This Bulletin is part of OJJDP's Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) Best Practices Series. The basic premise underlying the JAIBG program, initially funded in fiscal year 1998, is that young people who violate the law need to be held accountable for their offenses if society is to improve the quality of life in the Nation's communities. Holding a juvenile offender "accountable" in the juvenile justice system means that once the juvenile is determined to have committed law-violating behavior, by admission or adjudication, he or she is held responsible for the act through consequences or sanctions, imposed pursuant to law, that are proportionate to the offense. Consequences or sanctions that are applied swiftly, surely, and consistently, and are graduated to provide appropriate and effective responses to varying levels of offense seriousness and offender chronicity, work best in preventing, controlling, and reducing further law violations.

In an effort to help States and units of local government develop programs in the 12 purpose areas established for JAIBG funding, Bulletins in this series are designed to present the most up-to-date knowledge to juvenile justice policymakers, researchers, and practitioners about programs and approaches that hold juvenile offenders accountable for their behavior. An indepth description of the JAIBG program and a list of the 12 program purpose areas appear in the overview Bulletin for this series.

While overall violent crime decreased between 1985 and 1994, according to both the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Uniform Crime Reports and victimization surveys, the number of juveniles arrested for serious crimes increased (Bishop, 1997). In the same time period, juvenile courts experienced disproportionate increases in cases involving violent offenses and weapons. Cases involving crimes against persons were up 93 percent, Violent Crime Index offenses (a subset of person offenses) were up 98 percent, and weapons law violations were up 156 percent (Snyder, Sickmund, and Poe-Yamagata, 1996). Drug and public order offenses also saw large increases. In 1995, a drop in these disturbing trends was recorded, a trend that continued through 1996 and 1997. Nevertheless, public attitudes continue to reflect heightened concerns about the rise in juvenile crime that began in the mid-1980's. These concerns were fueled by a few criminologists who predicted a coming generation of "superpredators" based on the decade-long growth in serious and violent juvenile crime arrests and the fact that, by the year 2005, the number of teens ages 14­17 will be 20 percent above the 1994 level (Chaiken, 1997).

Juvenile justice policy continues to change in response to the same phenomena. Historically, juvenile court dispositions were based on children's best interests (Platt, 1977; Rothman, 1980). Thus, sentences were indeterminate, because the length of time required for rehabilitation varies with each youth. Within the past decade, however, many States have adopted mandatory sentencing schemes or developed strict sentencing guidelines. Although indeterminate sentences have not been eliminated completely, one-third of all juvenile court sentencing statutes now include mandatory statutes or sentencing guidelines (Torbet and Szymanski, 1998).

Many States have also modified the purpose clauses or mission statements in their juvenile codes, which outline the philosophy underlying the code (Feld, 1988, 1991, 1992). Originally, many clauses focused on juveniles' emotional and physical well-being, on maintaining their ties with the community, and, if they were removed from their homes, on giving care and discipline equivalent to that of the parents. Since 1992, 90 percent of laws concerning juvenile crime have been revised, many times in response to the belief that serious and violent juvenile offenders must be held more accountable for their actions (Torbet et al., 1996). In 1997, of the 50 State juvenile code purpose clauses,¹ 9 focused exclusively on punishment; 9 focused on prevention, diversion, and treatment; and 32 focused on both. Recent changes in State laws -- addressing issues such as jurisdictional and sentencing authority, confidentiality in the juvenile court, and victims' rights -- reflect the growing public concern about youth crime.

The Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) program also isa response to juvenile crime trends of the decade from 1985 to 1994 and the many changes in juvenile justice policies over that time. As outlined in more detail in the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program Guidance Manual (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998, 1999b), JAIBG funds are available to address 12 program purpose areas designed to promote greater accountability of juveniles in the juvenile justice system. Three of the twelve purpose areas focus on enhancing local prosecutors' abilities to address juvenile crime.² This Bulletin focuses on Purpose Area 5, which provides funding to enable prosecutors to address drug, gang, and youth violence problems more effectively. Prosecutors are experiencing heavy caseloads in all three of these crime categories and are increasingly looking for more comprehensive approaches to tackling these problems.