After sharp increases in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, arrests for juvenile violent offenses dropped for the sixth consecutive year during 2000. The juvenile arrest rate for violent crime in 2000 was 41 percent lower than its peak in 1994, reaching its lowest level in 14 years. The juvenile arrest rate for murder declined 74 percent from its peak in 1993 to its lowest level since the 1960s. Indeed, the number of juvenile arrests in each category tracked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in its Violent Crime Index (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) fell during 2000. Although OJJDP is encouraged by the continued and steady drop in juvenile arrests for violent crime in recent years, it remains strongly committed to protecting the public from violent juvenile crime and to improving law enforcement’s ability to respond immediately and effectively to juvenile violence. The agency’s programs and activities during FY 2001 reflect this commitment.

Among OJJDP’s most important activities in the area of protecting the public and enhancing law enforcement are its continued efforts to combat underage drinking. Through its Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program (EUDL) (see below), OJJDP has worked with States since 1998 to address underage drinking. The agency’s multifaceted approach to this serious problem includes block and discretionary grants, training and technical assistance, and a national evaluation.

OJJDP also supports programs to manage and treat juvenile sexual offenders. Through research and publications on juvenile sex offending, OJJDP provides juvenile justice practitioners and policymakers, professionals in other fields, the news media, and the general public accurate and up-to-date information about the nature and scope of this problem.

OJJDP also provides a range of training and technical assistance to State, local, and tribal law enforcement professionals through its Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program. By helping leaders throughout the juvenile justice system better implement juvenile crime prevention strategies, this program helps protect the public and address violent juvenile crime.

OJJDP’s efforts to prevent and reduce juvenile gun violence further reflect the agency’s strong commitment to public safety and the reduction of juvenile violent crime. Recognizing the severity of gun violence in the United States, OJJDP continues to assist communities through its Partnerships To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence Program, launched in 1997.

This chapter highlights programs in the areas described above—all of which are designed to help protect the public from serious juvenile crime and improve law enforcement efforts. Such programs, together with early intervention and delinquency prevention strategies (see chapter 2), represent a continuum of programs and services. Such a continuum is needed to enhance public safety and help communities and law enforcement agencies keep the public safe and respond immediately and effectively to juvenile violence.

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program

Since 1998, OJJDP’s EUDL Program has worked with States to address the problem of underage drinking through an approach that includes block grants, discretionary funding, and training and technical assistance. The program also includes a national evaluation designed to assess States’ and local communities’ use of EUDL grants and the impact of the program in a sample of communities. Through EUDL, OJJDP helps the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the territories to develop comprehensive and coordinated initiatives to enforce State laws that prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors and prevent the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages by underage persons. This section provides details on EUDL block grant and discretionary funding awards in FY 2001, training and technical assistance provided in FY 2001, and the ongoing national evaluation of the program that began in 1999.

The EUDL block grant program enables States to improve their responses to underage drinking. In FY 2001, OJJDP awarded block grants of $360,000 each to every State and the District of Columbia for activities in one or more of three areas: enforcement, public education, and innovative programs.

While the EUDL block grant program is intended to enhance State-level responses to underage drinking, the discretionary grant program is designed to address the problem through State-local partnerships. Since the EUDL Program began in 1998, OJJDP has competitively awarded a total of 8 discretionary grants to 24 States to implement the EUDL Program at the local level. These States, in turn, have provided subgrants to 200 local communities to implement a variety of programs in concert with State agencies. Local jurisdictions have used EUDL discretionary funds for activities such as developing community coalitions; encouraging youth leadership and participation in EUDL Program activities; designing needs assessments and strategic plans; increasing enforcement efforts; reviewing and improving policies, regulations, and laws that govern underage drinking; and increasing prevention and public awareness efforts. In FY 2001, OJJDP competitively selected eight States to receive discretionary EUDL grants: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia.

In FY 1998, OJJDP began funding an extensive training and technical assistance program for State EUDL coordinators and representatives from State and local alcoholic beverage control, law enforcement, traffic, health and human services, education, and other agencies. This program is provided by the Center for Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) of Calverton, MD, and its partners, which include Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) of Dallas, TX; American Indian Development Associates of Albuquerque, NM; the National Crime Prevention Council of Washington, DC; the Police Executive Research Forum of Washington, DC; and the National Liquor Law Enforcement Association of Raleigh, NC.

During FY 2001, PIRE provided training and technical assistance to more than 4,000 individuals. PIRE also continued to operate the Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center, which helps EUDL grantees focus their efforts on prevention, intervention, and enforcement. The Training Center is funded by OJJDP to provide science-based, practical, and effective training, technical assistance, and resource materials to States as they implement the EUDL initiative. In addition to helping States enforce laws that govern access to and use of alcohol, PIRE’s Training Center hosts an annual national leadership conference and develops publications to assist States and communities in the enforcement of underage drinking laws. During FY 2001, PIRE developed the following new documents:

• Comparison of Drinking Rates and Problems: European Countries and the United States.

• Finding Common Ground To Address Underage Drinking on Campus.

• Law Enforcement Guide to False Identification.

• Drinking in America: Myths, Realities, and Prevention Policy.

These publications can be downloaded from PIRE’s Web site (www.udetc.org) or ordered at no cost from PIRE at 11710 Beltsville Drive, Suite 300, Calverton, MD 20705–3102.

During FY 2001, OJJDP continued to support a national evaluation of the EUDL Program being conducted by a multidisciplinary team at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, NC. The evaluation is designed to provide timely, scientifically sound evidence regarding the implementation of the EUDL Program and its effects on law enforcement activities, youth alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related problems in local communities. It has two primary goals: to determine what State and local programmatic activities are being supported (through a process evaluation) and to evaluate the impact of the program in a sample of communities (through an impact evaluation). The process evaluation has two data collection components: a key actor survey and indepth case studies of program implementation in six States. The impact evaluation is based on a survey of law enforcement agencies in a sample of communities in States receiving discretionary grants and a survey of youth ages 16 to 20 in the same communities. The case studies have been conducted twice (in 1999 and 2000), and the other data collection efforts were implemented in 1999 and repeated in 2000 and 2001.

Findings from the national evaluation underscore the magnitude of the underage drinking problem. In the 1999 youth survey, 43 percent of the youth in the sample reported current (within the past 30 days) alcohol use, 24 percent reported use within the past 7 days, and 18 percent reported binge drinking. Substantial numbers of youth in the sample reported engaging in various risky behaviors associated with alcohol use. Self-reported drinking and driving was more common among males than females and increased dramatically as males aged, reaching 15.9 percent by age 19 and 23.0 percent by age 20. Riding with a driver who had been drinking was also common: 20 percent of the overall sample reported having done so in the 30 days preceding the survey.

Findings from the national evaluation’s 1999 law enforcement survey reveal a need for additional enforcement efforts. Less than half (46 percent) of the survey respondents reported that enforcing laws prohibiting underage persons from purchasing alcohol was one of their agency’s highest priorities. The percentage was even lower for the enforcement of laws prohibiting sales of alcohol to underage persons (44 percent) and laws prohibiting the furnishing of alcohol to underage persons (37 percent). Data from the key actor survey showed that, in 1999, only 64 percent of the States reported that their State initiative was “very involved” in enforcement efforts. The case studies, on the other hand, revealed a strong commitment to enforcing underage drinking laws. All six case study States had plans to implement, or already had implemented, activities to strengthen enforcement of underage drinking laws. Several case study States reported using funds to pay overtime to enforcement personnel, and most are implementing Cops in Shops programs (which focus on deterring youth from trying to buy alcohol at package stores and other alcohol outlets) or have expressed a strong interest in doing so. Several of the case study States are instituting compliance check programs or strengthening existing efforts in this area.

The national evaluation of the EUDL Program reveals that a high percentage of States are involved in strengthening coordination and public education efforts. Results indicate that in many States, the EUDL Program is bringing together groups that have not previously worked closely together— particularly law enforcement and substance abuse prevention and treatment agencies. Ongoing data collection efforts will continue to provide important information on EUDL implementation, changes in the program’s focus over time, and evidence of its impact.

Juvenile Sex Offenders

One of the most difficult and complex issues facing the juvenile justice system is how to manage and treat juvenile sexual offenders. Juvenile justice practitioners and policymakers, professionals in other fields (e.g., child welfare, mental health, education), the news media, and the general public require accurate, empirically based, and up-to-date information about the nature and scope of juvenile sex offending. Such information can be used to support the development of effective plans for addressing this serious problem.

In FY 2001, OJJDP made a grant award for the Juvenile Sex Offender Training and Technical Assistance Initiative to the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. The goal of this initiative is to increase the accessibility and strategic use of accurate information about the nature, extent, and impact of juvenile sex offending. Information provided through this initiative is designed to foster the development of sound policies and procedures for preventing, managing, and treating juvenile sex offenders. The project is expected to last 3 years and will include a variety of public education, training, technical assistance, information dissemination, and collaborative activities. In addition, through its Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Program, OJJDP has made a grant award to the University of Minnesota for a research project entitled “The Unique Needs of Juvenile Sex Offenders,” which focuses on understanding the ways in which adolescents who molest children differ from other delinquent youth. The project’s long-term goal is to determine the need for offender-specific treatment and develop effective interventions for juvenile sex offenders.

An OJJDP Report published in March 2001, Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended: A Review of the Professional Literature (NCJ 184739), reviews the research literature on juveniles who have committed sex offenses and describes characteristics of these juveniles and the types of offenses they commit. The Report also describes clinical assessment tools for use with juvenile sex offenders, reviews treatment approaches and settings, and examines program evaluations. The Report is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program

The Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance Program was initially funded through a competitive award in 1999 to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) for a 3-year project period. The purpose of the program is to improve the capacity of law enforcement and other allied juvenile justice professionals to address juvenile victimization, delinquency, and crime from a holistic perspective. The curriculum development, training implementation, and technical assistance activities inherent in this program are designed to strengthen existing multiagency teams and to facilitate the creation of new partnerships. Toward that end, the program focuses on multiagency responses to school violence in four topical areas: serious, violent, and chronic juvenile crime; juvenile-focused collaborations; juvenile justice systems with tribal law enforcement agencies; and juvenile gang activity.

In FY 2001, program activities included 19 workshops for more than 1,000 participants from 600 jurisdictions in 12 States. In addition, a marketing database was developed that allows the program to promote each individual product by State, via fax, directly to police, sheriffs, school administrators, school resource officers, juvenile probation and corrections agencies, juvenile mental health services officials, and other juvenile justice stakeholders. An OJJDP/IACP Training and Technical Assistance Web page was created for the IACP Web site. The page includes the training schedule and registration forms for specific training sessions and onsite technical assistance.

In FY 2002, curriculum development and pilot testing will be completed. Marketing strategies will be enhanced to broaden national outreach efforts. Additionally, nationwide training and curriculum modifications and updates will continue, followup protocols to guide the provision of technical assistance will be developed, and a Fact Sheet will be written for OJJDP distribution. The program will be implemented by the current grantee, IACP.

Partnerships To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence Program

As part of its commitment to address the continuing problem of youth violence, OJJDP has awarded three communities (Baton Rouge, LA; Oakland, CA; and Syracuse, NY) demonstration grants to implement the Partnerships To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence Program. The goal of these partnerships is to increase the effectiveness of existing strategies by enhancing and coordinating prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts and strengthening linkages among community residents, law enforcement personnel, and juvenile justice system professionals.

This problem-solving program is based on research showing that community assessment of local youth gun violence problems should guide program development and that strategies designed to reduce gun violence should be comprehensive and theory driven and should include suppression, intervention, and prevention components. The program goals are designed to:

• Reduce youth’s illegal access to guns.

• Reduce the incidence of youth carrying guns illegally and committing gun-related crimes.

• Increase youth awareness of the personal and legal consequences of gun violence.

• Increase participation of community residents and organizations in youth violence reduction efforts.

• Increase and coordinate services and resources for at-risk youth, especially youth involved in the justice system.

Implementation of the following seven strategies is required if the program is to achieve its goals:

• A firearms suppression strategy that reduces juveniles’ access to illegal guns and prevents illegal gun trafficking by developing special law enforcement units, using community allies to report illegal gun trafficking, targeting gang members, prosecuting those who possess illegal guns, and imposing sanctions on those who are involved in gun violence.

• A juvenile justice strategy that applies appropriate alternative sanctions and interventions to respond to the needs of juvenile gun offenders.

• A communication strategy that unites law enforcement with neighborhoods, includes community policing, and initiates community supervision to educate at-risk and court-involved youth on the legal consequences of gun violence.

• A positive opportunities strategy that provides young people with beneficial programs such as academic tutoring, mentoring, job training and placement, and afterschool activities.

• An education strategy that teaches at-risk youth how to resolve conflicts and resist peer pressure to carry or possess guns.

• A public information strategy that engages broadcast and print media to communicate the dangers and consequences of gun violence to juveniles, families, and residents.

• A community mobilization strategy that encourages neighborhood residents and youth to improve the community.

The partnerships were required to develop integrated and comprehensive gun violence reduction plans that incorporated each of the seven OJJDP strategies within a suppression, intervention, and prevention framework. The specific strategies and activities selected by each site were based on an analysis of available community resources and gaps in services. The final logic models developed by each partnership and facilitated by the national evaluation team reflect their differing identifications of underlying issues and problems, organizational needs/resources, and initial focus.