R E F O R M I N G

J U V E N I L E J U S T I C E

T H R O U G H

C O M P R E H E N S I V E

C O M M U N I T Y

P L A N N I N G

by

Barry Krisberg, Ph.D.Giselle Barry

Emily SharrockNational Council on Crime and Delinquency1970 Broadway, Suite 500Oakland, CA 94612510-208-0500510-208-0511 faxwww.nccd-crc.org

Midwest Office426 Yellowstone Drive, Suite 250Madison, WI 53719608-831-8882608-831-6446 fax

by

Barry Krisberg, Ph.D.Giselle Barry

Emily Sharrock

This publication was supported by grant number 199-MU-FX-K010 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The opinions, findings,

and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of OJJDP or the US Department of Justice.

National Council on Crime and DelinquencyHeadquarters Office 1970 Broadway, Suite 500 • Oakland, CA 94612510-208-0500 • Fax 510-208-0511

Midwest Office 426 Yellowstone Drive, Suite 250 • Madison, WI 53719608-831-8882 • Fax 608-831-6446

R E F O R M I N G J U V E N I L E J U S T I C E

T H R O U G HC O M P R E H E N S I V E

C O M M U N I T Y P L A N N I N G

On the eve of the twentieth century, the United Statescreated the juvenile court. The new children’s courtbecame the model for treating troubled youngsters inmost counties. The celebrated American legal philoso-pher, Roscoe Pound, felt that the new juvenile courtwas “the greatest step forward in Anglo-Americanjurisprudence since the Magna Carta” (Pound, 1965).Professor Pound was commenting on the attempt tosubstitute an individualized, caring, and redemptiveconcept of justice in lieu of the punitive psychologythat dominated traditional criminal law. For the past100 years, Americans have been trying to translatethis humanistic theory into practice. Rarely has theAmerican juvenile court possessed the resourcesneeded to accomplish its mission. The last centurywitnessed a series of reforms and innovationsdesigned to strengthen the juvenile court, refine itsmission, and invent the necessary technologies tomeet its goals. The passage of the Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) in 1974 was abold attempt to provide federal governmental leader-ship and resources to pursue justice for children. Thislandmark legislation created the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), theagency that has formulated national juvenile justicepolicy, supported research and demonstration proj-ects, and given grants to states to sponsor innovativeprograms. Since it was established, OJJDP hasachieved impressive progress in removing childrenfrom jails, diverting troubled youth to the mostappropriate systems of care, and focusing attention on the over-representation of minority youths in con-finement. OJJDP also became a respected source ofdata, research, and professional experience on themost effective responses to youth crime. The Com-prehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and ChronicJuvenile Offenders was, in many ways, an example of how OJJDP accumulated empirical knowledge andpractitioner wisdom and presented this informationto the field.

B A C K G R O U N D

. . . substitute an individualized, caring,

and redemptive concept of justice in lieu of the punitive

psychology that dominated traditional

criminal law.

1

In the waning days of the senior Bush’s Admin-istration, two officials of the Justice Department, JohnJ. Wilson and Dr. James C. Howell, circulated a posi-tion paper entitled, The Comprehensive Strategy onSerious, Violent, and Chronic Youth Crime. Their goalwas to stimulate a new national pro-fessional dialogue on effectiveresponses to juvenile crime. Thepolitical climate at the time was notvery conducive to a data-driven discussion on the topic. The mediaand many politicians were reactingto claims from academics (such asJohn DiIulio and James Fox) that anew generation of teenage “super-predators” was about to produce anunprecedented crime wave (DiIulio,1996). Despite the fact that theseclaims were based on faulty science,and that these dire predictions didnot come to pass, the media contin-ued to treat every sensational crimethat involved young people as evi-dence that the “super-predators”were among us.

In the United States Congressand in most state legislatures, elected representativesproposed “crackdowns” on juvenile criminals. Theseproposed laws made it easier to prosecute teenagersin criminal courts, mandated stiffer penalties for abroad range of youthful misconduct, attacked thetraditional confidentiality of juvenile records, andencouraged the use of federal law enforcementresources to target juvenile gang members. While thefederal legislation was bogged down in debates overincreasing gun control requirements, more than 40states passed laws that dramatically toughened theirresponse to youth crime (Torbet et al., 1996). In count-less American communities new policies requiredmandatory expulsion of students who brought gunsor drugs to school, as well as stronger penalties fortruancy, graffiti, and curfew violations. Many schoolsafety advocates called for students to wear uniformsas a way to discourage youths from wearing “gang

clothing.” None of these policy deliberations wasinformed by research data. Few, if any, communitiesconducted objective evaluations of the new “crack-down” programs.

Wilson and Howell sought to address this situation with evidence gleaned from rigorous research studies and soundevaluations of effective programs. Inparticular, they sought to refocus attention on prevention and early intervention as important parts of acomprehensive youth crime strategy.Their Comprehensive Strategy rested on key assumptions that emphasizedstrengthening families and bolsteringcommunity institutions such asschools, religious and civic groups,and public family assistance agen-cies. Wilson and Howell deemed prevention the most cost-effectivemeans of reducing youth violenceand argued for a system of graduat-ed sanctions that appropriatelyresponded to various levels of lawbreaking by adolescents. The Com-prehensive Strategy also relied on

research that showed a very small number of youngpeople to be responsible for a very large share of seri-ous and chronic violent offending. The early identifi-cation and effective control of those “dangerous few”was another core of the Comprehensive Strategy.Wilson and Howell also envisioned a complete con-tinuum of services that would deliver the right mix of developmentally appropriate supervision and services to each youngster.

In 1993 the Comprehensive Strategy receivedincreased support at the national and state levels. By that time, the Strategy had received positive feed-back from hundreds of juvenile justice practitionersand researchers around the country. Consistent withthe Comprehensive Strategy, the Department ofJustice leaders pointed out that the quality of care achild receives in the first few years of life is pivotal to avoiding a range of problems later. The Attorney

Despite the fact that these claims

were based on faulty science, and that thesedire predictions did notcome to pass, the mediacontinued to treat everysensational crime thatinvolved young people as evidence that the“super-predators” were among us.

2

General was a proponent of comprehensive commu-nity-based plans to meet youth and family needs —in her words, “. . .to reweave the fabric of society.”Most important, the Department of Justice believedthat local officials, and not federal bureaucrats, shoulddetermine what is best for their communities. Thefederal government could best act as a source ofresearch and information on promising programs,while communities make the key decisions for them-selves.

The sustained and generous financial support ofOJJDP, the dedication of the Department of Justicestaff and public policy advocacy byOJJDP leadership, and the leadershipof the Attorney General were criticalto the successful development andevolution of the ComprehensiveStrategy. The prestige and credibilityof the United States Department ofJustice assisted in the rapid accept-ance of this bold approach to juvenilejustice system reform.

In 1993 the Department of Justice began the effort to flesh outthe Comprehensive Strategy and toprovide tools for localities that want-ed to implement the Strategy. TheNational Council on Crime andDelinquency (NCCD) and Develop-mental Research and Programs, Inc. (DRP) wereselected to move the Strategy forward. An OJJDPStudy Group was assembled that included some ofthe nation’s most respected researchers (Loeber andFarrington, 1998). One goal of the Study Group was to push forward the research knowledge base thatwas the foundation of the Comprehensive Strategy.

NCCD conducted an exhaustive review of litera-ture by federal agencies and professional organiza-tions, and solicited hundreds of nominations of promising programs across the nation in the juvenile sanctions arena. DRP conducted a parallel effort forprevention programs. All nominated programs wereexamined for the adequacy of their evaluation data,and the quality of descriptive material on actual pro-

gram operations. Programs were characterized as“proven” if in addition they possessed rigorous inde-pendent evaluation designs and, preferably, multiplereplications. They were characterized as “promising”if they possessed at least some independent researchsupport and were consistent with existing findings on the causes and correlates of serious juvenileoffending. Only a handful of programs met the firststandard, and a few additional programs qualified as “promising.” The vast majority of nominated programs had no evaluation components of any kind. This is not to say that these programs were

not successful, but rather that theireffectiveness was completely unde-termined. NCCD collected supple-mentary materials and, in manyinstances, conducted site visits of the promising programs.

The results of this survey werepublished by OJJDP as the Guide for Implementing the ComprehensiveStrategy for Serious, Violent, andChronic Juvenile Offenders (Howelled., 1995). The Guide restated the core principles of the Comprehen-sive Strategy, offered suggestions on structuring community planningefforts, and reported the attributes ofsuccessful, proven, or promising pro-

grams. The Guide presented models for classificationand assessment tools that could be used to form caseplans and determine the most appropriate interven-tions. In virtually every instance, the Guide made specific references to programs and agencies aroundthe country that could provide more information onimplementation concerns. OJJDP printed and dissemi-nated more than 70,000 copies of this publication. TheGuide was formally released at “Guaranteeing SafePassage,” a national summit on preventing youth violence attended by experts in public policy, leadingjournalists, and representatives of interested privatefoundations. The Attorney General and Children’sDefense Fund President, Marian Wright Edelmangave the summit’s keynote addresses.

. . .the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning

model was a very sophisticated THEORY of juvenile justice reform;

what was needed, however, was a

thoughtful examinationof how to translate this

theory into reality.

3

Following the summit, OJJDP, NCCD, and DRPconducted a series of workshops using the Guide at the annual meetings of many professional and academic associations. In addition, regional trainingseminars were held in Berkeley, California; Cam-bridge, Massachusetts; Indianapolis, Indiana; andJacksonville, Florida. Even though the ComprehensiveStrategy was well received at each of these dissemina-tion efforts, it was clear that more work was neededto better understand the dynamics of communityimplementation of the Strategy*.

A crucial next step in the evolution of what was to become a National Comprehensive CommunityPlanning Program came in the form of support fromthe Jessie Ball duPont Fund, a Florida-based founda-tion, which became a partner with OJJDP in theimplementation of the Strategy in three pilot commu-nities. At this stage, the Comprehensive CommunityPlanning model was a very sophisticated theory ofjuvenile justice reform; what was needed, however,was a thoughtful examination of how to translate this theory into reality.

4

*OJJDP is continuing its efforts to conduct Comprehensive Strategy activities through a program called Targeted CommunityAction Planning (TCAP). For more information on TCAP, refer to the OJJDP website: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/tcap

Only communities highly motivated to try a Com-prehensive Community Planning Approach were considered as possible pilot sites. Three sites wereselected: Fort Myers, Florida; Jacksonville, Florida;and San Diego County, California. The leadership varied in each case but came from both the public andprivate sectors. Preliminary meetings were held witha range of individuals at each site. These meetingsshowed there was an interest not in starting a “newprogram,” but in setting in motion a systematicapproach to juvenile justice system reform. Sites weretold that there were no guarantees that additionalfunding would be immediately available to com-munity agencies and programs. However, it was sug-gested that the planning and mobilization processeswould give most communities an advantage in apply-ing for federal or foundation funding. OJJDP and theduPont Fund supported extensive training and tech-nical assistance for communities that emphasized theidentification of local staffing resources to help guidethe day-to-day activities of the Strategy. NCCDbriefed state-level policy makers to enlist their sup-port for the efforts carried out at the local level. Wemade it clear that the Strategy would not be imposedon any community, and that success depended uponthe commitment of key local leaders.

Mobilizing key community leaders was the firststep of Comprehensive Community Planning. Nextfollowed an intensive assessment phase of data collec-tion and analysis to identify priority risk factors thatcontribute to youthful lawbreaking and draw atten-tion to gaps in the existing continuum of preventionand juvenile justice programs. Once the communityneeds and resource assessment was completed,OJJDP, NCCD, and DRP presented information aboutpromising programs that were directly responsive tothe identified community needs. This phase of theapproach produced a multi-year Strategic Planendorsed by local officials and designed to guide thedevelopment of new programs and the investment

L E S S O N S L E A R N E DF R O M T H E P I L O T S I T E S

“The right service, for the right youth, at the right time.”

5

of resources. The Plan served as both a blueprint forreform and a community education tool.

Armed with its own Comprehensive CommunityPlan, NCCD intended to help each community createa structure that would turn the plan into action. Acomponent of the technical assistance helped commu-nities find needed funding for new programs. We also expected to teach communities how to establishongoing evaluation of existing and new programs.Ultimately, we envisioned a full continuum of services available to at-risk youths and their families.The elements of the continuum were based on solidresearch, intended to produce measurable outcomes,and designed to reflect sensitivity to gender, culturaldiversity, and the developmental needs of young people. We popularized these concepts with the sim-ple phrase, “The right service, for the right youth, atthe right time.”

At this point, a “curriculum” for the Compre-hensive Community Planning process did not exist.The main text included the Guide and other presenta-tion materials. In many respects, in the pilot commu-nities, we developed and field-tested the curriculum

materials that would prove invaluable to subsequentsites. Later there were detailed manuals for trainersand participants and a number of tools used by communities to implement the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning model (OJJDP, 2000).

Work in the pilot sites was generally organizedaround three main training events: a one-day orienta-tion for community leaders, a three-day training onhow to collect and analyze data on risk factors andservice gaps, and a three-day training on promisingstrategies. The first orientation was designed to elicitsupport for and commitment to the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning process. This training wasdirected at the “movers and shakers,” those whocould marshal the funding, the political clout, and theagency and public support to initiate and sustain thereform process. The next two training sessions weredesigned for the “implementers,” those responsiblefor conducting the day-to-day activities of public andprivate agencies, and those who were needed to makeoperational changes to support new policies and pro-cedures. It was the latter group that actually draftedthe Comprehensive Community Plan for the site.

6

OVERVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY

Problem Behavior ! Noncriminal Misbehavior !"Delinquency ! Serious, Violent, or Chronic Offending

PreventionTarget Population: At-Risk Youth

Youth Development Goals:

• Healthy and nurturing families• Safe communities• School attachment• Prosocial peer relations• Personal development and life skills• Healthy lifestyle choices

Graduated SanctionsTarget Population: Delinquent Youth

Youth Habilitation Goals:

• Healthy family participation• Community reintegration• Educational success and skills

development• Healthy peer network development• Prosocial values development • Healthy lifestyle choices

Programs forAll Youth

Programs forYouth at

Greatest Risk

Immediate Intervention

Intermediate Sanctions

Community Confinement

TrainingSchools

Aftercare

Between the major training events, OJJDP, NCCD,and DRP staff delivered intensive technical assistanceboth on-site and over the telephone. This technicalsupport ran the gamut from very specific advice on data collection procedures, to “active listening”sessions to help local planners solve political andinterpersonal problems. The mostcritical job was to help sites sustainenthusiasm for the difficult andtime-consuming planning process.

Jacksonville was the first site tocomplete its ComprehensiveCommunity Plan. The Jacksonvilleteam published a very attractivereport that was widely disseminatedby the Jessie Ball duPont Fund. SanDiego also produced an impressivedocument that presented its analysisand action steps. The San Diego Planwas spearheaded by the San DiegoChildren’s Commission, under theauspices of the County Board ofSupervisors. Both of these commu-nities secured grants to staff theComprehensive Community Planand to partially underwrite localefforts. Jacksonville and San Diegoalso enjoyed substantial commitments of staffresources from regional or local juvenile justice agencies.

The Fort Myers site experienced more difficultycompleting the planning documents, but eventuallysubmitted its final version. The Fort Myers planninggroup relied extensively upon staff borrowed fromother community agencies.

The pilot communities provided important confirmations of some of the key assumptions ofComprehensive Community Planning. They also catalyzed significant modifications in our approach totraining and technical assistance. One crucial observa-tion made at all three sites was the extraordinary lackof information that local officials possessed aboutcrime patterns in their areas. Often the key leadersbelieved that crime was on the rise, when in fact

crime rates were declining. Most community leadersbelieved that young people were responsible for themajority of violent crime in their communities andwere amazed to learn that teenagers accounted for arelatively small percentage of violent offenses. Therewas a general lack of knowledge about recent trends

in specific offense categories such asdrug offenses, domestic violence, orgun crimes. This level of misinforma-tion often led to public policies builton weak factual foundations. Manycommunity leaders blamed themedia for distorted perceptions ofthe local crime problem. However,media representatives complainedthat it was very difficult for them togather accurate data on the crimeproblem. Indeed, in the pilot com-munities, there were multiple crimi-nal justice data sources. Furthermore,it was difficult to draw simple con-clusions about which agency’s datawere most reliable. Public discus-sions about crime were frequentlyinformed by anecdotes or the mostrecent “bizarre” crime. Participantsin all of the pilot sites found great

value in “getting the facts straight” and in technicalassistance to obtain and interpret accurate data oncrime and criminal justice trends.

Another barrier to reform at all of the pilot siteswas the disconnect between prevention agencies andjustice agencies. These two groups rarely met andtended to distrust one another. For example, the pre-vention agencies often expressed the view that justiceofficials were primarily focused on punishment, possessing little genuine interest in helping at-riskfamilies. Justice officials asserted that many youthagencies were unavailable to help their clients, beingmore interested in working with the youth who werealready succeeding. These stereotypes interfered witheffective collaboration between the two groups.

Even within the justice community, there wasoften perceived miscommunication between law

One crucial observationmade at all three siteswas the extraordinary

lack of information that local officials

possessed about crimepatterns in their areas.Often the key leaders

believed that crime wason the rise, when in

fact crime rates were declining.

7

enforcement agencies, the courts, and corrections officials. Interactions among agencies tended to becase-specific and oriented toward resolving disputeswith few opportunities for joint planning and pro-gram development. There was a strong perception of intense competition over funding among all agencies. Each agency seemed to possess a very clear understanding of its own policies and proce-dures but lacked awareness of the operations of other agencies.

Comprehensive CommunityPlanning created excellent opportu-nities for agencies to share informa-tion and to learn about the strengthsand resources of other agencies.Community representativesexpressed satisfaction that the plan-ning process helped build mutualtrust and created a “safe process” in which difficult interagency prob-lems could be candidly discussedand solved. One of the early plan-ning exercises completed at each site was the construction of a flowchart that described both the preven-tion and justice systems. Devisingthese system descriptions was often a time-consum-ing and labor-intensive exercise, but there was virtually unanimous agreement that the effort wasbeneficial.

Despite the initial segmentation in most commu-nities, there were increasing numbers of collaborativeinter-agency activities. Many of these efforts were dictated by government or philanthropic fundingrequirements; collaboration was the core requirementof virtually all new revenue sources. Ironically, com-munities were “drowning in collaboration,” variouspermutations of the same agencies were required tomeet in different collaborative ventures on an almostdaily basis. Participants complained that these meet-ings were time consuming and increasingly unpro-ductive. Sometimes the first agenda item was todetermine exactly which collaborative effort was to be discussed. Leadership among these ad-hoc joint

ventures shifted constantly. Moreover, after initialmeetings, the decision makers would delegate atten-dance to lower level staff members, and the resultinggroups were not empowered to make important deci-sions without consulting their agency leaders. Thelocal Comprehensive Planning participants begancalling this phenomenon, “colliding collaboratives.”Part of the work involved mapping all of the perti-nent collaborative structures and suggesting ways in

which the work of these groupscould be consolidated or, at least,better coordinated.

Almost the first objection to the Comprehensive CommunityPlanning process was the fear thatlocal personnel would have to “rein-vent the wheel.” Indeed, a substan-tial amount of good thinking andplanning had already occurred, butthese efforts were rarely disseminat-ed outside the problem-specific areasthat had spawned the planningefforts. The Comprehensive Com-munity Planning staff assured com-munities that NCCD and DRP want-ed to review all existing documents

relevant to prevention and juvenile justice. NCCDand DRP collected numerous reports; in most cases itwas likely that they were the only people who hadread and digested all of the recent community plan-ning documents. The staff prepared summaries of thevarious community planning documents, showing theareas of agreement and disagreement. Communitieshad already worked very hard to profile and analyzetheir pressing concerns, but had done so independ-ently and without continuity with other efforts.

The experience of the pilot sites demonstrated the clear need for a more structured curriculum for the Comprehensive Community Planning. The techni-cal assistance needs of the pilot sites were muchgreater than had been assumed. Further, local plan-ners often requested more guidance in following thepaths believed to be most productive in completingthe Comprehensive Community Planning process.

ComprehensiveCommunity Planning

created excellent opportunities for

agencies to share infor-mation and to learnabout the strengths

and resources of otheragencies.

8

Those who were trained wanted materials to reviewand refer to when trainers were not on site. Therewere also modifications made in the number andduration of training events. It became clear that agood deal of preparation was needed to make surethat the “right people” attended the training sessionsand that they were clear on the purposes of theseevents. Most important, we learned that thoroughpreparation by both the local planners and the national technical assistance teams was critical to the success of the scheduled training events.

The pilot sites also showed us that the relation-ship between the new consultants and the local plan-ners was far more complex than the simple deliveryof factual materials or technologies. NCCD and DRPwere sources of optimism and encouragement whenthe process bogged down, or when local officialsbecame frustrated with the amount of time and energy involved. They were “shoulders to cry on” if local personality conflicts flared up, or if localstaffing decisions were not ideal. They mediated disputes and performed “shuttle diplomacy.” NCCDand DRP were able to move the process forward bybeing the “bad guys” when difficult facts had to beacknowledged.

The trainers had to remain uninvolved in localdisputes. The Comprehensive Community Planningprocess required local commitment and support for

the resulting consensus. Trainers could not force thatconsensus, and could not offer the final product. TheduPont Fund Program Officer, Sally Douglass, usedthe apt analogy of teaching a young person to ride abicycle. At first, the adult holds onto the back of thebicycle to provide some balance. The new rider oftenpleads with the adult not to let go, but soon thenovice bicyclist is speeding along and looks back todiscover that the adult has already let go and thatthey are really riding by themselves. The key is knowing when to let go.

Similarly, it was important that the trainers under-stood their particular role in the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning process. They were facilitators,not leaders. They could guide the local process, butthe outcome had to be “owned” by the community. Itwas very important to identify those local leaders andpractitioners most invested in seeing the Comprehen-sive Community Plan succeed in their communities.The technical assistance providers needed to controltheir natural instincts to see their own “pet projects”dominate the planning process. It was critical that allof the positive community recognition and publicitywent to the local planners. When the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning technical assistance processworks as intended, the outside advisors and helpersare all but invisible.

9

As previously noted, all of the pilot sites completedtheir plans. In San Diego and Jacksonville, completionof the plan was celebrated with a community-wideevent. These ceremonies provided local planners theopportunity to thank one another for support and todedicate themselves to the implementation of theirrecommendations. Another goal of these public cere-monies was to gather the attention of the media toeducate the general public about the need for a comprehensive response to youth crime.

In all of the pilot communities, local plannersidentified priority risk factors and highlighted gaps in their existing service systems. Each communityplaced a great emphasis on the need to expand pre-vention programs that were research-based and ori-ented toward measurable outcomes. In all of the pilotsites, agency leaders and staff began thinking aboutways to create a true continuum of care, linking pre-vention programs with graduated sanctions. Therewas increased awareness of the need for collaborativeand inter-agency programming.

In Jacksonville, the Comprehensive CommunityPlanning process led local officials to dedicate a sig-nificant share of their allocation of federal block grantfunds to implement their recommendations. TheduPont Fund provided additional financial support tostaff the implementation of the Community Plan andconvened several meetings to assist implementationactivities. The Fund also made a significant grant tofurther the local plan’s call for enhanced gender-spe-cific programming for at-risk young women. Therewere also meetings with the local forum of privatephilanthropists to educate them about Comprehen-sive Community Planning and the opportunities forprivate sector participation.

In San Diego County, the Plan provided theorganizing framework and data to assist the Countyin securing millions in grant funds from state and federal sources. The Plan helped ensure that the needs identified via the planning process were given

R E S U L T S I N T H E P I L O TS I T E S A N D B E Y O N D

Each communityplaced a great emphasison the need to expandprevention programs

that were research-basedand oriented towardmeasurable outcomes.

10

priority in San Diego County’s budgetary andresource development plans. San Diego requested andreceived an enhanced level of federal technical assis-tance support to advance specific components of their plan.

In Fort Myers, broad communityconsensus developed to advance theplan of action. After completing the Comprehensive CommunityPlanning process, the Lee CountyJuvenile Justice Council adopted the Comprehensive CommunityPlanning model as its own planningprocess and spearheaded the initia-tive within the community. TheCouncil assumed the role of coordi-nating implementation of the goalsoutlined in the strategic plan. It hasalready secured a $2.7 million grantto create a multi-agency collaborativeeffort under the Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant and has constructed a $2.3 million CommunityAssessment Center. In addition, Lee County devel-oped a drug court program, helped 56 families gainbetter parenting skills, and implemented a truancy

intervention program at four elementary schools.Besides these strong programmatic developments, thecommunity built upon the efforts of ComprehensiveCommunity Planning by starting a series of othercommunity initiatives focused on children and youth.

While these pilot site results provide significant validation for the value of the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning process, theroad to institutionalizing the imple-mentation is complex. It is not sur-prising that the pilot communitieswere experimenting with a range of new structures and processes tomove their plans into action. Further,these communities expressed theneed for continuing technical assis-tance in updating their planningdata and in establishing manage-ment information systems that

meaningfully track their progress. The pilot sitesneeded additional help in identifying the most prom-ising programs that match their identified priorities,and in developing and institutionalizing the new initiatives.

In San Diego County,the Plan provided theorganizing frameworkand data to assist theCounty in securing millions in grant

funds from state andfederal sources.

11

While the process in the pilot sites was well under-way, OJJDP decided to expand into a number of addi-tional communities. To build state-level capacity tosupport Comprehensive Community Planning afterthe federal training and technical assistance supportended, this expansion included not only additionalcommunities, but their respective state juvenile justiceagencies as well. We hoped that the inclusion of stateofficials would facilitate the investment of existingstate resources and federal block grant funding in theComprehensive Strategy communities.

OJJDP released a request for applications to statesthat wished to receive substantial amounts of federaltechnical assistance and training in the Comprehen-sive Community Plan. This program did not providedirect funding for the planning process or the result-ing initiatives. State applicants had to represent theGovernor’s Office and include the relevant agenciesthat administered federal juvenile funding in thestate. Up to six communities in each state and approximately 20 states were defined as the sites for Comprehensive Community Planning within the following two years.

The Training and Technical Assistance ProcessIn the states of Florida, Hawai`i, Iowa, Maryland,Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin,Comprehensive Community Planning was designedto lead to very specific results in the chosen sites.Through the following meeting formats, we aimed totrain the communities to continue the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning process indefinitely and inde-pendently.

State Level Briefing – to discuss the leadership andcommitment necessary from the state for the success-ful development of a Comprehensive Plan and to

T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V EC O M M U N I T Y P L A N N I N G

P R O C E S S E X P A N D S

. . .the inclusion of state officials

would facilitate theinvestment of existing

state resources and federal block grant

funding in theComprehensive Strategy

communities. . .

12

review what could be expected through the initiativefrom OJJDP and its partners.

State Leader Orientation – to provide the rationale for OJJDP’s development of the ComprehensiveCommunity Plan, as well as its core principles.

Community Agency Briefing – to introduce the Comprehensive Planning process to the local commu-nity’s lead organization and to clarify roles andresponsibilities, the training and technical assistanceprocess, appropriate planning tools, tasks to be com-pleted, and a timeline.

Community Leader Orientation – to provide local siteswith the necessary tools for strategic planning includ-ing team structure, community vision, goals, andcommunication with key leaders.

Community Planning Team Orientation – to introducethe CS theoretical framework, to assist participantswith the collection of data on risk factors, resourcegaps, and juvenile justice system decision points, andto create consensus around a community vision.

Assessment Training – to teach participants to identifyproblem behaviors, create a profile of juvenile offend-er populations, assess community-specific risk andprotective factors, inventory existing graduated sanc-tions, and analyze the effectiveness of existing pre-vention programs and services. Participants learnedto identify gaps in the continuum of service and howto fill these gaps.

Community Planning Training – to instruct participantsto apply outcome-based planning to the identifiedpriorities, and to build up the current system withpromising approaches.

Lessons Learned Event – to review local site plans withothers in the state and with the training and technicalassistance partners, to facilitate any necessary adjust-ments, to consider successes, and to compare the localplan with the State’s plan.

13

Beacon CommunitiesCorpus Christi, Texas, and Hawai`i County, Hawai`i,serve as beacon Comprehensive Community Plan-ning sites. Both of these communities, through theircommitment to the foundations of ComprehensiveCommunity Planning, chose to embrace fact-sup-ported programs. It was clear that these sites had abroad community consensus to advance their devel-oped plans of action. Comprehensive CommunityPlanning has promoted a more reasoned and consid-ered response to violent and serious youth crime,and Corpus Christi and Hawai`i County have servedas model systems of graduated sanctions and of anoverall comprehensive continuum of services for system-involved youth.

Corpus Christi, TexasWhen Corpus Christi (Nueces County) was chosenas a Comprehensive Community Planning jurisdic-tion in 1997, a primary aim was the blending of thevariety of juvenile justice initiatives in which thecommunity was then engaged. Federal initiativessuch as Weed and Seed were already addressingjuvenile justice system responses to crime, but theplanning model offered the opportunity for theseand other initiatives to form a community collabora-tive that focused on the entire continuum of services.

Because the Sheriff’s Department and, in particu-lar, the County Undersheriff were publicly promot-ing the planning effort, Corpus Christi identified thedevelopment of a juvenile assessment center as one of their five priority target projects. In June, 1999, the Corpus Christi City Council approved a plan to open a juvenile assessment center, which opened inSeptember, 1999. Funding in the amount of $90,000originally came from the City through its CrimeControl and Prevention District, and was followedby an additional $206,000 from the Corpus Christi

Police Department through Juvenile AccountabilityBlock Grant funding. The Juvenile AssessmentCenter (JAC) integrated daytime truancy and night-time curfew violation programs, as well as providedcase management that was coordinated with theMunicipal Court. As an outgrowth, attention waspaid to the risk assessment tool delivered at the JAC. OJJDP and NCCD provided technicalassistance to the Center as they adopted an appro-priate instrument for Nueces County youth.

In addition to the local funding for the JACrefinement, the Corpus Christi ComprehensiveStrategy effort, or “Youth Opportunities United”(YOU), as it was titled, garnered over $8.2 million in funding to support programs identified in itsStrategic Plan. The sources of the funding werediverse: the Kennedy Foundation, a local grantingagency; the U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices; the Texas Governor’s Office; and the Bankof America Corporation, to name a few. YOU wasincorporated into a nonprofit and earned 501(c)(3)status, thereby institutionalizing the administrationand implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. TheMayor of Corpus Christi and the County Sheriff atthe time collaborated on a 12-minute public serviceannouncement on the YOU Initiative and the sup-porting Comprehensive Community Planning activi-ties and programs.

The economic impact of ComprehensiveCommunity Planning on Corpus Christi has been far reaching. A grantwriter was hired solely to devel-op proposals in support of the YOU Initiative. Twocounty-wide Youth Summits were held that focusedon parent education of youth substance abuse, campus-based diversity projects, peer mentoring programs, youth employment initiatives, and ananti-violence education project.

Corpus Christi, Texas, was especially successful

R E S U L T S A N DA C C O M P L I S H M E N T S I N

T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V ES T R A T E G Y S I T E S

14

in the mobilization of local youth around the issue ofviolence prevention. As part of the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning process, a Youth Involvementworkgroup was formed and has since supportedover 500 members. Activities and projects of thegroup were supported by a $30,000 grant from theCentral Power and Light District. A YOUth Directory(YOU After School) was published, and youth repre-sentatives from the entire County of Nueces engagedin outreach about violence reduction and prevention.

Hawai`i County, Hawai`iHawai`i County began its process in May, 2000,when the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney recog-nized the need for a collaborative effort among agen-cies and service providers to identify and addressjuvenile justice issues. The effort began with a confer-ence bringing together close to 150 representativesfrom local government and the community. Theenthusiasm of the key leaders, especially those frompublic agencies, including the state Office of YouthServices (OYS), insured the success and the expan-sion of Comprehensive Community Planning in thestate of Hawai`i. During the final stages of planning,Hawai`i County adopted many of the best practicesof Comprehensive Community Planning. Perhapsmost significantly, the State allocated all of the fol-lowing year’s Title V funding to implementation ofthe target programs and services outlined in theHawai`i County Strategic Plan. The federal Title VCommunity Prevention Grants Program supportedcollaborative, community-based delinquency preven-tion efforts. The State of Hawai`i received approxi-mately $100,000 each year through this funding

stream. This promise of ongoing funding providedthe group with a strong basis of support for imple-mentation and helped to insure the sustainability ofthe work of Hawai`i County.

OYS was also building upon the success of thislocal planning effort by replicating the Comprehen-sive Strategy process in two additional counties –O`ahu and Maui – and by developing an innovative,statewide Comprehensive Community Planningprocess. The long-term goal was to institutionalizethe principles of the Comprehensive Strategy into thesystems and agencies that serve delinquent youth in the State of Hawai`i. To accomplish this mission,Hawai`i was working to align its State AdvisoryGroup’s (SAG) work with the principles of Com-prehensive Community Planning. Every state in thecountry was required to allocate funding for thejuvenile justice system through an appointed SAG.Hawai`i was developing a process whereby the SAGwould develop a state-level Comprehensive Plan tobe used to guide funding decisions. All funding inthe juvenile justice system would then be account-able under a research-driven planning and evalua-tion system where resources are aligned according to the greatest need. The SAG was also required towork with local planning groups at the county levelto insure that goals were aligned and that local needswere being met. Hawai`i was still in the initial stagesof developing this new approach, but given thestrong commitment from key leaders in this commu-nity, it is likely that Hawai`i will continue to serve as an example of the innovative ways in which theComprehensive Community Planning model can be applied for long-term results.

15

Local communities have benefitted in a number of different ways from the Comprehensive Com-munity Planning initiative. Now that communitieshave devoted a year or more to implementation of a Plan, we can better understand the impact that this initiative has had on strengthening localresponses to juvenile delinquency. This section out-lines the results of the Comprehensive CommunityPlanning process. Broadly defined, these outcomesare categorized in three ways: 1) process outcomesrelated to improved collaboration and coordination, 2) the development of new programs, and 3) policyand system changes. There is also additional discus-sion on legislation reflecting the principles ofComprehensive Community Planning.

Process OutcomesConsensus BuildingMany communities stressed the more intangibleresults of the planning process that result from “beingin the same room.” Increased communication and abetter understanding of common issues enabled com-munities to achieve a number of promising changes.Representatives from many sites said that the processraised awareness of the need for more and better prevention programs. Perhaps the most common outcome was described best by a site coordinator in Miami – Dade County when she said that her community “developed a joint sense of what isimportant.”

Progress in CollaborationMany communities had experience with collaborationbefore implementing Comprehensive CommunityPlanning. The framework of the planning process hashelped some of these to move forward in real waysthat had not been achieved through previous plan-ning efforts. As a result of its success in helping com-munities to understand and create results throughcoordinated efforts, the framework has been adoptedto guide the work of other planning processes. In

C O M M U N I T Y B E N E F I T S

Many of these programs were

supported with federalgrants including the

21st Century LearningCenters and SafeSchools/Healthy

Families programs.Most programs sought

to expand the involvement and role of schools in services

for at-risk youth.

16

Oregon, communities advocated to use the frame-work to guide state-mandated planning under SenateBill (SB) 555. This legislation required local communi-ties to create a single strategic plan to guide the workof the five key public agencies in their respectiveareas. The integration process eliminated duplicationof planning efforts and provided a strong basis forcoordinated planning, action, and evaluation of com-munity outcomes.

Increasing EfficiencyAs a result of the collaborative process, sites alsoenhanced coordination among service providers toreduce the duplication of services. In their day-to-dayactivities, many providers did not have a formalmeans of communicating with each other. The Com-prehensive Community Planning model provided avehicle through which agencies could better coordi-nate services and, therefore, cut costs to the communi-ty and enhance program effectiveness. For example,during the planning process in Corpus Christi, Texas,two service providers discovered that both were pro-viding GED courses to a broad population of adoles-cents. After this discovery, the two worked together to target specific youth groups. Subsequently oneagency provided GED courses only to institutional-ized youth, while the other program continued toserve youth in the community.

New ProgramsIn addition to these process outcomes, the majority of Comprehensive Community Planning sites imple-mented new programs or enhanced or expandedexisting ones to make progress towards the goals outlined in their Community Plans. These programsaddressed a range of problem behaviors, includingsubstance abuse, delinquency, teenage pregnancy,school drop-outs, and violence. What follows is anoverview of the number and types of programs thatwere implemented, and a brief description of themost popular prevention and graduated sanctionsprograms developed at the sites. Approximately 94programs were created, enhanced, or expanded as aresult of the planning efforts. On average, sites were

currently working on three to four programs. Themajority of the sites also reported plans for additionalprograms that were either in the design phase orawaiting funding.

Prevention ProgramsApproximately 60 new or expanded prevention pro-grams were implemented. Most sites were workingon at least three different programs. The most popularprogram types were mentoring, academic enhance-ment or school-based services, and substance abusetreatment. Others included job training, sexual orhealth education, parent education, and conflict resolution programs.

Effective prevention programs seek to simultane-ously reduce identified risk factors and build protec-tive factors. The programs described here were devel-oped, enhanced, or expanded as a result of a planningprocess that was guided by data on risk factors.

• MentoringOne of the most common program types among com-munities was mentoring programs. These servicesmay be school-based or community-based and typi-cally involve nonprofessional volunteers who modelpositive behavior with youth in a supportive, non-judgmental manner. Mentoring programs oftenaddress issues such as alienation, academic failure,low commitment to school, and association withdelinquent and violent peers.

• Academic Enhancement or School-BasedServices

As a result of the link with local school districts, many communities developed related programs thatworked to enhance the academic performance ofyouth such as reading and literacy programs, after-school programs, violence prevention, conflict resolu-tion, and alternative education. For many communi-ties, this was their first opportunity to work alongsideschool staff to address youth delinquency, despite theproven link between delinquency and academic per-formance. Many of these programs were supportedwith federal grants including the 21st Century

17

Learning Centers and Safe Schools/Healthy Familiesprograms. Most programs sought to expand theinvolvement and role of schools in services for at-risk youth.

• Treatment for Substance AbuseHigh numbers of youth in the juvenile court systemwith substance abuse problems, combined with a lackof services for those youth, prompted many commu-nities to invest resources in treatment. Most programsfocused on treatment for youth that were alreadyinvolved with the juvenile justice system.

Graduated SanctionsApproximately 30 new or expanded graduated sanc-tions programs were implemented. On average, mostsites implemented one or two graduated sanctionsprograms. Many of these involved customized policyor staffing changes. Teen and drug courts, truancyprevention, and community assessment centers arethe most common model programs.

A model graduated sanctions system combinestreatment and rehabilitation with reasonable, fair,humane, and appropriate sanctions, and offers a con-tinuum of care consisting of diverse programs. The continuum includes: immediate sanctions within thecommunity for first-time nonviolent offenders, inter-mediate sanctions within the community for moreserious offenders, and secure care programs for themost violent offenders. The majority of the graduatedsanctions implemented by the communities wereimmediate sanctions programs that filled gaps or provided additional or enhanced services at the“front-end” of the system.

• Youth Courts Youth courts represent an alternative approach to thetraditional juvenile justice system. In youth courts,juveniles charged with minor offenses such as under-age drinking, impaired driving, and other substance-related offenses are considered by a jury of theirpeers. The courts serve a dual purpose — they pro-vide a mechanism for holding youthful offendersaccountable, and they provide youth with an opportunity to develop valuable skills.

Variations on this concept include the juveniledrug court, which functions much like a youth court,but is specifically focused on drug offenses; a CitizenAdvisory Board, which features a jury of communityleaders; and a Youth Accountability Court, whichserves first- and second-time offenders and some misdemeanor offenses.

• Truancy PreventionTruancy is rated as one of the major problems facingschools and has been linked with increased substanceabuse and delinquent behavior. In an effort to combatthis growing concern, many communities hired truan-cy officers and counselors to identify and address theneeds of youth who were missing school, not merelyto punish them.

• Community Assessment Centers (CACs)CACs, also called juvenile assessment centers orintake centers, provide a 24-hour centralized point ofintake and assessment for juveniles who are alreadyinvolved or are likely to become involved with thejuvenile justice system. This “one stop shop” canreduce the duplication of services, promote systemefficiency, and facilitate access to services for youthand families.

• Public Education CampaignsIn addition to direct service programs, many commu-nities developed public education campaigns aboutyouth needs and about the impact of the collaborativework of Comprehensive Community Planning. Inaddition to garnering more support for the Compre-hensive Plan, these public engagement efforts have

For example, Multnomah County in Oregon foundthat almost 60% of their delinquent youth wereabusing drugs or alcohol. In addition to these highnumbers, they identified a lack of services for theseyouth. In response, the community developed anintensive residential dual diagnosis treatment pro-gram housed in the local secure detention facility.The setting accommodates 15 youths.

18

the potential to change attitudes and behavior in a range of areas.

Policy and System ChangesSome communities were most interested in the waysin which the overall system that cares for youth couldbe enhanced to reduce delinquency. Many sites tookadvantage of the collaborative process to build infra-structure and make policy and system changes. The most common of these included: 1) the develop-ment of assessment tools to guide decision making, 2) changes in the allocation of resources, 3) evaluationof the use of those resources, 4) efforts to share clientinformation among agencies, and 5) local technicalassistance and training. In addition, one communitywas successful at implementing legislation that sup-ported the efforts of their planning group. Over thelong term, these types of efforts are likely to producelasting effects on juvenile crime and safety.

Assessment ToolsA structured needs assessment can ensure that themost appropriate treatment is selected for all youth,by all staff. Scored instruments provide additionalmeasures for setting priorities. In addition, aggregat-ed information derived from assessments can providea basis for agency planning and evaluation.

Most assessment tools used for delinquent youthcontain similar questions. However, many agenciesdo not use the same format, which makes collabora-tion difficult. Many communities already using

assessment tools, but using different versions at different agencies or at different points in the system,worked to develop common tools to increase efficiency in data analysis and service provision.

Changes in the Allocation of ResourcesThe possibility of achieving community-level goals is much greater when embraced by a broad selectionof community institutions. Communities used themomentum gained during the planning process toreallocate resources in support of programs that wereproven effective. Many communities were able toinfluence the priorities set by local funders. In addi-tion, many sites were extremely successful at access-ing additional funding for their communities to support the activities outlined in their CommunityPlans. Smaller jurisdictions that typically lackedaccess to the level of resources larger cities enjoyedwere able to use data to advocate for additional fund-ing at state and federal levels. A good example isCorpus Christi, Texas, which leveraged $8.2 millionfor a range of programs including after-school, HeadStart, violence prevention, and a community assess-ment center.

At the same time, many communities lackingaccess to additional funding made significant stridesin developing or enhancing existing services withvery limited resources. Small communities leveragedthe support of volunteers and in-kind staff from exist-ing community agencies to provide high levels ofservice and to develop new programs.

For example, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, developeda risk assessment instrument to guide intake attheir juvenile detention center. The type of assess-ment tools most often developed were ones used toguide placement of youth in detention facilities.

For example, Stark County, Ohio, coordinatedyouth assessments at different public agencies. Thesame basic set of assessment questions were askedof each youth in four different functional areas.

19

EvaluationCommunities promoted greater evaluation andaccountability for agencies as a result of the lessonslearned through the data-driven framework. Somecommunities adopted stronger outcome-based fund-ing strategies; other communities hired evaluators totrack community outcomes. This long-term focus ondata provided communities the tools they needed toensure that they were investing resources in programsthat make a difference.

Information SharingIn a given community, many public and nonprofitagencies work with the same youth but often fail tocoordinate their efforts. One of the most significantopportunities that exists for greater coordinationbetween these organizations is information sharing.Many participating agencies gathered extensive infor-mation from youth while serving them and somewere still in the process of negotiating the obstaclesthat typically arise when developing managementinformation systems, such as issues of confidentiality.Successful partnerships were formed between schooldistricts and the courts. These were possible because of existing policies that required schools to providecourts with specific information about delinquentyouth, such as attendance records.

Local Technical Assistance and TrainingMany sites held training sessions on risk factors,delinquency prevention, and evaluation. Some devel-oped online resources for public access to the datacollected through assessment. Other communitiesused the data to help organizations raise funds forprograms serving youth and families. In this way, the lessons learned through the process were sharedwidely, broadening the impact of NCCD’s trainingefforts.

New Legislation Reflecting ComprehensiveCommunity PlanningLocal collaborative entities, such as the participatingsites, possess the power to effectively advocate forlegislative changes related to the core principles ofComprehensive Community Planning. The planninggroup in Dane County, Wisconsin, was advocating fora bill (AB 212) to add a weekend reporting center as adispositional alternative.

Many states instituted legislative changes relatedto graduated sanctions as a result of their knowledgeof the Comprehensive Community Planning process.Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, California, andConnecticut all passed legislation institutionalizingthe goals of Comprehensive Community Planning.These locations can serve as models for other commu-nities interested in legislative action to support theirwork.

• Kansas implemented both prevention and graduat-ed sanctions components of the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning model [Statutes AnnotatedVolume 6, Chap. 75-78]. They established teams anda statewide system to create comprehensive plansfor each community.

• North Carolina [General Statute, Volume 17, Article3C] implemented both prevention and graduated sanctions components of a Comprehensive Com-munity Planning model. Comprehensive plans weredeveloped in collaboration with county JuvenileCrime Prevention Councils and their State AdvisoryCouncil.

20

For example, Waterloo, Iowa, determined througha resource assessment that youth in their communi-ty were not receiving consistent or in-depth healtheducation from teachers at the local high schools. Inaddition, they had an unacceptably high pregnancyrate. The Comprehensive Planning team developeda volunteer program to fill this gap. They recruitedover thirty volunteers to provide sexual and healtheducation. The community implemented this pro-gram with no funding and was successful at serving almost every high school student in the community.

• California [Bill number SB 1760, Chapter 133] legislation created the Juvenile Crime Enforcementand Accountability Challenge Grant Program. A Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council in each participating county was required to oversee thedevelopment of Local Action Plans that were basedon elements of Comprehensive CommunityPlanning such as outcome measures and evaluation.These local plans assessed the existing continuumof responses to juvenile crime and identifed gapsthat were candidates for state-funded demonstra-tion grants.

• California also developed legislation [Bill number3220, Chapter 730] creating the Repeat OffenderPrevention Program, which was modeled after the

graduated sanctions component of the Compre-hensive Community Planning model. It has been implemented in the Counties of Orange, Fresno,Humboldt, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego,San Mateo, and Solano.

• Connecticut [General Statue Annotated, Volume 21BTitles 46-46b, Page 190-194] legislation demonstrat-ed a strong commitment to prevention. Connecticutincorporated prevention efforts with graduatedsanctions for serious, repeat juvenile offenders.

• Texas [Family Code Annotated, 51.01 Chapter 59]code called for the adoption of a seven-step pro-gressive sanctions system and a first offender program.

21

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONSIn the early 1990s the juvenile court was under siege.Conservative critics declared that the juvenile courtwas a failure — too lenient in its philosophy to dealwith the new wave of violent children. Liberals ques-tioned the commitment of the court to equal justiceand complained that the juvenile court dispensed second-class justice to poor youngsters. The mediafrightened the American public with inflated tales ofthe new generation of “super predators.” They report-ed that rates of gun violence and homicide involvingteenagers were escalating rapidly, that juvenile gangswere out of control, and that adolescent drug use wasincreasing dramatically. Although many of these pub-lic perceptions were based on questionable or non-existent data, few elected officials were willing todefend the juvenile court (Jones and Krisberg, 1994).The American public was looking for a plan to stemthis crisis and traditional juvenile court critics were“at the ready” with proposals to abolish the juvenilecourt, to prosecute more children in criminal courts,and to increase the use of incarceration. The juvenilecourt suffered legislative defeats across the nation —limiting the court’s jurisdiction, increasing the powerof prosecutors to direct cases away from the juvenilecourt, ending the practice of confidential juvenilecourt hearings, and mandating stiffer penalties.Interestingly, a number of public opinion polls sug-gested that, although the citizenry was very con-cerned about escalating youth violence, they had notabandoned their faith in the value of prevention andrehabilitation services as opposed to incarceration(Krisberg and Austin, 1993).

Despite the fact that “get tough” policies weresweeping legislative forums, the principles of theComprehensive Strategy seemed to resonate withlocal sentiment in most communities, including thosethat had always supported more conservative politi-cians. Absent from these local forums were the morestrident voices that advocated simplistic solutions tocomplex problems. Community members wantedsolid information that was based on research, andthey wanted objective information on promising

prevention and treatment programs. Remarkably,there were few discussions about transferring youthsto criminal courts, the need for more incarceration, ormore juvenile arrests in any of the ComprehensiveCommunity Planning sites. Indeed, the police and theprosecutors often led community dialogues towardmore focus on prevention and earlier interventionwith troubled youngsters. The ComprehensiveCommunity Planning process was the beneficiary ofthe emerging law enforcement consensus for “com-munity justice” and “problem-solving law enforce-ment.” Even as the U.S. Congress and state legisla-tures appropriated more and more funds for policeand prosecution, the leadership of local agenciessought innovative programs that created true partner-ships with local residents and community-basedorganizations.

The Comprehensive Community Planning processheld out the promise of research-based strategies anda greater emphasis on actually reducing youth crime.The model argued for inclusion — a wide range ofpeople working together to solve difficult communityproblems. Training and technical assistance eventscreated a “safe environment” in which communityleaders could honestly explore their concerns andstart a process of problem-solving.

The process of Comprehensive CommunityPlanning is not easy, but none of the initial communi-ties chose to jettison the planning efforts. The experi-ence suggests that there are productive ways in whichthe federal government can interact with and assistlocal initiatives. This experience offers a wealth ofexperience about how to promote interdisciplinary,multi-agency responses to the needs of our most vulnerable and troubled young citizens. A formerAttorney General asked that our communities set outto “reweave the fabric of society” rather than continuethe senseless debate over how many prison beds mustbe built. Comprehensive Community Planning con-sists of a series of approved tools to help communitiesachieve this vision. If we succeed, the ideals thatinspired the founders of the American juvenile courtjust might be realized in its second century.

22

R E F E R E N C E S

DiIulio, J. 1996. How to Stop the Coming Crime Wave. Manhattan Institute Civic Bulletin, 2:1-4.

Howell, J.C., ed. 1995. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic JuvenileOffenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Jones, M.A., & Krisberg, B. 1994. Images and Reality: Juvenile Crime, Youth Violence and Public Policy. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Crime and Delinquency.

Krisberg, B., & Austin, J. 1993. Reinventing Juvenile Justice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., eds. 1998. Serious & Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2000. Comprehensive Strategy Curriculum. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Pound, Roscoe. 1965. The Rise of Socialized Criminal Justice. In Roscoe Pound and Criminal Justice, edited bySheldon Gluek. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana.

Reno, Janet. Keynote Address to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention National Conference: JuvenileJustice at the Crossroads. Baltimore, MD. December 13, 1996.

Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst, H. IV, Montgomery, I., Szmanski, L., and Thomas, D. 1996. State Responses to Seriousand Violent Juvenile Crime. Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993. A Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

23

A P P E N D I X

List of Participating Sites

California: San Diego County

Florida: Dade County, Duval County, Lee County, Leon County, St. Lucie County, Volusia County

Hawai`i: Hawai`i County

Iowa: Black Hawk County, Clinton/Jackson Counties, Muscatine County, Marshall County, Polk County, Woodbury County

Maryland: Baltimore City, Charles County, Montgomery County, Prince Georges County, Washington County,Wicomico County

Ohio: Butler County, Cuyahoga County, Lucas County, Mahoning County, Stark County

Oregon: Baker County, Clackamas County, Columbia County, Lane County, Tillamook County, Umatilla County

Rhode Island: Central Falls, Newport, Pawtucket, Providence, Woonsocket

Texas: Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Galveston, Houston, McAllen

Wisconsin: Dane County, Jefferson County, Kenosha County, Sheboygan County

NCCD Mission

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency, founded in 1907, is a nonprofit organization which promotes effective, humane, fair, and economically sound solutions to family, community, and justice problems. NCCD conducts research, promotes reform initiatives, and seeks to work with individuals,

public and private organizations, and the media to prevent and reduce crime and delinquency.

R E F O R M I N G

J U V E N I L E J U S T I C E

T H R O U G H

C O M P R E H E N S I V E

C O M M U N I T Y

P L A N N I N G

by

Barry Krisberg, Ph.D.Giselle Barry

Emily SharrockNational Council on Crime and Delinquency1970 Broadway, Suite 500Oakland, CA 94612510-208-0500510-208-0511 faxwww.nccd-crc.org

Midwest Office426 Yellowstone Drive, Suite 250Madison, WI 53719608-831-8882608-831-6446 fax