety of programs designed to help strengthen the juvenile justice system, including the following:

• Evaluation of Teen Courts Project. OJJDP awarded a grant to The Urban Institute in Washington, DC, in 1998 to conduct a national evaluation of the effectiveness and characteristics of teen courts. Such courts, also known as youth courts, generally target younger juveniles (ages 10–15), juveniles with no prior arrests, and juveniles charged with less serious violations. These juveniles are usually offered participation in teen court instead of the traditional juvenile justice system. OJJDP initiated the Evaluation of Teen Courts Project to assess the impact of teen courts on nonserious juvenile offenders. The project is the first national, multisite evaluation of this emerging diversion strategy for at-risk youth. The evaluation was structured to determine the impact of teen courts on subsequent delinquency and recidivism, perceptions of justice among youth referred to teen courts, and the commitment of youth to prosocial norms and normative institutions (e.g., school). The evaluation includes three components—an impact evaluation, a process evaluation, and a new enhancement that will employ a random assignment design in new teen court sites. The impact evaluation will examine teen court programs’ effect on youth—in particular, what happens to youth who participate in teen courts and whether their experiences differ from those of youth handled in the traditional juvenile justice system. The process evaluation will determine what happens in teen court programs, what they do, and how well they do it.

State Compliance Based on 1999 Reports: Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO), Sec. 223(a)(12)(A) aFewer than 29.4 violations per 100,000 persons under age 18 in the State. bSouth Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2001 Formula Grants program.

State Compliance Based on 1999 Reports: Separation of Juvenile and Adult Offenders, Sec. 223(a)(13) aOJJDP regulatory criteria set forth in Section 31.303(f)(6)(ii) of the OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation (28 C.F.R. 31), and published in the May 31, 1995, Federal Register, allow States reporting noncompliant incidents to continue in the program provided the incidents are not in violation of State law and no pattern or practice exists. bSouth Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2001 Formula Grants program.

State Compliance Based on 1999 Reports: Jail and Lockup Removal, Sec. 223(a)(14) aState was found in compliance based on the numerical or substantive de minimis standard criteria set forth in Section 31.303(f)(6)(iii)(B) of the OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation (28 C.F.R. 31) and published in the May 31, 1995, Federal Register. bSouth Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2001 Formula Grants program.

State Compliance Based on FY 2001 Formula Grants Program Comprehensive Plan: Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC), Sec. 223(a)(23) Click to view the full-size figure. aStates that will begin to receive intensive DMC technical assistance in January 2002 to further enhance their DMC efforts. bState that received intensive DMC technical assistance from November 2000 to July 2001 to further enhance its DMC efforts. cStates that received intensive DMC technical assistance since November 2000 to further enhance their DMC efforts. dSouth Dakota and Wyoming did not participate in the FY 2001 Formula Grants program. eIn four territories, it has been determined that minority juveniles are not disproportionately arrested or detained. fPuerto Rico is exempt from reporting racial statistics because of the homogeneity of its population.

FY 2001 Challenge Activities by State

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

FY 2001 Challenge Activity Summary