U.S.

Department of Justice RT
ME
NT OF J
US

PA

TI
CE
DE
Office of Justice Programs

BJ A C E

G OVC
MS
OF F

RA
IJ

N
I

S
J
O F OJJ D P B RO
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention J US T I C E P

Juvenile Accountability Incentive

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

From the
Administrator
When rising expectations meet
Enabling Prosecutors To
dwindling resources, the conflict
represents an obstacle that must
Address Drug, Gang, and
be overcome. Add to this mix
an increasingly high and complex
caseload and you have an idea
Youth Violence
of the challenges faced by many
prosecutors—challenges that Heike P. Gramckow, Ph.D., and Elena Tompkins, J.D.
require and merit our support.
This Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s Juvenile hold juvenile offenders accountable for their
To this end, the Juvenile Ac-
Accountability Incentive Block Grants behavior. An indepth description of the
countability Incentive Block
(JAIBG) Best Practices Series. The basic JAIBG program and a list of the 12 program
Grants (JAIBG) program
premise underlying the JAIBG program, purpose areas appear in the overview Bulletin
provides funds to help prosecu- initially funded in fiscal year 1998, is that for this series.
tors tackle the problems young people who violate the law need to be
presented by the rising number While overall violent crime decreased be-
held accountable for their offenses if society is
of juvenile cases. tween 1985 and 1994, according to both
to improve the quality of life in the Nation’s
the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
This Bulletin, one in a series communities. Holding a juvenile offender
(FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reports and vic-
featuring JAIBG Best Practices, “accountable” in the juvenile justice system
timization surveys, the number of juve-
offers data on recent trends in means that once the juvenile is determined
niles arrested for serious crimes increased
juvenile violence, juvenile drug to have committed law-violating behavior,
(Bishop, 1997). In the same time period,
by admission or adjudication, he or she is
offenses, and gang-related juvenile courts experienced dispropor-
held responsible for the act through conse-
juvenile offending and describes tionate increases in cases involving violent
quences or sanctions, imposed pursuant to
prosecutorial responses to such offenses and weapons. Cases involving
law, that are proportionate to the offense.
offenses. Examples of promising, crimes against persons were up 93 percent,
Consequences or sanctions that are applied
prosecutor-led programs Violent Crime Index offenses (a subset of
swiftly, surely, and consistently, and are
combating the illicit use of guns, person offenses) were up 98 percent, and
graduated to provide appropriate and effec-
violence, drugs, and gangs are weapons law violations were up 156 per-
tive responses to varying levels of offense
also provided. These examples cent (Snyder, Sickmund, and Poe-Yamagata,
seriousness and offender chronicity, work
provide a range of ideas that 1996). Drug and public order offenses also
best in preventing, controlling, and reducing
prosecutors can use to enhance saw large increases. In 1995, a drop in
further law violations.
their own efforts. these disturbing trends was recorded, a
In an effort to help States and units of local trend that continued through 1996 and
Shay Bilchik government develop programs in the 12 pur- 1997. Nevertheless, public attitudes con-
Administrator pose areas established for JAIBG funding, tinue to reflect heightened concerns about
Bulletins in this series are designed to present the rise in juvenile crime that began in the
the most up-to-date knowledge to juvenile mid-1980’s. These concerns were fueled
justice policymakers, researchers, and practi- by a few criminologists who predicted a
tioners about programs and approaches that coming generation of “superpredators”
based on the decade-long growth in confidentiality in the juvenile court, their predecessors of 15 years ago, a
serious and violent juvenile crime and victims’ rights—reflect the greater proportion of juveniles are
arrests and the fact that, by the year growing public concern about youth committing violent acts (Snyder, 1997).
2005, the number of teens ages 14–17 crime.
In the National Institute of Justice’s
will be 20 percent above the 1994
The Juvenile Accountability Incentive (NIJ’s) Drug Use Forecasting study,
level (Chaiken, 1997).
Block Grants (JAIBG) program also arrestees were interviewed regarding
Juvenile justice policy continues to is a response to juvenile crime trends gun acquisition and use (National In-
change in response to the same phe- of the decade from 1985 to 1994 and stitute of Justice, 1996). The juvenile
nomena. Historically, juvenile court the many changes in juvenile justice males studied reflected juveniles en-
dispositions were based on children’s policies over that time. As outlined in tering the justice system nationwide.
best interests (Platt, 1977; Rothman, more detail in the Juvenile Accountabil- They were disproportionately black
1980). Thus, sentences were indetermi- ity Incentive Block Grants Program Guid- or Hispanic, and most were age 15
nate, because the length of time re- ance Manual (Office of Juvenile Justice or older. The proportion of juveniles
quired for rehabilitation varies with and Delinquency Prevention, 1998, who admitted to current membership
each youth. Within the past decade, 1999b), JAIBG funds are available to in a gang ranged from 2 to 41 percent.
however, many States have adopted address 12 program purpose areas de- The proportion of respondents who
mandatory sentencing schemes or de- signed to promote greater accountabil- were charged with a weapons offense
veloped strict sentencing guidelines. ity of juveniles in the juvenile justice ranged from 1 to 12 percent. Among
Although indeterminate sentences system. Three of the twelve purpose the juvenile males interviewed, how-
have not been eliminated completely, areas focus on enhancing local pros- ever, 20 percent said they carried a gun
one-third of all juvenile court sentenc- ecutors’ abilities to address juvenile all or most of the time. Two-thirds of
ing statutes now include mandatory crime.2 This Bulletin focuses on Pur- the juvenile respondents said they
statutes or sentencing guidelines pose Area 5, which provides funding carried a gun for protection or self-
(Torbet and Szymanski, 1998). to enable prosecutors to address drug, defense. Among drug sellers and gang
gang, and youth violence problems members, the proportion was higher
Many States have also modified the
more effectively. Prosecutors are expe- (4 in 10) than among other arrestees
purpose clauses or mission state-
riencing heavy caseloads in all three of (3 in 10). When asked if using a gun
ments in their juvenile codes, which
these crime categories and are increas- was appropriate, 18 percent of juve-
outline the philosophy underlying
ingly looking for more comprehensive nile offenders agreed that “it is okay
the code (Feld, 1988, 1991, 1992).
approaches to tackling these problems. to shoot someone who disrespected
Originally, many clauses focused on
you.” For drug sellers, 21 percent
juveniles’ emotional and physical
Trends in Juvenile Violence agreed to this, as did 34 percent of
well-being, on maintaining their ties
gang members.
with the community, and, if they Juvenile violence increased dramati-
were removed from their homes, on cally between 1985 and 1994. Al-
giving care and discipline equivalent though statistics from 1995 to 1997 Trends in Juvenile
to that of the parents. Since 1992, 90 indicate a reversal of this disturbing Drug Crimes
percent of laws concerning juvenile upward trend in 1995 (Snyder, 1998), Delinquent youth use drugs at a
crime have been revised, many times juvenile violent crime arrest rates are higher rate and at an earlier age than
in response to the belief that serious still well above the 1985 level. Of do their nonoffending counterparts
and violent juvenile offenders must particular concern is that juvenile (Catalano et al., 1988; Dembo et al.,
be held more accountable for their violence has become more lethal, 1991; Haggerty et al., 1989). Findings
actions (Torbet et al., 1996). In 1997, demonstrated by the doubling of the from NIJ’s Arrestee Drug Abuse Moni-
of the 50 State juvenile code purpose juvenile arrest rate for murder and toring (ADAM) program (NIJ’s replace-
clauses,1 9 focused exclusively on for weapons law violations between ment for the Drug Use Forecasting
punishment; 9 focused on preven- 1987 and 1993 (Snyder, 1997). Al- study), which evaluated drug use
tion, diversion, and treatment; and though today’s violent youth commit among juvenile arrestees in 12 sites,
32 focused on both. Recent changes in the same number of violent acts as showed that the proportion of juve-
State laws—addressing issues such as nile arrestees testing positive for
jurisdictional and sentencing authority, 2
Purpose Areas 4 and 6, which focus on (1) hiring marijuana ranged from 47 to 64 percent
additional prosecutors and (2) providing funding for and the proportion testing positive
technology, equipment, and training, respectively, are
1
for cocaine ranged from 4 to 15 percent
Arizona is included in this total, even though its addressed in another Bulletin in this series, Enhancing
philosophy is addressed in case law, not in the State’s Prosecutors’ Ability To Combat and Prevent Juvenile Crime (National Institute of Justice, 1999).
juvenile code or statute (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). in Their Jurisdictions (Gramckow and Tompkins, 1999). Other studies have also shown that

2
delinquents who use drugs are respon- challenge programs is not as consis- 1997). Gangs and crime committed by
sible for disproportionately higher tently positive (Mulvey, Arthur, and gang members are pervasive in many
rates of offending and elevated levels Reppucci, 1993; Lipsey, 1992; Gordon American cities, presenting a chal-
of violent offenses and face a greater and Arbuthnot, 1987; Greenwood, 1986). lenge to law enforcement.
risk of future offending compared with
It also has been shown that court- In a 1995 survey, more than 80 percent
delinquents who do not use drugs
ordered treatment is not significantly of prosecutors acknowledged that gangs
(Catalano et al., 1989; Hawkins et al.,
less effective than voluntary treat- were a problem in their jurisdictions
1988; Baird, Storrs, and Connelly, 1984).
ment. In fact, Aron and Daily (1976) and said they were vigorously pursuing
The link between drug addiction and found that residential treatment is most prosecution of gang crimes. Ultimately,
criminal behavior (Ball et al., 1981) sug- effective for legally coerced clients who prosecutors believed that early interven-
gests a need for effective drug treat- have been using relatively moderate tion with youth and more effective ser-
ment. Little is known, however, about amounts of drugs for shorter periods vices designed to strengthen families
the effectiveness of drug treatment for of time. Individuals for whom treat- were necessary to prevent gang violence
juvenile offenders. The broader drug ment is legally mandated stay in treat- and crime (Johnson, Webster, and
treatment literature suggests that treat- ment longer and are more successful Connors, 1995).
ment program length, treatment mo- after treatment than are those admitted
The 1997 National Youth Gang Survey,
dality, type of admission, and level of voluntarily, despite the generally held
sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Jus-
program implementation influence the belief that treatment is ineffective with-
tice and Delinquency Prevention’s Na-
level of success of clients receiving out personal motivation (Allison and
tional Youth Gang Center, collected
treatment. Hubbard, 1985; DeLeon, 1985; Siddall
data from nearly 3,000 law enforcement
and Conway, 1988).
For any jurisdiction considering the agencies. The results show that the
development of appropriate responses Although residential drug treatment gang problem in the United States is
to drug addiction, it is essential to programs show promise in reducing substantial and impacts communities
know that length of treatment has other forms of reoffending, drug use of all sizes with nearly 75 percent of
been found to affect treatment out- relapse rates are high. Findings sug- large cities and approximately 25 per-
come more than any other variable. gest that nearly two-thirds of all indi- cent of rural communities reporting
Simpson, Savage, and Lloyd (1979) viduals completing treatment relapse gang activity. The results suggest that
suggest that at least 3 months of treat- (Hunt and Bespalec, 1974), with the 816,000 gang members were active in
ment for any type of drug abuse is greatest risk occurring in the first 6 30,500 gangs (Moore and Terrett, 1999).
necessary, while Hubbard and col- months after treatment (Hoffman and
leagues (1989) indicate that 6 to 12 Miller, 1993). The relatively high rate Prosecutorial Responses
months is necessary. Longer retention of drug abuse among juvenile offend-
in treatment programs and comple- ers compared with nonarrestees and The increases in youth violence and
tion of treatment programs have also these relapse rates indicate a need for drug- and gang-related crime require
been found to reduce future drug use aftercare treatment services to rein- specific prosecutorial responses. Pros-
and criminality and to increase em- force skills and behaviors learned ecutors can take leadership in and re-
ployment (Anglin and Hser, 1990; during treatment (Altschuler and sponsibility for the development and
Catalano et al., 1988; Charuvastra et Armstrong, 1991). implementation of special programs,
al., 1992; Simpson and Sells, 1982). work with other agencies on collabora-
Although treatment setting (e.g., cor- tive programs, give referrals, or function
Trends in Gang-Related as part of a broader communitywide
rectional institution, group home,
Juvenile Crime juvenile justice effort.
hospital) may be important in pro-
gram success, more critical are the Research has demonstrated that ado-
Because prosecutor needs vary by
modalities used within the setting. lescents who join street gangs are
jurisdiction, it is only by tailoring
Garrett (1985) concluded that treat- more involved in delinquent acts than
programs to address local crime and
ment involving cognitive-behavioral are adolescents who do not join such
offenders that system efficiency and
techniques (e.g., development of the gangs. This is especially true of seri-
offender accountability can be ad-
individual’s skills for controlling be- ous and violent delinquency (Howell,
vanced. In addition to developing spe-
havior and solving problems) appeared 1998). Moreover, the association be-
cific programs, prosecutors can utilize
to be most successful. Evidence for the tween gang membership and delin-
traditional methods of prosecution to
effectiveness of other types of therapy quency has been observed from the
address gang- and drug-related crime.
(e.g., psychodynamic, individual, and earliest to the most contemporary
The following illustrates just two of
group) and of academic and outdoor gang research (Thornberry and Burch,
many such methods:

3
■ Recommendation of graduated gun violence. These programs thus preventing their return as repeat
sanctions. Graduated sanctions may present a broad range of activities youthful offenders or adults charged
include curfew restrictions, restitu- from comprehensive to less exten- with more serious gun offenses.
tion, community service, conditions sive, from prevention to enforcement
Program benefits. The time and re-
imposed by community council focused.3
sources necessary to develop the edu-
agreements, fines, probation, short-
cational program are significantly less
term confinement, supervised re- Pima County Firearms Awareness than those required to support the
lease, drug testing, mandatory treat- Safety Training Program prosecution of a juvenile charged
ment, out-of-home placement, and
The Pima County (AZ) Firearms with a more serious gun offense. Ju-
long-term confinement. Sanctions
Awareness Safety Training Program veniles and their families are exposed
should escalate in severity with each
offers a firearm awareness course to to accurate information about guns
subsequent, more serious adjudica-
juveniles who are charged with firing and gun security, which should lead
tion or violation of probation. Even
or carrying a gun and who do not have to increased gun safety.
less serious offenses need to be re-
serious or lengthy criminal histories.
sponded to with an appropriate in- Role of the prosecutor. Because weap-
tervention. A lack of response deliv- Program operation. Juveniles ons cases frequently involve victims
ers the message to juvenile offenders charged with minor gun offenses who have suffered grave harm and the
that they can act without conse- are referred to the probation depart- consequences of reoffending are sig-
quence. Active consideration of such ment, at which time they and their nificant, it is essential that offenders
a system of graduated sanctions families are interviewed. If the of- diverted to the program be carefully
serves as one eligibility requirement fense and offender are appropriate screened. Prosecutors, who have ac-
for JAIBG funding. for the program, the case is for- cess to the juveniles’ criminal histories
warded to the prosecutor’s office. and knowledge about the nature and
■ Transfer of the most serious and
If the prosecutor’s assessment of the circumstances of the offense, are well
violent juvenile offenders to crimi-
case is consistent with that of the ini- suited to monitor the screening and
nal court. Most juvenile court sys-
tial screener, the case is returned to referral process. Prosecutors also facili-
tems are well equipped to address
the probation office for diversion. tate, coordinate, and are present at the
the needs of the vast majority of
firearm awareness course.
delinquent offenders. However, if As part of the diversion process, the
offenders have demonstrated that juvenile and his or her parent attend Program obstacles. A frequent com-
they are not amenable to treatment a 4-hour firearm awareness course ment received about the program is
in the juvenile justice system or if presented by community volunteers that it should be offered in schools
the nature of the crime warrants, certified in firearms safety instruc- to all juveniles. Because of limited
transfer to criminal court is a neces- tion. A prosecutor and probation of- resources and reliance on community
sary option. Transfer of these of- ficer facilitate the session. Topics in- volunteers, the program is currently
fenders may protect juveniles who clude firearm safety, security tips, available only to juveniles who are
remain in the system and free up legal rules and consequences, and the already involved in the juvenile jus-
scarce juvenile system resources to danger of guns. Upon the juvenile’s tice system. With funding available
focus on those offenders who will completion of the course and satis- through JAIBG Purpose Area 5, this
benefit most from the system’s faction of any additional conditions type of program could be expanded
rehabilitative programs. imposed by the probation depart- to reach a greater number of juveniles,
ment, the charge is dismissed. Al- especially those who have not yet
The following sections describe
though the juvenile avoids formal committed an offense but who are at
“prosecutor-led” programs initiated,
adjudication and probation, the risk of carrying and using a gun to
developed, and/or operated by pros-
charge and consequences imposed commit a delinquent act.
ecutors. Contact information for these
are nevertheless noted on the
programs is provided later in this
juvenile’s court record. Boston Gun Project
Bulletin, under the “For Further
Information” section. Program goals. Early and meaningful The Boston Gun Project was initiated in
intervention is intended to halt juve- response to the increasing rate of gang
Prosecutor-Led Antigun and niles’ involvement in the justice system, violence and murder experienced with-
in the city in the late 1980’s to early
Antiviolence Programs 1990’s. The program, which is part of a
The following programs address 3
For more descriptions of programs that focus on gun
three-pronged strategy of prevention,
violence, see Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
juvenile violence, with a focus on intervention, and enforcement, targets
quency Prevention, 1999a.

4
illegal gun market distributors who sell example, every agency that has contact offenders returning to the community
to youth. It coordinates the efforts of with youth in the juvenile justice sys- will almost certainly reoffend. Pro-
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and tem is represented at the table in a grams should allow police, prosecu-
Firearms (ATF), U.S. Attorney’s Office, SHOCAP interagency workgroup. tors, and schools to have input into
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administra- These agencies include police, schools, the types of supervision and treat-
tion, and the FBI with efforts of the Suf- human services agencies (particularly ment selected.
folk County District Attorney’s Office. agencies helping children and their
All terms of supervision for SHO’s
families involved in dependency cases),
Program operation. ATF’s National generally are listed and distributed
corrections, the courts (e.g., court ad-
Training Center traces the serial num- to every police officer. The police
ministrators, judges, public defenders),
bers of all recovered guns provided officers report to the corrections
and prosecutors.
by the police department to analyze agency when they see an offender
the supply of and demand for guns. In determining the criteria for defining violate curfew or any other release
Often, the ATF can determine the a juvenile as a serious habitual of- condition. In some States, current
identity of initial and subsequent fender (SHO), most SHOCAP projects laws may not allow an immediate
sellers. The information is analyzed develop a generic description of such arrest if such a violation is observed
to construct cases against sellers, used an offender based on local data. Such a by police. In most States where
to identify gun trafficking routes, and description may outline, for example, SHOCAP is instituted, however, po-
distributed to local police depart- that the average SHO: lice are required to arrest the viola-
ments; all of these techniques contrib- tor. Good community policing goes
■ Has been reported missing or has
ute to the investigation of cases across hand in hand with SHOCAP.
run away at least once.
jurisdictional boundaries.
Program goals. The program objec-
■ Is associated with some type of
Program benefits. Program benefits tives for SHOCAP are fourfold:
gang or group criminal activity.
include interagency coordination and
■ Increased cooperation and coordi-
information sharing. Prosecutors have ■ Is drug-involved (whether using or
nation among agencies interacting
stronger cases based on the evidence selling).
with youth.
derived from the serial number collec-
■ Associates almost exclusively with
tion and analysis. ■ Creation of an operational model
other serious habitual offenders.
for dealing with serious habitual
Success. In 1995, the youth homicide
■ Was 10 years old at first arrest, offenders, to include school place-
rate in Boston was 80 percent lower
has been arrested an average of ments, police contacts, arrest
than in 1990. In 1996, no minors died as
28 times during his or her crimi- procedures, case management,
a result of firearm homicide in Boston.
nal career, and averages 18 felony program placement, and
In schools, the violent crime rate fell
arrests. reintegration/aftercare.
more than 20 percent in the 1995–96
academic year (Mayor’s Public Safety ■ Was primarily a property offender ■ Improved information collection
Cabinet, 1996). at first and then moved to person and information sharing (e.g., social
crime. service agencies’ dependency infor-
Serious Habitual Offender mation, school records, law enforce-
■ Is currently on parole from a
Comprehensive Action Program ment information, and court adju-
residential placement.
dications), leading to a picture that
The Serious Habitual Offender Com-
■ Is rearrested every 43 days; was explains much about the child’s
prehensive Action Program (SHOCAP)
arrested 2.5 times prior to the first criminal activity (e.g., known asso-
is an interagency case management
adjudication withheld, 9 times prior ciates, parents/siblings, police field
system that enables the juvenile justice
to his or her first delinquency contacts, school placement, and
system (probation, prosecutors, judges,
adjudication; and has been adjudi- terms of supervision).
police, and correctional departments)
cated an average of 10 times (Uzzel,
and human services (social service ■ Suppression and control of the
1997).
and welfare) agencies to make better criminal activity committed by
informed decisions regarding the small SHOCAP seeks to determine which these offenders.
number of juveniles who commit a program is best suited for each youth.
Program benefits. Benefits include
large percentage of serious crimes. Reintegration and aftercare are as im-
access to more complete profiles of
portant as the appropriate sentence;
Program operation. SHOCAP’s core habitual offenders, improved and
unless there are strong reintegration
concept is to coordinate efforts of agen- more efficient information sharing,
and aftercare programs, serious
cies dealing with youth. In Florida, for and more efficient use of resources.

5
Success. When Florida started its them on a calendar of their own, so sanctions. When conditions are not
SHOCAP program, an assessment that their cases can be heard by a satisfied, the juvenile is brought back
of juvenile records showed that 184 judge trained in and committed to before the court and immediate sanc-
repeat offenders accounted for 35 per- the treatment needs of the offender. tions are imposed. Sanctions may in-
cent of all juvenile arrests and 56 percent Juvenile drug courts take the unique clude community service, rollback to
of Part I (the most serious property needs of the juvenile offender into an earlier treatment phase, an exten-
and violent crimes) juvenile felony account (e.g., potential family, peer, sion of program participation, and/or
arrests (Uzzel, 1997). It was felt that a school, and addiction problems) in an contempt proceedings. If all treatment
program that targeted the most seri- effort to stop the cycle of substance and rehabilitative avenues have been
ous, repeat juvenile offenders could abuse. As of April 1998, 43 juvenile exhausted, the charges are reactivated
have a significant impact on criminal and family drug courts were operat- and the juvenile’s case may be placed
activity. A 1995 independent evalua- ing in the United States. Another back on the formal court calendar for
tion of SHOCAP programs revealed 47 courts are being planned (Drug prosecution.
that more serious repeat offenders Courts Program Office, 1998). Pro-
Program goals. Juvenile drug courts
were incapacitated (i.e., they were gram components vary, but essential
function to impose swift and firm
detained and confined securely) and elements include frequent drug test-
consequences with effective and ag-
interventions occurred earlier, which ing, judicial and probationary super-
gressive intervention. The goal is to
reduced the level and scope of seri- vision, drug counseling, drug treat-
treat the addiction in order to reha-
ous crimes committed by these youth ment, educational opportunities, and
bilitate the offender.
(Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- the use of sanctions and incentives.
quency Prevention, 1996). Dispositions often include support Program benefits. Juvenile drug
services for the juvenile and his or courts relieve the crowded juvenile
Prosecutor-Led Antidrug her family. court docket, expedite case processing,
and provide treatment to juveniles in
Programs Program operation. In 1996, the State’s
need. The judges, prosecutors, and
Because the prosecutor possesses de- attorney for Jacksonville, FL, lobbied
public defenders assigned to the juve-
tailed information about the nature for implementation of a juvenile drug
nile drug court become experts in the
and circumstances of a case (e.g., court in Duval County. The court be-
addiction needs of juvenile offenders,
whether drugs or alcohol were in- gan operation in 1997 as one of the first
providing an environment conducive
volved, whether the juvenile has a drug courts dedicated to juveniles. Ju-
to recovery. Trends in drug use and
history of drug abuse or offense), he veniles between the ages of 13 and 17
crime can be monitored and shared
or she has a responsibility to bring who are charged with drug-related
with local law enforcement.
such information to the court’s atten- nonviolent misdemeanor or felony
tion. This is true particularly at the offenses and who have no history of Role of the prosecutor. The prosecu-
time of disposition or diversion, when violence are typically eligible for the tor in Duval County took an active
consequences can be crafted to ad- drug court. Once they are accepted role in the development and imple-
dress the substance abuse problem, and agree, with their parents, to the mentation of the court. Prosecutors
among other issues. terms of a 12-month diversion pro- also screen cases for drug court suit-
gram, their cases are removed from ability, represent the interests of the
Programs targeting juvenile drug the formal juvenile court calendar. State and public safety in court pro-
abuse and drug crime assume a vari- ceedings, and monitor the effective-
ety of forms, and prosecutors have Conditions of the diversion agree-
ness of drug court activities through
demonstrated a commitment to ad- ment may include placement in a
recidivism rates.
dressing the drug problem in innova- residential drug treatment facility,
tive ways. The following examples participation in an intensive 12-week
demonstrate how prosecutors have outpatient program, and/or atten- Project Alliance
assumed the lead in designing and/or dance at 12 weeks of individual and Project Alliance, established in
operating programs to address drug group counseling. Each juvenile’s Middlesex County, MA, is a
crime and abuse in their jurisdictions. progress is monitored through inten- collaborative program involving the
sive court supervision and frequent district attorney’s office, law enforce-
random urinalysis. ment, and school superintendents. It
Duval County Drug Court
addresses local social, economic, and
Most drug courts focus on removing To ensure that the juveniles comply, health-related problems that plague
nonviolent drug offenders from the the court employs positive and nega- school communities and put students
regular court system and placing tive reinforcement with graduated at risk. Since the program’s inception

6
in 1988, educators, students, and par- County District Attorney’s Office, has Juveniles receive education about
ents have attended trainings con- shown that students develop an in- the dangers of alcohol and drug use,
ducted by the Alliance on a variety of creased awareness of the consequences which may help prevent their return
topics, among them substance abuse of drug use and trafficking. As an in- to court. The class serves as a consis-
and violence prevention. As a result direct benefit, the requirement for tent and appropriate sanction for
of these efforts, many components of all assistant district attorneys to first-time offenders.
the juvenile justice system, schools, participate in this program has
Role of the prosecutor. The Dakota
and the community have worked to- greatly increased their familiarity
County District Attorney’s Office ini-
gether to reduce juvenile delinquency, with youth issues and their ability
tiated and coordinates the program,
including drug use. to communicate with school system
from time of arrest to resolution of
representatives.
Program goals. Project Alliance raises charge. If the juvenile does not choose
awareness about the dangers of nico- diversion or fails to complete the pro-
tine, alcohol, and other drugs and Juvenile Alcohol and Marijuana gram, the district attorney notifies the
seeks to eliminate the abuse of illegal Diversion Program juvenile court to process the case and
substances by Middlesex County stu- The Juvenile Alcohol and Marijuana schedule a hearing.
dents. The program also identifies Diversion Program, Dakota County,
trends in drug use, effective preven- MN, is a diversion and prevention Prosecutor-Led Antigang
tion strategies, and successful reha- program operated by the district
Programs
bilitative services. attorney since 1991. The program
serves first-time juvenile offenders Prosecutor-led antigang programs
Program benefits. The values and targeted to youthful offenders can as-
between the ages of 10 and 17 who
conduct of law-abiding juveniles are sume a variety of forms. The following
have been charged with the posses-
validated; a positive peer culture is strategies can be used if offices cannot
sion and/or consumption of alcohol
supported; juveniles, parents, and devote resources to developing spe-
or the possession of marijuana or
teachers gain accurate information cialized antigang programs. Depend-
drug paraphernalia. Juveniles can be
about substance abuse prevention ing on the needs of the jurisdiction, the
referred to the program by school of-
and use; and at-risk students are prosecutor might consider applying
ficials because of alcohol or drug use
identified and supported. these strategies alone or in tandem
and by the court if drug or alcohol
use is identified as a contributing fac- with specialized programs. The ex-
Project Legal Lives tor to their offense. amples are not intended to constitute
Project Legal Lives, Kings County an exhaustive list, but to spark cre-
(Brooklyn), NY, is a community- Program operation. The program is ative thinking about what might or
based antidrug prevention and edu- designed to address juvenile viola- might not work in a given locale.
cation program developed by the dis- tions of alcohol and marijuana pos-
session laws by emphasizing an edu- ■ Vertical prosecution. Vertical pros-
trict attorney in 1990. It was the first ecution (i.e., a prosecutor handles
program of its type in the State, and cation/prevention/communication
approach. Juveniles who are accepted a case from start to finish) helps
prosecutors from many other jurisdic- focus office resources on serious
tions have expressed interest in the into the program attend a 4-hour
Chemical Abuse Awareness class cases, such as gang-related crimes,
program. because it enables prosecutors to
with one or both parents. The class is
Program operation. Prosecutors teach conducted by River Ridge Treatment develop specialized knowledge
a drug-use prevention and a bias- Center and the Dakota County chapter about the case, gang crime, and
crime (or hate-crime) curriculum to of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk gang culture. Prosecutors also are
all fifth grade classes. A truancy com- Driving). The class provides the juve- able to target gang offenders effi-
ponent has recently been added. nile with skills to communicate and ciently and consistently (Ehrensaft,
methods to make healthy decisions 1991).
Program goals. The program seeks
to increase student awareness about regarding drugs and alcohol. When ■ Special gang unit or prosecutor.
the dangers of drugs and legal the juvenile successfully completes An office with sufficient resources
consequences of taking drugs and to the class, the juvenile’s citation is and a high number of gang crimes
foster positive relationships between dismissed. might create a specialized antigang
students and law enforcement. Program benefits. The program unit. An office with fewer gang
relieves the crowded juvenile court cases can achieve a similar effect by
Program benefits. An assessment of designating a single prosecutor to
this program, conducted by the Kings docket by removing first-time low-
level offenders from the system. handle the jurisdiction’s gang

7
 cases; the prosecutor could work prepare victims and witnesses modify to fit their own specific needs
with special investigators or proba- for trial and keep them apprised and circumstances.
tion officers for a team approach in of case status (Johnson, Webster,
both the investigation and prosecu- and Connors, 1995). TARGET (Tri-Agency Resources
tion phases. Gang Enforcement Team)
■ Aggressive prosecution. In many
■ Victim/witness services. Witness States, special legislation exists Begun in 1992 by the Westminster
intimidation is a common problem that enhances the prosecutor’s police chief, TARGET, Ocean County,
in gang-related cases (Finn and ability to aggressively prosecute CA, is a collaborative program of the
Healey, 1996). If witnesses do not gang-related cases. For example, district attorney’s office, police depart-
participate fully in the investigation the Street Terrorism Enforcement ment, and probation department. The
and prosecution of a case, the case’s and Prevention (STEP) Acts pro- program, which targets the most dan-
strength and its likelihood for suc- vide for sentencing enhancements gerous gangs and their leadership, is
cess are affected. Victim/witness and civil forfeiture of street gang a proactive unit designed to prevent
intimidation also can damage the assets and criminal proceeds in victimization.
community’s confidence in law California, Florida, Georgia, Illi-
Program operation. Using a prognos-
enforcement’s ability to maintain nois, and Louisiana (Johnson,
tic assessment that relies on various
public safety and bring offenders to Webster, and Connors, 1995). Pros-
criminal and social history factors
justice. Prosecutors must, therefore, ecutors who function in States
(e.g., prior gun possession arrests at
address victim/witness issues in a without similar gang prosecution
school), the TARGET team determines
comprehensive plan to affect gang enhancements could work either to
which gang member is most likely to
crime. Although the specifics of adopt legislation or to amend the
offend next. The team observes that
this plan will vary according to the existing criminal State statute to
individual to catch him or her commit-
office’s philosophy and resources, add gang offenses. Fourteen States
ting a nonserious crime. The team then
elements to consider include the have undertaken the latter approach
aggressively prosecutes the gang mem-
following: primarily by adding sentencing
ber using vertical prosecution and
enhancements to their statutes
❏ Victim/witness protection inside other available gang prosecution
rather than creating new gang
and outside the courtroom. enhancements.
offenses (Johnson, Webster, and
❏ Videotaped pretrial testimony. Connors, 1995). The team concept is critical to the suc-
cess of the program; it provides for
❏ Assistance to community orga- ■ Written policies and procedures.
information sharing and coordinated
nizations to develop social inter- The office should develop and
responses. For target development
vention strategies for gang articulate written policies and
and information sharing, the team
members and juveniles at risk procedures to guide the handling
relies on “CALGANGS,” a computer
of gang involvement (Ehrensaft of serious cases in order to ensure
system with terminals in different
1991). that cases are prosecuted effi-
counties. The identities of gang mem-
ciently and consistently. In
❏ Aggressive prosecution of all bers are continuously entered into
developing a set of written poli-
instances of witness intimidation. CALGANGS. When the team targets
cies and procedures that address
a gang member, his or her page is
❏ Requests for high bail in witness gang-related crime, the prosecutor’s
flagged. If the targeted gang member
intimidation cases. office might include screening
is stopped for any type of offense in
procedures, the collection and
❏ Requests to remove gang mem- the State, the TARGET team is noti-
sharing of gang-related informa-
bers from the courtroom. fied so that it can support or assume
tion, coordination among agen-
prosecution of the case.
❏ Close management of key cies involved in the prosecution
witnesses. of gang crimes, and procedures Program goals. The program takes
for cases that overlap with other dangerous gang members off the
❏ Emergency and short-term
divisions in the office (Ehrensaft, streets by aggressively prosecuting
witnesses relocation.
1991). them for the commission of nonserious
❏ Impeachment of prosecution offenses (e.g., probation violation,
With these general prosecution strate-
witnesses if they alter their testi- vandalism) before they can commit
gies to impact gang problems in
mony (Finn and Healey, 1996). serious/violent offenses.
mind, the following program ex-
❏ Appointment of a victim amples provide a range of ideas that Program benefits. TARGET, which
advocate and investigator to local jurisdictions can combine and has received much attention from

8
other jurisdictions, reports the pro- and special programs designed to References
gram to be highly effective at reduc- provide at-risk youth with alterna-
Allison, M., and Hubbard, R.L.
ing gang violence, preventing victim- tives to joining gangs and participat-
1985. Drug abuse treatment process:
ization, and saving lives. ing in criminal behavior.
A review of the literature. Interna-
Role of the prosecutor. The prosecu- Role of the prosecutor. The prosecu- tional Journal of the Addictions
tor’s involvement in the program is tor’s office has been instrumental in 20:1321–1345.
critical, as is the participation of the developing and planning this effort
Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L.
probation and police departments. and carries a significant portion of the
1991. Intensive aftercare for the high-
The prosecutor undertakes traditional operational responsibilities. The Boston
risk juvenile parolee: Issues and ap-
prosecutorial tasks, such as case prep- Police Department works with the dis-
proaches in reintegration and com-
aration and litigation, and coordi- trict attorney’s office to analyze gang
munity supervision. In Intensive
nates closely with police and proba- crime “hotspots” to identify districts
Interventions with High-Risk Youths:
tion officers during the investigative in which the majority of gang-related
Promising Approaches in Juvenile
and postconviction stages. problems are occurring. Together with
Probation and Parole, edited by T.L.
other key players, the prosecutor devel-
Program obstacles. The program is Armstrong. Monsey, NY: Criminal
ops and plans targeted prevention and
initially expensive to operate, because Justice Press.
enforcement strategies.
it focuses on aggressive and special-
Anglin, M.D., and Hser, Y. 1990.
ized prosecution of crimes that might
Conclusion Treatment of drug abuse. In Drugs
otherwise be plea-bargained in a
and Crime, vol. 13, edited by M. Tonry
lower court. TARGET team members Prosecutors can play a significant role and J.Q. Wilson. Chicago, IL: Univer-
require specialized training in gang in reducing and preventing juvenile sity of Chicago Press.
prosecution, which also is an expen- involvement with drugs and related
diture of time and resources. criminal activities, their involvement Aron, W.S., and Daily, D.W. 1976.
with criminal gangs, and youth vio- Graduates and splittees from thera-
California gang laws facilitate the
lence overall. The examples provided peutic community drug treatment
prosecution of gang cases by provid-
show that prosecutors’ efforts that programs: A comparison. International
ing charging and sentencing enhance-
go beyond the traditional functions Journal of the Addictions 11:355–375.
ments. In States lacking similar legis-
lation, the rate of success might differ. of investigation and prosecution— Baird, S.C., Storrs, G.M., and Connelly,
especially when they are coordinated H. 1984. Classification of Juveniles in
Success. TARGET reports that the pro- with other agencies’ activities and in- Corrections: A Model Systems Approach.
gram has resulted in an approximate volve the community at large—are Washington, DC: Arthur D. Little.
60-percent reduction in gang violence much more effective in increasing
in the areas in which it operates. public safety and keeping young Ball, J.C., Rosen, J.A., Flueck, J.A., and
people out of trouble. Nurco, D.N. 1981. The criminality of
Suffolk County Comprehensive heroin addicts: When addicted and
Many of the responsibilities involved when off opiates. In The Drugs-Crime
Gang Initiative in implementing such programs re- Connection, edited by J.A. Inciardi.
The Suffolk County (MA) District quire little more than creativity, the Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
Attorney’s Office takes a comprehen- willingness to work with others, and tions, Inc.
sive approach to gang issues, carefully some extra time. Using JAIBG funds
balancing prevention, intervention, and as seed money to plan, develop, and Bishop, D.R. 1997. Juvenile record-
suppression initiatives. The Suffolk begin a more comprehensive, coordi- handling and practices of the Federal
County initiative focuses on gangs op- nated program to reduce the more Bureau of Investigation. Paper pre-
erating in and around the Franklin Hill serious juvenile crimes in a commu- sented at the Conference on Juvenile
public housing development. nity can go a long way. In many Justice Records: Appropriate Crimi-
cases, initial startup requires much nal and Noncriminal Justice Uses.
Program operation. The program
more financial support than main- Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
uses aggressive enforcement; under-
taining a program. In addition, find- Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
cover narcotics surveillance and
ing the resources for established pro- Bureau of Justice Statistics.
tracking; collaboration among proba-
tion, parole, and prosecutors; fast- grams that benefit the community and Catalano, R.F., Howard, O., Hawkins,
track prosecution and incarceration; juvenile justice system after initial J.D., and Wells, E.A. 1988. Relapse in
educational programs to increase funding runs out is generally not the Addictions: Rates, Determinants, and
awareness of the local gang problem; difficult if plans to sustain the program Promising Relapse Prevention Strategies.
locally are made well in advance.

9
Washington, DC: Office of Smoking Feld, B.C. 1991. The transformation of Howell, J.C. 1998. Youth Gangs: An
and Health, U.S. Government Print- the juvenile court. Minnesota Law Re- Overview. Bulletin. Washington, DC:
ing Office. view 75:691–725. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Catalano, R.F., Wells, E.A., Jenson, Feld, B.C. 1992. Criminalizing the ju-
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
J.M., and Hawkins, J.D. 1989. After- venile court: A research agenda for the
care services for drug-using institu- 1990’s. In Juvenile Justice and Public Hubbard, R.L., Marsden, M.E.,
tionalized delinquents. Social Service Policy, edited by I. Schwartz. New Rachal, J.V., Harwood, H.J.,
Review 63:553–577. York, NY: Lexington Books, pp. 59–88. Cavanaugh, E.R., and Ginzburg, H.M.
1989. Drug Abuse Treatment: A Na-
Chaiken, J.M. 1997. Changing laws Finn, P., and Healey, K.M. 1996. Pre-
tional Study of Effectiveness. Chapel
and policies governing juvenile jus- venting Gang- and Drug-Related Wit-
Hill, NC: University of North Caro-
tice records radically alter balance be- ness Intimidation. National Institute of
lina Press.
tween confidentiality and public ac- Justice Issues and Practices Report.
cess, and increase importance of Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Hunt, W.A., and Bespalec, D.A. 1974.
record accuracy. Paper presented at Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Relapse rates after treatment for
the Conference on Juvenile Justice National Institute of Justice. heroin addiction. Journal of Commu-
Records: Appropriate Criminal and nity Psychology 2:85–87.
Garrett, C. 1985. Effects of residential
Noncriminal Justice Uses. Washing-
treatment on adjudicated delinquents: Johnson, C., Webster, B., and
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Connors, E. 1995 (February). Prosecut-
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Crime and Delinquency 22:287–308. ing Gangs: A National Assessment. Re-
Justice Statistics.
search in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.
Gordon, D.A., and Arbuthnot, J. 1987.
Charuvastra, V.C., Dalali, I.D., Department of Justice, Office of Jus-
Individual, group, and family inter-
Cassuci, M., and Ling, W. 1992. Out- tice Programs, National Institute of
ventions. In Handbook of Juvenile De-
come study: Comparison of short- Justice.
linquency, edited by H.C. Quay. New
term vs. long-term treatment in a
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lipsey, M.W. 1992. Juvenile delin-
residential community. International
quency treatment: A meta-analytic
Journal of the Addictions 27:15–23. Gramckow, H.P., and Tompkins, E.
inquiry into the variability of effects.
1999. Enhancing Prosecutors’ Ability To
DeLeon, G. 1985. The therapeutic In Meta-Analysis for Explanation, ed-
Combat and Prevent Juvenile Crime in
community: Status and evolution. ited by T.D. Cook. New York, NY:
Their Jurisdictions. Bulletin. Washington,
International Journal of the Addictions Russell Sage, pp. 83–127.
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
20:823–844.
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Mayor’s Public Safety Cabinet. 1996.
Dembo, R., Williams, L., Wish, E., Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Youth Violence: A Community-Based Re-
Berry, E., Getreau, A., Washburn, M., sponse—One City’s Success Story. Boston,
Greenwood, P.W., ed. 1986. Intervention
and Schmeidler, J. 1991. Prevention and MA: Mayor’s Public Safety Cabinet.
Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders.
the self-help movement. International
New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Moore, J.P., and Terrett, C.P. 1999. High-
Journal of the Addictions 25:1301–1340.
lights of the 1997 National Youth Gang
Haggerty, K.P., Wells, E.A., Jenson,
Drug Courts Program Office. 1998. Survey. Fact Sheet #97. Washington,
J.M., Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins,
Drug Courts Program Office Fact Sheet. DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
J.D. 1989. Delinquents and drug use:
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
A model program for community re-
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
integration. Adolescence 24:439–456.
Drug Courts Program Office.
Mulvey, E.P., Arthur, M.W., and
Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F.,
Ehrensaft, K. 1991. Prosecutors Model. Reppucci, N.D. 1993. The prevention
Gillmore, M.R., and Wells, E.A. 1988.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of and treatment of juvenile delin-
Skills training for drug abusers: Gen-
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, quency: A review of the research.
eralization, maintenance, and effects
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- Clinical Psychology Review 13:133–167.
on drug use. Journal of Consulting and
quency Prevention.
Clinical Psychology 57:559–563. National Institute of Justice. 1996. 1995
Feld, B.C. 1988. The juvenile court Drug Use Forecasting: Annual Report on
Hoffman, N.G., and Miller, N.S. 1993.
meets the principle of offense: Pun- Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. Washing-
Perspectives on effective treatment
ishment, treatment, and the difference ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
for alcohol and drug disorders. Recent
it makes. Boston University Law Review Office of Justice Programs, National
Advances in Addictive Disorders
68:821–915. Institute of Justice.
16:127–140.

10
National Institute of Justice. 1999. ing 1969–1972. Archives of General Psy- Uzzel, D.M. 1997. Florida’s serious
1998 Annual Report on Drug Use chiatry 36:772–780. habitual offender comprehensive ac-
Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. tion program. Paper presented at the
Simpson, D.D., and Sells, S.B. 1982.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Conference on Justice Records: Ap-
Effectiveness of treatment for drug
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, propriate Criminal and Noncriminal
abuse: An overview of the DARP
National Institute of Justice. Justice Uses. Washington, DC: U.S.
research program. Advances in Alcohol
Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- and Substance Abuse 2:7–29.
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
quency Prevention. 1996. Serious Ha-
Snyder, H.N. 1997. Juvenile Arrests
bitual Offender Comprehensive Action
1996. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. For Further Information
Program. Washington, DC: U.S. De-
Department of Justice, Office of Jus-
partment of Justice, Office of Justice Boston Gun Project
tice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus-
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice Ralph Martin, District Attorney
tice and Delinquency Prevention.
and Delinquency Prevention. Suffolk County District Attorney’s
Snyder, H.N. 1998. Juvenile Arrests Office
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
1997. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. New Courthouse, Sixth Floor
quency Prevention. 1998. Juvenile Ac-
Department of Justice, Office of Jus- Boston, MA 02108
countability Incentive Block Grants Pro-
tice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus- 617–725–8600
gram Guidance Manual. Washington,
tice and Delinquency Prevention. www.state.ma.us/da/suffolk/
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Duval County Drug Court
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 Na- Harry Shorstein, State Attorney
tional Report. Report. Washington, DC: Fourth Judicial Circuit
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 600 Duval County Courthouse
quency Prevention. 1999a. Promising
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jacksonville, FL 32202
Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence. Re-
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 904–630–2400
port. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro- Snyder, H.N., Sickmund, M., and Juvenile Alcohol and Marijuana
grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Poe-Yamagata, E. 1996. Juvenile Of- Diversion Program
Delinquency Prevention. fenders and Victims: 1996 Update on James Backstrom, Dakota County
Violence. Summary. Washington, DC: Attorney
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 1560 West Highway 55
quency Prevention. 1999b. Juvenile Ac-
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Hastings, MN 55033
countability Incentive Block Grants Pro-
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 612–438–4438
gram Guidance Manual. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office Thornberry, T.P., and Burch, J.H. 1997. www.co.dakota.mn.us/attorney/
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior. index.htm
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. De- National Youth Gang Center
partment of Justice, Office of Justice Institute for Intergovernmental
Platt, A.M. 1977. The Child Savers: The
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice Research
Invention of Delinquency. Chicago, IL:
and Delinquency Prevention. P.O. Box 12729
University of Chicago Press.
Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst, H., Mont- Tallahassee, FL 32317
Rothman, D.J. 1980. Conscience and 850–385–0600
gomery, I., Szymanski, L., and Tho-
Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alter- www.iir.com/nygc
mas, D. 1996. State Responses to Serious
natives in Progressive America. Boston,
and Violent Juvenile Crime. Report. Pima County Firearms Awareness
MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Safety Training Program
Siddall, J.W., and Conway, G. 1988. Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Clint Stinson, Assistant County
Interactional variables associated Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- Attorney
with retention and success in residen- quency Prevention. Pima County Attorney’s Office,
tial drug treatment. International Jour- Juvenile Division
Torbet, P., and Szymanski, L. 1998. State
nal of the Addictions 23:1241–1254. 2335 East Ajo Way
Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile
Simpson, D.D., Savage, L.J., and Crime: 1996–97 Update. Washington, Tucson, AZ 85713
Lloyd, M.R. 1979. Follow-up evalua- DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 520–740–2991
tion of treatment of drug abuse dur- of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile www.pcao.co.pima.az.us/
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

11
U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD
Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/OJJDP
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

NCJ 178917

Project Alliance Suffolk County Comprehensive Points of view or opinions expressed in this
Middlesex County District Attorney’s Gang Initiative document are those of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official position
Office Bob Tochka, Gang Unit Chief
or policies of APRI, OJJDP, or the U.S.
21 McGrath Highway Office of the Suffolk County District Department of Justice.
Somerville, MA 02143 Attorney
617–666–2101 New Courthouse
www.projectalliance.org Boston, MA 02108 The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
617–725–8617 quency Prevention is a component of the Of-
Project Legal Lives fice of Justice Programs, which also includes
www.state.ma.us/da/suffolk/
Charles Hynes, Kings County District the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau
Attorney TARGET of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of
210 Joralemon Street Brian Brown, Supervisor Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Brooklyn, NY 11201 Orange County District Attorney’s
718–250–2200 Office
P.O. Box 808
Serious Habitual Offender
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Comprehensive Action Program
714–935–7088
Bob Hubbard, Program Manager
Training and Technical Assistance
Division Acknowledgments
Office of Juvenile Justice and
Heike P. Gramckow, Ph.D., is Director of Research and Development at the
Delinquency Prevention
American Prosecutors Research Institute, Alexandria,VA, and Elena Tompkins,
810 Seventh Street NW.
J.D., is Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator for State and Local Pro-
Washington, DC 20531
202–616–3567
grams at the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.The authors
would like to thank James Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, MN, and Gary
Walker, District Attorney, Marquette County, MI, for their contributions in the
preparation of this Bulletin.