Title: Kids, Cops, and Communities. Series: Issues and Practices Author: Marcia R. Chaiken, Ph.D. Published: June 1998 Subject: Juvenile delinquency prevention, juvenile justice 104 pages 238,000 bytes ------------------------------- Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420. ------------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice Issues and Practices KIDS, COPS, & COMMUNITIES U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Noel Brennan Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice ------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij ------------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Kids, COPS, and Communities by Marcia R. Chaiken, Ph.D. LINC June 1998 ------------------------------- Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice is a publication series of the National Institute of Justice. Each report presents the program options and management issues in a topic area, based on a review of research and evaluation findings, operational experience, and expert opinion on the subject. The intent is to provide information to make informed choices in planning, implementing, and improving programs and practice in criminal justice. ------------------------------- National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis Director Richard Titus, Ph.D. Program Monitor and The Carnegie Corporation of New York Gloria Primm Brown Program Officer ------------------------------- Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, by LINC under grant #94-IJ-CX-0015. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ------------------------------- The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. ------------------------------- NCJ 169599 ------------------------------- Table of Contents Foreword Acknowledgments Executive Summary The Most Popular Approaches for Dealing With Juvenile Violence Haven't Worked Effective Prevention Approaches Are Integral to National Youth Organizations Partnerships Between Police and Youth Organizations Case Studies of Exemplary Approaches Bristol, Connecticut --The Bristol Family Center for Boys and Girls --The Bristol Police Department Arlington, Texas --The Teen Center --Boys and Girls Clubs of Arlington --Arlington Police Department Spokane, Washington --West Central Community Center --The Washington State University Family Focus Program --The Spokane Police Department What You Can Do to Provide Safe, Constructive Activities for At-Risk Youth Chapter 1: Introduction The Dimensions of Violence Involving Kids Kids Are Most at Risk for Violence and Serious Delinquency Kids Are Most Vulnerable to Crime During the Nonschool Hours The Most Popular Approaches for Dealing With Juvenile Violence Haven't Worked Effective Prevention Approaches Are Integral to National Youth Organizations Youth Organizations Are Trying to Reach Youth Most at Risk for Violence Endnotes Chapter 2: Crime and Youth Organizations Youth-Serving Organizations Are Reaching Kids in Economically Depressed Urban Areas Youth Organizations Are Reaching Kids Already Involved in Crime as Victims or Offenders The More Vulnerable the Kids They Serve, the More Crime the Youth Organizations Experience Most Offenders Are Kids More Offenses Are Committed by Nonparticipants Than Participants Crime Takes a Heavy Toll on Organizational Resources Most Steps Taken to Prevent Crime Haven't Worked Police Responsiveness Is a Significant Factor in the Level of Crime Endnotes Chapter 3: Partnerships With Police More Organizations Ask for Proactive Than Reactive Policing Organizations Nominated Diverse Exemplary Programs Approaches Selected for Case Studies Met Important Criteria Exemplary Approaches Implemented in Three Cities Were Chosen The Organizations Implementing These Approaches Are Affiliated With One or More of the National Organizations Participating in the Study Bristol, Connecticut --Problems Affecting Youth Have Worsened --Public Agencies and Local Coalitions Assessed Needs --Implementing a Collaborative Approach Required Building Community Support --The Bristol Family Center for Boys and Girls Is a Comprehensive, Facility-Based Youth Development Program --The Bristol Family Center Young Parent Program Helps Pregnant and Postpartum Teens --The Bristol Juvenile Diversion Program Is a Collaborative Effort With Other Agencies --Police Are Involved With the Family Center in Other Ways as Well --Community Support and Volunteer Time Are Essential to the Success of the Family Center Arlington, Texas --Crime Is a Concern in Arlington --Organizations and Coalitions Pave the Way for a Comprehensive Response to Youth Risks --The Teen Center Provides Safe Activities 7 Days a Week --Observance of Rules Is Emphasized --Staff Are Conscious of the Teens' Home and Neighborhood Environments --Staff Provide Opportunities for Teen Decisionmaking and Responsibility --Boys and Girls Clubs of Arlington Provides a Spectrum of Youth Development Programs --The Main Branch in Central Arlington Is Typical of Many Boys and Girls Clubs Facilities Around the Country --Teens Praise the SmartMoves Program --School-Based Child Care in Elementary Schools Keeps Younger Students Safe After Classes Are Over --The Arlington Police Department Is Strongly Involved in Afterschool Programs --The School Resource Officer Program Plays a Key Role in the Arlington Crime Prevention Action Plan --Patrol Officers Also Provide Ongoing Formal Support for Safe Afterschool Activities --The Approach in Arlington Receives Wide Community Support Spokane, Washington --Youth Issues Are Identified by a Citywide Youth Commission --The West Central Community Center's Outreach and Programs Seek to Break the Cycle of Poverty --4-H Clubs Are Involved --Girl Scouts Are Involved --The Washington State University Family Focus Program Teaches Family Life Skills --The COPS West Ministation Binds Neighborhood Adults and Youth to Police to Reduce Crime --Nevawood COPS Youth Volunteers Are Trained by Police to Help Prevent Crime --The Spokane Police Department Spearheads Police-Community Collaboration --Police Create a Special Boy Scout Explorer Post --Successful Efforts in Spokane Benefit From the City's History of Forming Coalitions to Address Shared Problems --Spokane Benefits From a Spectrum of Youth-Serving Organizations That Provide a Range of Programs for Meeting the Comprehensive Needs of Many Children in the City Endnotes Chapter 4: Exemplary Partnerships Between Police and Youth Organizations Police Activities at the Three Exemplary Sites Took Many Forms Coalitions Among Police, Local Officials, Community Leaders, and Youth Organizations Develop Strategies What You Can Do to Provide Safe, Constructive Activities for At-Risk Youth Endnotes Appendix: Information Resources ------------------------------- Foreword As the President noted in his most recent State of the Union address, most juvenile crime is committed between the hours of 3 in the afternoon and 8 at night. Especially in the inner cities, but now in many other areas as well, when children and adolescents are on the street and not in school or at home, they face many risks-- involvement in drugs, gangs, crime, as well as victimization. National youth organizations--such as the Boy Scouts, Girls Incorporated, and 4-H Clubs--have for generations enabled young people to engage in wholesome, enjoyable activities after school, with their peers, in safe places, and under the supervision of experienced adults. They have also helped teenagers develop teamwork and leadership skills while participating in sports, games, crafts, and community service activities. The experience of these organizations is invaluable in preventing delinquency and victimization among our most disadvantaged and at-risk youth. Meanwhile, the Crime Act of 1994 is putting thousands of police officers into our cities and towns, into community-oriented policing where they can become involved in crime prevention programs in the neighborhoods they serve and participate in neighborhood activities. In many places, officers are getting involved in youth programs, volunteering their time and skills and becoming known to the young participants as friendly, caring adults. The National Institute of Justice, in cooperation with the Carnegie Corporation of New York, sponsored a study of several national youth organizations that are focusing their efforts on at-risk youth. The study looked particularly at the ways police and local affiliates of these organizations were working together at the neighborhood level. What the study found, as documented on these pages, holds promise for strengthening relationships among youth, police, and the communities they live in. This bodes well not only for the protection of young people but for their future development as responsible citizens. Jeremy Travis National Institute of Justice ------------------------------- Acknowledgments Many major contributions to our project and report were made by professionals and volunteers concerned about the need for safer and more productive places for children and teens in the nonschool hours. They include funders, researchers, police, professionals in the field of youth development, city leaders, and a host of service providers. They unstintingly shared their support, data, advice, methodological skills, insights, and time in the hope that the results of this study could help point to better ways for raising school-age children growing up in our cities. I would like to thank them for their cooperation and express my appreciation for their high level of commitment to our Nation's youth. In particular, I would like to thank the following people for their help. Their affiliations and titles are identified as of 1996. Project Sponsors The Carnegie Corporation of New York: David A. Hamburg, President, and our Program Officer, Gloria Primm Brown. The National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice: Jeremy Travis, Director, and our Program Manager, Dr. Richard Titus. Collaborating National Youth Organization Directors and Their Associates Boys and Girls Clubs of America: Roxanne Spillett, formerly Northeast Regional Director; James Cox, Director of Urban Services; Frank Sanchez, Jr., Youth Gang Prevention Specialist. Also Desi Day, Executive Director, Alexandria/Olympic Boys and Girls Club. Boy Scouts of America: Stephen Medlicott, Associate Director of External Communications. Girls Incorporated: Dr. Heather Johnston Nicholson, Director, National Resource Center; Faedra Lazar Weiss, Research Associate. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A.: Dr. Sylvia Barsion and Michael Conn, Directors of Research and Evaluation. National Association of Police Athletic Leagues: Joseph Johnson, (formerly) Executive Director; also, Detective Raleigh Harsley, PAL, Crime Prevention Unit, Alexandria (Virginia) Police Department. National 4-H Council: Richard Sauer, President and Chief Executive Officer; and USDA 4-H and Youth Development Service, Jon Irby, Director. YMCA of the USA: Lowell Overby, Associate Director, Community Resources; Myrtis Meyer, Director of Research and Planning, and Venetta Greer, Research Assistant. Staff at the national office of Boy Scouts of America, Executive Directors of Girl Scout Councils, and County Extension Agents around the country delivered our questionnaires to volunteer leaders selected to participate in our survey. Project Advisers Professor Delbert Elliott (University of Colorado), Dr. Dennis Kenney (Police Executive Research Forum), Professor Wesley Skogan (Northwestern University), and Dr. Joan Wynn (The Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago). Office of Justice Programs Advisers for the LINC Survey Virginia Baldau, National Institute of Justice; Michael Rand, Bureau of Justice Statistics; James (Buddy) Howell, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Arlington, Texas Arlington Youth Services: William Daley, President, Board of Directors; Penny Roswell, Pat Sutton, and Toni Greenwell, Board of Directors; Christine Nusser, formerly Executive Director; Susan Herman, current Executive Director; Gary Givens, Director of Children's Services; Robin Hogan, Director of Adolescent Services; Archie Marshall, Sports Director, and Paul Knudsen, Photography Instructor. Arlington Police Department: David Kunkle, Chief of Police; Deputy Chief Bowman; Sgt. Jeff Stapleton; Sgt. James "JW" Lowery, Jr.; Crime Prevention Officer Janet Thelan; and Rick Smith, Director of Support Services. Boys and Girls Clubs of Arlington: Don Kromer, Executive Director; Veronica Carter, Director of Prevention Programs; Lucinda Lynn, Raising Our Cities' Children, Roquemore Branch Director; Jean Goodwin-Grisham, Southeast Branch Education Director; Carmen Zelya, staff member at the T.U.R.F. Teen Center Branch; and most especially Ken Rose, Director of Operations. YMCA of Arlington: Laszlo G. Szabo, Senior Program Director; Tim McBride, Childcare Coordinator; and the other YMCA Coordinators and Afterschool Site Directors. City of Arlington: Judy M. Rupay, Council Member. Bristol, Connecticut The Family Center for Girls and Boys: Carolyn Thompson, Executive Director; Kathy Theriault, Associate Director; Linda Rich, Director of Social Services; Michelle Wingfield, Program Director; Dawn Scriven, Program Director; Lisa Hanggi, Program Director; and Kerry Walsh, Dance Program Director. Bristol Police Department: Detective James A. Zalot, Criminal Investigation Division; Youth Officer Tim Ustanowski. Department of Education: Dr. Ann Serratore, Assistant Superintendent of Schools; Daniel Viens, Supervisor of Instruction; Michael Georgen, Supervisor of Special Instruction; Joann Galati, Assistant Principal at the Chippens Hill Middle School; V. Everett Lyons, Principal, Bristol Eastern High School; F. Fred Soliani, Coordinator, School/Business Partnership Program (Board of Education/Chamber of Commerce). City of Bristol Youth Services Bureau: Eileen McNulty, Director; Sharon Schall, Project Coordinator; Deborah LaBella, Project Coordinator. Bristol Hospital Department of Social Services: Carlyn Glaser, Program Manager. Comm-Part/Substance Abuse Action Council: Judy Cowan, Community Development Coordinator; Marsha Tinella, Executive Assistant. Spokane, Washington Spokane Police Department: Terence J. Mangan, Chief of Police; Cheryl Steele, Project Coordinator for Spokane COPS; Officer Tim Conley, Neighborhood Resource Officer in West Central Spokane. Special thanks to David D. Ingle, Administrative Services Director, who arranged for me to meet with Melissa M. Sullivan, Consultant; Sandy Richards, Crime Prevention Practitioner; Officer Robert D. Walker, Volunteer Services Coordinator; and Officer Larry Lyndskog, Officer Mark Sterk, and Sgt. Tony Gianetto, designers/directors of the "Every 15 Minutes" Program. Nevawood COPS: Deborah Wittwer, Chairman/Youth Director and Girl Scout Troop Leader. Inland Empire Girl Scout Council: Judith Edmund, Executive Director; Nancy Bolt, Troop Leader in the West Central Community Center. West Central Community Development Association: Donald S. Higgins, Executive Director; Don McClosky, Coordinator, West Central Community Mediation Program; Rick Harris, Recreation Programs Manager, West Central Community Center. Spokane County Cooperative Extension: Dr. Jon Newkirk, Chair; 4-H Program team members Carolyn Harrelson, Marlene O'Dea, and Linda Ray; and Family Resource Assistants Brenda Cook, Velma Riddle, Linda Coustich, and Linette Frye; and a personal thank you to a very special person, Marilyn Trail, Community Resource Coordinator. Marilyn personifies commitment to our Nation's children and families. Other appreciated contributors in Spokane include, at the Downtown Spokane YMCA, Mary Harneteaux, Branch Director; Debbie Wagner, Founder, WINNERS: Making Neighborhood Safe Homes a Reality for Kids; Marilee Roloff, Project Director, Breakthrough for Families (Volunteers of America); Valerie Smith, Director of the Foster Care Services of Lutheran Social Services of Washington and Idaho; Michael J. Erp, Executive Director, Washington State Institute for Community Oriented Policing; Joanne M. Benham, Director, Chase Youth Commission; Steven A. Magallan, Project Director, City of Spokane Youth Gang Drug Prevention; Barbara Ritter, YWCA of Spokane; Deborah Ivester, Recreation Supervisor 1, Spokane Parks and Recreation Department; and Community Volunteer Leader Mel Carter. Several colleagues at the Institute for Law and Justice played a major role in carrying out the survey sample selection, designing and preparing the questionnaire, and conducting preliminary data analysis; they are Dr. J. Thomas (Tom) McEwen, Jenny Fu, and Joan Peterschmidt. Before joining the U.S. Department of Justice as Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dr. Jan Chaiken designed the methods for selecting the survey sample and constructed the sampling frame using data provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Throughout the duration of this project, my colleague, Dr. Shama Chaiken, acted as a sounding board and provided cogent advice. Monique Smith of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service provided invaluable editorial support. Dr. Christy Visher, Science Advisor to the Director of the National Institute of Justice, offered significant technical advice during the preparation of this report. I thank the anonymous program leaders who devoted time and thought to completing our survey. And finally I send my personal gratitude to the many children and teens (especially Harmony), who welcomed me to observe their activities and who provided major insights about secure and productive places in the nonschool hours. You have made clear that we can count on you to create a safer world. Marcia R. Chaiken ------------------------------- Executive Summary This report is designed to help law enforcement administrators and officers understand and institute a strategy to help prevent violence-- community-oriented policing services carried out in collaboration with youth-serving organizations. Popular police prevention approaches such as D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education and Training), and the McGruff "Take a Bite out of Crime" campaigns have helped prepare police officers to work hand in hand in a variety of ways with local affiliates of national youth-serving organizations. In a growing number of cities, police are working with youth groups and finding that violence involving youth is rapidly decreasing. Some of these approaches are detailed. Descriptions are based on a LINC study jointly sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The research involved a survey of 579 affiliates of 7 national youth-serving organizations: Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Boy Scouts of America, Girls Incorporated, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., National Association of Police Athletic Leagues, National 4-H Council and USDA 4-H and Youth Development Service, and YMCA of the USA.* The research also incorporated onsite studies in three cities whose approaches were selected by a panel of experts from among those nominated as exemplary by survey respondents. The experts selected types of approaches most likely to lessen the risk of kids becoming involved in crime, promote wholesome development, and provide increased protection from delinquency and victimization. The need for effective approaches that will prevent crimes by and against youth is pressing, as our youth continue to be at increasing risk for victimization and serious delinquency, with several factors playing important roles: o Age. Early adolescence is the time of life when people experience the most dramatic increase in violence--both as offenders and as victims. The rate of violent incidents involving strangers increases, but the main rise is due to incidents with acquaintances. o Gender. Until early adolescence, boys and girls are equally in danger from violence, but thereafter boys are at most risk of homicide and girls, sexual assault. In early adolescence, from ages 10 to 14, serious violent acts are committed almost as frequently by girls as by boys, but in later adolescence girls are far less likely to be violent. o Families. Youth who grow up in violent homes are more likely than other youth to become delinquent. But so are even greater numbers of youth who are neglected and lack supervision. o Schools. Children's attachment to school is a powerful predictor of whether or not they will be seriously delinquent. However, even adolescents who do well in school spend most of their waking hours outside school. o Neighborhoods. At greatest risk for violence and victimization are children and adolescents who live in high-crime neighborhoods where deadly weapons are common and readily available. Children who are frequently exposed to violence at home or school, or-- perhaps most important--to unchecked violence among neighborhood children their own age, are most likely to become persistently delinquent and increasingly violent. Kids are most vulnerable to crime during the nonschool hours when they are least likely to be supervised by teachers or working parents. Violent crimes by juveniles are most likely to be committed between 2:30 in the afternoon and 8:30 at night. Gang-related crimes, too, are more likely to take place in these hours than at any other time of day or night. The Most Popular Approaches for Dealing With Juvenile Violence Haven't Worked Despite attempts to "deinstitutionalize" children, locking them up in State and local facilities is still a prime approach. Although these kids temporarily have the supervision they definitely need, once released, nothing else has changed. Other currently popular approaches such as boot camps also just provide temporary supervision. And although curfews theoretically extend the hours of family oversight, the periods when kids are most likely to get into trouble are not covered. Many programs available after school--the prime time for youth violence-- are either ineffective or counterproductive. Simply providing a supervised place doesn't work (adolescents most at risk for delinquency won't go or may take over the place if they do). Sports, gang-prevention approaches that make members more cohesive, and approaches that simply provide information about the risks or wickedness of delinquency can backfire and make kids more delinquent. Approaches that researchers have found to be most promising for preventing violence and delinquency are relatively long-term, continuous, comprehensive approaches that involve adults as tutors and mentors who teach children and teens cognitive and social skills and provide them an opportunity to cooperatively practice these competency skills. These approaches are virtually synonymous with the approaches implemented by national youth-serving organizations. Effective Prevention Approaches Are Integral to National Youth Organizations Typically, the approaches taken by national youth organizations attempt to ameliorate more than a single factor associated with delinquency. They provide a range of activities appropriate for children of specific ages and different developmental stages, and they continue over the long term. In today's world, where many single parents have low incomes and less time to spend with their children and where many schools are literally and figuratively falling apart, youth-serving organizations can most readily provide the necessary resources children and teens fail to find elsewhere. This is especially important in neighborhoods where all essential resources for children and teens are scarce and crime rates are high. Youth-serving organizations know that for this at-risk population they need to duplicate the elements that have for generations appealed to their adolescent participants: o An environment in which kids are valued and adolescents are considered resources rather than problems for their community. o Activities that present teens with real challenges and experiences in planning, preparing for, and publicly presenting projects they and their communities truly value. o Ongoing outreach to teens and adults in the community, with messages that are understandable. Findings of the LINC survey indicate that affiliates of national youth-serving organizations are: o Reaching millions of kids. The Girl Scouts alone have 2.5 million members nationwide. When all youth-serving organizations are included, the total is far larger. o Reaching kids in economically depressed urban areas. Compared to organizations in prosperous neighborhoods, each affiliate in a rundown city neighborhood is serving an average of three times as many participants. o Reaching kids already involved in crime as victims or offenders. Girls Incorporated and Boys and Girls Clubs are furnishing constructive activities for youth in public housing areas where kids formerly wreaked havoc on the property and on each other. Boy Scout Explorer Post leaders are recruiting adolescents in violence-torn neighborhoods and teaching them to work as law enforcement paraprofessionals. Girl Scout Councils are reaching girls in extreme need of adult support, including daughters of women in prison. And 4-H is serving runaway teens, some supporting themselves through prostitution. o Experiencing crimes. Among organizations included in the LINC study, more than half reported that an offense occurred at or immediately outside the primary program site during the program year beginning in the fall of 1993. Most of these offenses were committed by kids, primarily nonparticipants in the organizations. o Losing valuable organizational resources to crime. Three out of four of the organizations reporting at least one violent incident or property crime in the 1993-1994 program year indicated that they suffered economic consequences, or burdens on staff who had to deal with incidents involving offenses committed by and against their participants, or constraints on program operations and activities. o Suffering defeat. Most preventive steps organizations experiencing crime have taken, such as putting locks on doors to prevent unauthorized access to program areas, haven't worked (with the exception of requiring a responsible adult to accompany participants when they leave the program site). The study found that some organizations experienced much lower rates of crime than one would have expected given their location in rundown neighborhoods in cities with high crime rates. These are organizations that reported more police responsiveness to their needs than other youth-serving organizations. And, as the survey results also indicated, the primary needs of these organizations for police cooperation center on steps to prevent crime rather than to deal with crimes already committed. Partnerships Between Police and Youth Organizations The LINC study found that partnerships between police and youth-serving organizations take many forms, from officers providing occasional talks to youth to officers leading groups on an ongoing basis. They also involve police at all ranks--from the chief to the newest police officers. At the highest level chiefs and top administrators show their support for strong police involvement in crime prevention activities among high-risk youth through their participation in youth organization advisory boards. They provide an example and incentives for their staff members to become voluntary adult leaders. They also emphasize that support of youth organizations is part of community policing. At the request of the youth-serving organizations, police officers are providing age-appropriate interactive programs that help children and teens realize what to do when faced with common dangerous situations-- emergencies when they are home alone, threats and pressures from gang members, "date" rape attempts, or reoccurring violence among family members. Police at all ranks are volunteering to become Boy Scout and Girl Scout leaders for kids in high-crime neighborhoods where troops have been difficult to organize. Police devote many hours helping to select and monitor juveniles assigned to youth-serving organizations as part of juvenile diversion programs. The LINC survey and case studies amply show that in many communities, police officers routinely drop in to youth centers or participate more formally in youth center activities. They provide a strong presence that allays community fears about having so many "at-risk" teenagers congregating in the area. Among the most innovative and fruitful relationships between police and young people have been officers' participation in programs that allow youth organization participants to do "real" policing, as in one LINC study site, where boys and girls remind residents to lock their doors, adolescents conduct overnight surveillance in parks and alleys, and youth carry out other crime prevention projects under police supervision. Case Studies of Exemplary Approaches As part of the survey, respondents were asked to nominate exemplary prevention approaches carried out by their organizations or other organizations in their areas. More than 100 approaches were recommended for further study, with advisers to the study unanimously agreeing that case studies to be included in this report should focus on organizations providing (1) collaborative or relatively comprehensive or extensive community programs and approaches or (2) center-based programs with nontraditional staff, hours, or participants in cities or neighborhoods with relatively high rates of crime. All advisers independently used active recruitment of youth at high risk for violence or delinquency as a criterion for selecting the programs they nominated. One approach selected for study is being implemented in Bristol, Connecticut; one in Arlington, Texas; and two in Spokane, Washington. The organizations implementing these approaches are affiliated with one or more of the national organizations participating in the study. In addition to their innovative approaches, the selected organizations are implementing traditional youth development practices that may be just as or more beneficial in preventing delinquency than approaches designed solely to prevent youth violence. They are all a vital part of a network of organizations that together are creating safer and more productive environments for children and teens in the nonschool hours. The innovative approaches can best be understood in the context of the cities in which they are occurring, the needs of youth systematically identified by collaborative efforts, the particular needs the organization was striving to meet, the ongoing collaboration of other youth development organizations to meet these needs, and the collaboration with other private and public agencies--in particular, the police. Bristol, Connecticut Many of Bristol's families of French, Polish, Italian, and Irish descent have lived there for generations, but today Bristol's population of 60,000 has become even more ethnically diverse, and goods-producing industries have been outnumbered by service industries; the relatively homogeneous working-class environment has changed. Upscale, middle-class homes are going up in the outlying areas, and the central city is now marked by areas of poverty. Problems affecting youth have worsened in the past decade. The schools are finding that while rates of teen pregnancy have remained the same for a period of years, younger girls--down to middle-school age--are now having babies. Police and other agencies find that children are committing crimes at younger ages. Information gathered from schools and State and local agencies, including the Bristol Police Department, led local leaders to the conclusion that community-based services for youth, including afterschool programs, were essential and that a multifaceted collaborative approach would be most effective in bringing these about. The Bristol Family Center for Boys and Girls The Family Center is an affiliate of Girls Incorporated. Located on a downtown street in a mixed commercial and residential neighborhood, it attracts children from all over the city to its two-story brick building constructed more than 60 years ago as one of the first Girls Clubs, together with newer additions built in the 1960s, including a large gymnasium, pool, and locker room. The Family Center is open for activities on weekdays from 6:30 a.m., when preschoolers are dropped off for child care, until 9 p.m. when teens finish swimming, gymnastics, dance classes, or other activities. Two particular programs carried out by the Bristol Family Center are types of youth development programs that have been found by past research to have long-term success in reducing children's involvement in crime and delinquency. The first, the Bristol Family Center Young Parent Program, helps pregnant and postpartum teens by giving them the option of continuing their education at the center, with trained Family Center staff providing case management and individual counseling. The Family Center also offers these teen mothers and the fathers of their children adult mentoring and peer counseling. The Family Center's positive support for teen parents is matched by a second program to intervene in the lives of youth at risk of following a delinquent path. The Bristol Police Department and the Youth Service Bureau are the lead agencies in the coalition implementing the juvenile offender diversion program in which the Family Center collaborates. For first-time adolescent offenders involved in minor crimes, a common alternative is restitution through community service; in these cases the Family Center representative has the option of volunteering to place the adolescent as an aide in one of the Family Center programs. These adolescents commonly form a strong bond with staff and stay on as regular participants after their mandated service is completed. The Bristol Police Department In addition to their ongoing Juvenile Review Board actions, officers in the police department work directly with children in occasional projects jointly sponsored by youth organizations and the police departments in neighborhoods where children appear to be especially at risk. Bristol officers also provide special training for youth organization participants on such topics as gang awareness and dealing with babysitting emergencies. Patrol officers regularly drop by youth centers as part of the Bristol Police Department's "Walk-and-Talk" community policing approach. Arlington, Texas With a population of more than 270,000, Arlington has a wide range of economic levels within its boundaries. Many of Arlington's new families have school age children and two parents working to maintain affluent lifestyles, while new arrivals have also included families living in poverty. Both long-term residents and recent arrivals are concerned by the city's precipitous growth, its changing nature, and the consequent strain on services. Crime is also a concern. In 1993, for instance, Tarrant County, which contains all of Arlington and part of Fort Worth, had one of the highest crime rates in Northeast Texas. To meet these challenges, an extensive spectrum of public and private agencies have collaborated in providing more services for at-risk youth and for children without supervision and developing a specific plan of action having three primary components: o Actively recruiting high-risk children and teens to participate in existing centers, including Boys and Girls Clubs Centers and the Arlington Youth Services Multipurpose Center--renamed the Teen Center by the participants who were recruited. o Creating new centers in unsupervised areas where children and teens were already congregating in the nonschool hours. Boys and Girls Clubs of Arlington has taken the lead in this effort. o Providing licensed childcare in the afterschool hours in all elementary schools and contracting with the three major youth-serving organizations in Arlington to administer the childcare and furnish age-appropriate youth development activities. The Teen Center Active recruitment by two outreach workers has resulted in the participation of many teens identified by the police and schools as "at-risk." The vast majority are minority group members, predominantly African-Americans, Hispanics, and people of mixed race. The program is characterized by: o Emphasis on observing rules. All who come to the Teen Center agree to take care of it, obey all laws, respect the neighborhood, and treat each other and staff with respect. o Mediation of peer differences. Part of teens' preference for playing basketball in the Teen Center is not because of the basketball court but because adults keep the place safe. They play basketball on the street, but since there is no staff member on the street to referee when issues of respect arise, they fight. o Opportunities for teens to make decisions. Both informally and more formally--through 3-month positions as Teen Center "youth worker" employees and through work in the neighborhood--youth are encouraged to make decisions and take responsibility. Boys and Girls Clubs of Arlington In addition to afterschool childcare programs in elementary schools, Boys and Girls Clubs of Arlington provides programs at six locations in different parts of the city, where game rooms and quiet areas provide children and teens with safe recreation. They receive help with school assignments and engage in skill-building activities that are fun to do. Arlington Police Department The Arlington Police Department carries out key and highly visible efforts to create safer places for school-age children, including more than 25 relatively short, age-appropriate youth education programs covering a range of issues, as well as more sustained youth approaches such as the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program. As part of their duties, the police department's "school resource officers" play a key role in Arlington's Crime Prevention Action Plan. They maintain contacts with and actively refer children to other community agencies providing services for children, including the Scouting organizations, Camp Fire, Boys and Girls Clubs, the YMCA, and Big Brothers and Sisters. School resource officers are also encouraged to become Boy Scout Explorer Post leaders. Patrol officers, too, provide ongoing formal support for safe afterschool activities, such as carrying out background checks of the youth organizations' staff before they are hired. As part of their regular patrol, officers stop in at youth centers when programs are in progress and stay at least a few minutes to talk to the young participants. At the Teen Center, they remain to watch and cheer basketball games. They also assiduously patrol the surrounding neighborhood when large groups of youth arrive and leave and when the adult staff get wind of incipient violence. Spokane, Washington Spokane's population of more than 180,000 includes many new residents with few skills for surviving in an urban area. Some are members of minority groups that have been disproportionally affected by poverty, including Native Americans and African-Americans, and others are recent immigrants from Southeast Asia and East India. A "report card" on Spokane area youth sponsored by the Youth Commission and area businesses found that the city's deficits included high rates of teenage drug use, unemployment, illiteracy, and teen pregnancy. In January 1992, based on results of five monthly public neighborhood meetings convened after several extremely serious incidents of violent victimization of children, an ad hoc Security Task Force composed of residents and representatives from schools and city agencies identified the categories of issues that needed to be addressed to prevent future crimes involving children: police-community relations, neighborhood security improvements, security education, and block networking and organizing. A comprehensive, multifaceted program is now working on these problems and issues in two neighborhoods, West Central and Nevada-Lidgerwood. West Central Community Center Spokane's West Central neighborhood is a multiethnic community that has experienced some of Spokane's worst problems associated with poverty, including crime. In the first 10 years of the West Central Community Development Association's existence, the staff concentrated on developing the West Central Community Center as a facility for implementing interventions to break the cycle of poverty in which many neighborhood families were enmeshed. WIC (Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children), Head Start, classes to teach parenting skills, and other community education programs and classes were made available in the center, as were some youth development activities. However, according to the center's original and current executive director, until rigorous outreach was conducted in the surrounding neighborhood-- in large part through the efforts of COPS West and Family Focus--the programs had minimal participation among those most in need of them. Today the West Central Community Center is a beehive of activity. During school hours, the center is a home away from home for developmentally delayed adults who are cared for by trained providers until their primary caretakers return from their jobs. It also provides a safe and productive environment for children and teens in the hours before and after school. 4-H activities take place in the center in the early morning, and then participants are taken to school in vans. The Girl Scout Council has a professional staff member who is organizing and leading troop activities in the center and introducing parents and neighborhood families to the benefits of Girl Scouting. The Washington State University Family Focus Program The Family Focus Program outreach component in West Central Spokane teaches family and life skills to parents who lack basic methods for managing their personal lives or their homes. Family Focus is administered by the Spokane County Cooperative Extension of Washington State University (WSU). The Spokane Police Department The exemplary COPS initiatives involving Spokane youth are natural products of a departmental approach that involves officers in community collaborations for: o Identifying problems. o Analyzing the specific facets of problems that have been identified (who is involved, when, how, and why). o Taking logical steps and community action to resolve problems. o Evaluating the outcomes that have been achieved. Key to Spokane's community policing approach is the chief's strong encouragement of officer approaches that go well beyond those used for traditional law enforcement and crime prevention, particularly for addressing problems involving Spokane's children and teens. As a result of the motivation provided by the chief and supervising officers, individual officers in Spokane have developed a range of approaches for creating safer and more creative environments for children and teens in the nonschool hours. These include COPS West, the Nevawood COPS Youth Volunteers, and a Boy Scout Explorer preparatory leadership program. COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) West is a ministation staffed by community volunteers (many of whom are Family Focus participants or graduates) a neighborhood resource officer assigned by the Spokane Police Department, and more recently representatives from a number of other public agencies, including the Office of the District Attorney and Adult and Juvenile Probation and Parole. Both traditional and innovative neighborhood policing techniques are used by COPS West. Teams of neighbors are trained in dispute resolution and respond to calls involving conflicts between community children and teens or other residents, if the police department's neighborhood resource officer is confident that the confrontation can be handled without violent responses. Adults patrol the streets before and after school to ensure that children are safe and that older teens are not harassing each other or younger children. Together with WSU Family Focus staff and the West Central Community Development Association, COPS West has taken the lead in organizing events enjoyed by the whole neighborhood, such as the now annual Neighbor Days when a parade highlights the start of an entire day of celebration. Integral to the community events are the neighborhood children and teens, through their participation in youth groups formed at the Community Center. COPS West and WSU Family Focus have achieved documented success in creating a safer community. According to the police department, the effort resulted in a 40-percent decrease in crime in the West Central Neighborhood between 1991 and 1994. Nevawood COPS Youth Volunteers is a core subgroup of one of Spokane's neighborhood COPS initiatives. Both girls and boys, most in their midteens, participate. The girls who belong to Nevawood COPS Youth Volunteers are officially a part of Girl Scout Troop 437. The Girl Scouts were anxious to take on projects in the community to correct neighborhood conditions that had become visible problems. Realizing the changes that the West Central Community had achieved through their COPS effort, one of the Senior Girl Scouts decided to organize a similar effort in the Nevada-Lidgerwood area. One of the first projects was to reclaim their neighborhood park. They documented and reported graffiti, trash, broken lights, and other unsanitary and unsafe conditions. They put on summer campouts in the park for neighborhood children, and the Spokane police and a special group of adult neighborhood COPS volunteers provided extra patrol. The Boy Scout Explorer Post was started in 1987 as part of the police chief's plan to create a volunteer program in which officers carry out youth development and community development activities with the active cooperation of neighborhood volunteers. The chief realized that, when provided with productive opportunities, older teens can be a powerful community asset rather than a problem. He delegated the creation of an Explorer Post to a police officer who had prior professional experience in working with older teens and had been recognized for his previous volunteer contributions to the community. The intent of the post was to involve adolescents who had little or no previous opportunity for community leadership--not by waiving the qualifications for Explorer Scouts--but by stimulating younger teens to meet the requirements for joining the post. A cornerstone of this approach is the L.E.A.D. (Leadership, Education, and Development) program for boys and girls in the seventh and eighth grades. It is under the supervision of the officer who directs the Explorer Post. L.E.A.D. students participate in an intensive program of training similar to that of Explorer Scouts but more appropriate for their stage of development. Successful efforts in Spokane benefit from the city's history of forming coalitions to address shared problems, among them a citywide youth commission, coalitions of public agencies and private organizations, neighborhood-based teams of youth-serving organizations, public agencies concerned with youth, and neighborhood volunteers. This strong community support, together with a spectrum of youth-serving organizations and the innovative participation of the Spokane Police Department, have resulted in a range of programs for meeting the comprehensive needs of many children in the city. What You Can Do to Provide Safe, Constructive Activities for At-Risk Youth In their essentials, measures taken in Arlington, Bristol, and Spokane are similar. Leaders in each city gathered information needed to assess the status of their youth. They faced hard problems head on and came up with action plans to address multiple factors that were endangering kids' lives. Rather than reinventing ways for preventing violence and promoting wholesome development, they figured out who in the community already had approaches most likely to be effective. This included the police, directors of nationally affiliated youth organizations, and other public youth-serving agencies--schools (administrators, counselors, and teachers), social services, health and treatment organizations, and juvenile justice practitioners including judges, district attorneys, and probation officers. Your city may already have carried out some of the steps described in this report. However, because violence involving youth has multiple causes, cities that carry out multiple concerted actions are more likely than others to bring youth problems under sustained control. The following steps carried out in the case study sites are offered as a checklist to consider actions your city might take. Police chiefs and other law enforcement executives can: o Get to know the directors of youth-serving agencies and be willing to sit on their advisory boards and on community coalitions addressing youth issues. o Encourage officers to volunteer at youth organizations in the community and publicly reward them for their efforts. o Incorporate joint activities between police and youth-serving organizations into the day-to-day operation of the department. Directors of youth organizations and agencies can: o Introduce themselves and their organizations to the police chief and welcome a police presence on and around their premises. o Invite police to put on prevention programs with the children and adolescents they serve and to participate in recreational activities for youth. o Participate in city task forces that deal with youth issues, in neighborhood coalitions to advocate for safe activities for youth, and in community antidrug, anticrime efforts. o Work with police and child protection agencies to identify and provide services to youth who may be perpetrators or victims of crime. o Work with police and community leaders in offering their centers as places where troubled teens can perform community service. o Advocate for youth among local officials and legislative bodies and teach young participants to be advocates. o Work with other youth-serving organizations in joint ventures on a continuing basis. o Get to know the educational and religious leaders in the community and find ways to have fruitful working relationships or to plan comprehensive solutions to common problems. Community coalitions and collaborations can: o Make sure they have a strong police, youth organization, and at-risk youth presence. o Talk to police and others to determine the scope of delinquency and the range of adolescent experiences that contribute to it. o Find out what services are currently available for at-risk kids. o Assess the needs of youth for wholesome skill-building activities that they will enjoy after school. o Find or advocate for places that can house afterschool programs where they are the most needed, operated by organizations that have demonstrated experience in providing them. Local officials and other community leaders can: o Find out from the organizations that work with kids what kids' greatest needs are. o Find ways public agencies (such as youth-serving and public housing agencies) can collaborate to keep youth off the streets and in safe activities. o Help launch or participate in coalitions dedicated to this goal. o Wherever possible, promote a comprehensive approach to delinquency prevention that involves both police and youth-serving organizations and demonstrated experience in serving teens. The full report provides more complete descriptions of these steps as taken by the organization leaders in the three case study cities. Their actions represent an arduous undertaking, and they willingly shared their experiences so that this report could be written. They are also prepared to provide advice and support to you. Their names and information for contacting them are furnished in the appendix. They will be glad to hear of your commitment to provide safe, productive places for our Nation's youth. *Information on survey methodology and findings is in the full report from this study, Raising Our Cities' Children: Safe Productive Places in the After-School Hours, available as NCJ 170608 from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 800-851-3420. Citations for statistics and studies referenced in this Executive Summary appear in the more detailed chapters that follow. ------------------------------- Chapter 1 Introduction Alarmed by a precipitous increase in the rate of violent crimes involving children and teens over the past decade,[1] police, schools, youth-serving organizations, and other community groups are trying a variety of tactics to stem this dangerous trend. Not all efforts are effective, and no single approach has unqualified success. But a growing body of research suggests that some efforts by police in partnership with other community agencies are instrumental in creating safer places for youth. While researchers are trying to sort out particular causes and effects, all agree that the upwardly spiraling rates of violence involving children and teens has been checked and in many places has started to decline. Yet the problem is far from solved. Adolescents are three times more likely to be victims of violence than adults.[2] Murders of juveniles were still 66 percent higher in 1995 than in 1985.[3] And communities are still searching for better ways to prevent violence and promote the sound development of our kids. This research-based report has been written to help law enforcement administrators and officers realize and institute a strategy that has been found to help prevent violence--community-oriented policing services carried out in collaboration with youth-serving organizations. In a growing number of cities, police are coming to realize that youth organizations are not just for little kids and not just for youth who are by nature good kids. With the help of police, in addition to serving the little Brownie Girl Scout selling cookies door to door, the Girl Scout program is providing opportunities for former gang members to improve skills for finding and keeping jobs. In addition to teaching animal care to elementary school students, 4-H staff are also conducting outreach to runaway teens whose main source of income is prostitution. While still providing afterschool activities in downtown centers, Boys and Girls Clubs, Girls Incorporated, and the YMCA corporations and branches are creating satellites in public housing and other urban areas where kids have been exposed to day-to-day violence. Popular police prevention approaches such as D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education and Training) and the McGruff "Take a Bite Out of Crime" campaign have helped pave the way for police to work hand in hand in a variety of ways with local chapters of national youth organizations. Community-oriented policing has created a new opportunity for partnerships with youth organizations who know how to help kids stay out of trouble and give them the boost they need to be successful. Together these partners are creating safer environments for children and teens--many of whom are at high risk for delinquency and violence. In the following sections, a variety of cooperative activities are described. Descriptions are based on approaches recently studied as part of research jointly sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The research involved a LINC survey of 579 affiliates of 7 national youth-serving organizations: Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Boy Scouts of America, Girls Incorporated, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., National Association of Police Athletic Leagues, National 4-H Council and USDA 4-H and Youth Development Service, and YMCA of the USA. As designed, about half the affiliates were located in big cities with high crime rates. The research also incorporated case studies that included onsite observations of approaches in three cities: Bristol, Connecticut; Arlington, Texas; and Spokane, Washington. A panel of experts selected approaches used in these cities from among those nominated as exemplary by survey respondents. The selected approaches incorporate elements that research tells us prevent delinquency and support wholesome development. The Dimensions of Violence Involving Kids National statistics show how pressing is the need for effective approaches that will prevent crimes by violent youth. Juvenile arrests for murder and manslaughter increased 60 percent in the 1980s and another 45 percent from 1990 to 1993.[4] In 1991, juveniles were responsible for about one out of five violent crimes including rape, robbery, and assault.[5] Although the rates of juvenile violence began to decline in 1994 and 1995, juveniles were responsible for a greater proportion of violent crime.[6] The number of youth who are victims of violence has also increased. Between 1987 and 1992, the number of children aged 12 to 17 who were victims of violent crimes increased 23 percent,[7] and one out of eight children aged 12 to 15 were victims of violence in 1993.[8] In 1992, head injuries from firearms resulted in more deaths among teens and young adults than head injuries from automobile accidents and falls together.[9] Recently more teens have died from firearm injuries than all natural causes combined.[10] Public places have become extremely dangerous in communities where firearms are readily available and frequently fired. Front-page headlines of driveby shootings are graphic illustrations of the 72-percent increase from 1983 to 1992 in fatal traumatic brain injuries from firearms among young people aged 15-24.[11] In addition, hidden violent offenses against children are being committed in the nonschool hours but in less visible settings. About 50 percent of rape victims are girls in their teens or younger. In 1992, about 17,000 preteen girls were raped--an estimated 16 percent of all rape victims that year.[12] Countless children have been damaged by abuse and neglect outside the school setting; more than 140,000 children were seriously damaged in 1990 alone.[13] Although 1997 U.S. Department of Justice statistics[14] indicate that national efforts may have started to stem the violence affecting our youth, many children and teens realistically view the world as unsafe. They see violence as normal. Young girls who are sexually assaulted are advised by their friends to "get over it, it happens."[15] In a growing number of urban neighborhoods, boys expect to die young. Kids Are Most at Risk for Violence and Serious Delinquency Although children and teens around the country view their world as perilous, a growing body of research suggests that children are more or less vulnerable to violence and delinquency depending on their individual characteristics, their family situation, their adjustment to school, and their neighborhood and community. Age is one of the most important characteristics that determines whether or not a child will become a victim of violence or engage in serious delinquency. Children are most at risk of becoming victims of violence at two stages--during early infancy and during the adolescent years.[16] While babies are most likely to be victims of family members and others in their household, adolescents are exposed to increasing dangers from strangers and, more substantially, from acquaintances. In 1994, adolescents aged 12 to 17 were three times more likely than adults to be victims of violent crimes.[17] While a few children commit serious violent offenses in the early school-age years, the onset of violence usually does not occur until the onset of puberty.[18] In addition to the age of a child, gender plays an important part in determining vulnerability to violence. Until early adolescence, boys and girls are equally likely to become victims of the most serious form of violence--homicide. Thereafter boys are most at risk.[19] However, at the age when boys become increasingly at risk of violent deaths, girls become most vulnerable to rape and other sexual violence.[20] Earlier studies of delinquency suggested that overall, compared to boys, girls are less likely to commit crimes, and those who are delinquent are more likely to commit secretive offenses like theft rather than aggressive or violent crimes like purse snatching or robbery.[21] However, more recent studies have shown that in early adolescence, from ages 10 to 14, serious violent acts are committed almost as frequently by girls as by boys, and in some cities young teen girls commit more violent crimes than boys.[22] In the later teen years, girls are less likely than boys to act violently.[23] Family situations are also major determinants of whether a child will become a victim of violence or an offender. From birth to adolescence, the person most likely to assault a child is a member of his or her own family.[24] Although child abuse has been shown to be a significant cause of serious delinquency and results in an intergenerational cycle of violence, recent studies have demonstrated that severe parental neglect is just as likely to lead to serious delinquency as physical assault.[25] Even in the vast majority of homes where parents are not abusive or criminally neglectful, children are more likely to become seriously delinquent if their mothers, fathers, or caregivers lack good parenting skills or the ability to provide ongoing supervision. Schools too play a major role in increasing or decreasing the probability that a child will become seriously delinquent or a victim of violence. Several studies have shown that children's inability to achieve in school and their lack of attachment to school are powerful predictors of serious delinquency. Since some schools have 10 times more violence than others,[26] the particular school a child attends makes a significant difference in the child's exposure to violence. Children who are frequently exposed to violence at home, at school, and perhaps most important, unchecked violence among neighborhood children their own age are most likely to become persistently delinquent and increasingly violent.[27] Just as violence (particularly violence involving children and teens) differs from school to school, it varies from city to city and from neighborhood to neighborhood. Research on urban crime[28] has confirmed the anecdotal information gathered by experienced law enforcement officers about neighborhoods most likely to erupt in youth violence. The neighborhoods are for the most part economically impoverished, and their residents are likely to be members of minority groups or recent immigrants. An estimated 46 million people, 18 percent of the population, live in poverty. Close to 59 percent of these are working families with children who by definition cannot afford to purchase the basic necessities of life--food, clothing, and adequate shelter[29]--much less resources to privately provide supervised neighborhood activities for children. Moreover, studies in Chicago neighborhoods suggest that residents in high-crime areas do not have the social skills or social organization needed to demand, as a community, that children and teens (and adults) follow accepted norms of behavior in public.[30] Kids Are Most Vulnerable to Crime During the Nonschool Hours Growing numbers of teens and younger children are spending more and more hours out of school in places that are unsupervised and unsafe. Even children and teens who are rarely absent are in school for a limited amount of time because school days are short and schools are not in session during vacations, holidays, and weekends. Children aged 9 to 14 commonly spend about 60 percent of their waking time outside school.[31] Violent crimes by juveniles are typically committed in the afterschool hours between 2:30 in the afternoon and 8:30 at night.[32] When children reach puberty, as a normal and necessary part of their development they seek out group activities that challenge them to take risks. However, research suggests that adolescents who affiliate with a delinquent group enter a vicious cycle. They commit more delinquent acts and begin to believe that these acts are normal. As they seek out other adolescents with similar beliefs, the number of offenses they commit goes up.[33] While most adolescents seek to belong to a group, relatively few identify their group of friends as a gang. Most of those who say they belong to a gang generally associate with gang members for a limited number of years. However, teens who are in gangs commit more property and drug crimes than other children their age. Research in one city revealed that although they constituted less than one-third of adolescents, gang members committed more than two-thirds of violent crimes by juveniles.[34] Gang-related crimes too are more likely to take place in the afterschool hours than at any other time of day or night.[35] When asked about what they wanted during the nonschool hours, many children and teens wistfully mentioned places, spaces, and activities that others take for granted: " . . . safe parks and recreation centers . . . libraries with the latest books, videos, and records . . . chances to go camping and participate in sports . . . long talks with trusting and trustworthy adults who know a lot about the world . . . and opportunities to learn new skills."[36] Many of these requests have long been met by traditional youth-serving organizations. Coincidentally, very limited research on these types of approaches has serendipitously found that they reduce juvenile delinquency. However, since they were not designed to prevent delinquency, by and large their crime reduction value has not been understood. The Most Popular Approaches for Dealing With Juvenile Violence Haven't Worked When asked how they would curb violence involving youth, most people have two solutions: (1) get tough and lock up the troublemakers and (2) provide education and recreation. In a Yankelovich poll, 79 percent of adult Americans said that the best way to reduce teen violence was to provide tougher criminal penalties for juvenile offenders.[37] Currently the most appealing methods for dealing with troublesome children involve physical constraints. Despite attempts to "deinstitutionalize" children, in 1993 this country locked up more than 53,000 children in State facilities and many more in long-term local facilities.[38] We are incarcerating so many children that 62 percent of those living in long-term juvenile facilities in 1991 were housed in units operating above their designed capacity,[39] and in 1995 this increased to more than 70 percent.[40] Even so-called alternatives to incarceration actually depend on physically constraining adolescents. Congress has mandated greater use of boot camps to incarcerate young offenders and rapidly teach them self-discipline through military drills, even though these approaches appear to have little or no effect on delinquency unless combined with community-based approaches.[41] Recently, curfews for banning young people from city streets, without regard to where they will go and what they will do, are gaining popularity. Between 1990 and 1994, 33 cities had longstanding ordinances, and 26 major cities passed new laws restricting where minors can be after 11 p.m. (and some after 10 p.m).[42] Little at present is known about their effectiveness; however, expectations for reducing violence should not be high since far fewer violent crimes are committed by children and teens after 10 p.m. than in the hours immediately after school.[43] As violence involving children has escalated, the failure of current legal approaches for controlling this violence has become evident. In growing numbers, children are unsupervised, neglected, abused, and delinquent. They cannot simply be removed from their parents and assigned to other adults or institutions. Children who are repeatedly removed from their homes and made wards of the state have been found to have a high probability of being delinquent in later years.[44] The most persistent and violent predatory offenders who terrorize their neighborhoods are frequently "state-raised" children who were previously placed in juvenile institutions.[45] An equally simple but more compassionate popular response to stopping youth violence is to spend more funds on teaching youth to be less violent and on providing safe places for them to play. About 73 percent of the people queried in the Yankelovich poll mentioned earlier were in favor of more government spending on educational and recreational facilities for teenagers.[46] In response, numerous Federal, State, and local agencies are funding prevention initiatives. PAVNET (the World Wide Web site of a consortium of Federal agencies including the Department of Justice) provides information about 540 prevention programs, many of them receiving Federal funds.[47] Typically, each agency provides funds for education limited to one facet of one specific type of problem. For example, in its 1995 directory and resource guide, the Office of National Drug Control Policy listed 50 Federal funding programs mandated to address different aspects of drug abuse. The programs are administered by 10 different departments and numerous agencies within each department, yet a substantial body of research indicates that most single-problem, single-strategy approaches are not effective for reducing delinquency, much less violence.[48] While a growing body of research indicates that some forms of prevention can be effective, the same studies also suggest that many well-intentioned prevention programs do not have a discernable impact on reducing juvenile violence or other forms of delinquency, and some may actually increase delinquency and violence. Types of programs least likely to be successful in prevention include those that simply provide a supervised afterschool setting (adolescents most at risk for delinquency won't go or may take over the place if they do), sports, peer mediation, approaches that make gangs more cohesive, instructional approaches that depend on providing information about the risks or wickedness of delinquency, and-- counter to popular thought--approaches designed simply to improve children's self-esteem.[49] Approaches that criminologists have found to be most promising for preventing violence and delinquency are relatively long-term, continuous, comprehensive approaches that involve adults as tutors and mentors who teach children and teens cognitive and social skills and provide them an opportunity to cooperatively practice these skills.[50] These approaches are virtually synonymous with the approaches implemented by many national youth-serving organizations, including those described in this report. Effective Prevention Approaches Are Integral to National Youth Organizations While criminologists have been studying the types of programs that can prevent violence and delinquency, researchers in child and adolescent development have been assessing approaches that can best help youth achieve their full potential. The results have been very much the same. A review of several seminal works in the field of adolescent development has classified six areas in which adolescents need support and opportunities in the community setting for building competencies: health/physical, personal/social, creative/cognitive, vocational, and areas involving communal ethics and citizen participation.[51] More specifically, adolescents need opportunities to build and practice basic life skills known to be integral to healthy adolescent development: "problem-solving skills, planning and decisionmaking skills, cognitive strategies for resisting peer and media influences, skills for increasing self-monitoring and self-regulation, and coping strategies to deal with everyday stresses."[52] Like criminologists, experts in youth development recognize that children and teens are shaped in multiple environments. The separate contexts that are instrumental in determining immediate behavior and the long-term future of children and adolescents--"families, schools, peers, the media, the workplace, and communities--have distinct functions, and one cannot replace the other."[53] However, unlike many criminologists, researchers in youth development recognize that in the United States afterschool programs provided by community-based youth organizations have been a cornerstone of this network for more than a hundred years. Beginning in the last half of the 19th century, organizations created to serve children in rural and urban settings included 4-H Clubs established by the County Extension Departments of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Boys Clubs (now called Boys and Girls Clubs), Girls Clubs (now named Girls Incorporated), and settlement houses. With the advent of urbanization and change, organizations such as the YMCA were established and dedicated to preserving mainstream religious values, first among young adults and later among younger children. As suburban areas developed in the early 1900s, other youth-development organizations such as Boys Scouts of America and Girls Scouts of the U.S.A. were imported from England. Troops provided opportunities for hands-on learning experiences to children who, unlike rural youth, had little or no involvement in contributing to their families' livelihood and, unlike children in large urban settings, had limited access to the live arts, museums, or the rich cultural experience of city streets. Typically, the approaches taken by national youth organizations possess the essential characteristics of programs that have been found to prevent delinquency: (1) They are comprehensive, attempting to ameliorate more than a single factor associated with delinquency and simultaneously focusing on multiple problem behaviors; (2) they are appropriate for children of specific ages and developmental stages; and (3) they continue over the long term, certainly more than a few months, and often several years.[54] The approaches bolster the "protective" factors that allow adolescents to make the perilous transition from childhood to adulthood without becoming deeply enmeshed in violence and other forms of delinquency. As suggested above, protective factors that prevent children from becoming delinquent include their individual competence, adults who provide support and safety, productive experiences in school, and-- especially in early adolescence--groups of friends who stay out of trouble.[55] Although the objectives of traditional youth organizations are typically stated in terms of positive development rather than prevention of negative outcomes, promoting these protective factors is integral to the mission of these organizations. Many of the activities carried out in youth organizations have been carefully designed by experienced professional staff to promote problem-solving skills, intellectual abilities, communication skills, and self-efficacy--attributes now known to help prevent delinquency.[56] By providing opportunities for parents or other caring adults to play and work productively together, whether at YMCA aquatics events, Police Athletic League ball games, Girl Scout and Boy Scout camping trips, or youth club community projects, these organizations can help forge closer relationships between children and adult family members. By creating supervised settings in which children and teens can meet relatively good kids their own age and select activities they like and learn from, youth organizations also help children form friendships with nondelinquent peers. The functions of youth organizations go well beyond protecting children and teens from imminent delinquency. According to professionals most familiar with childhood and adolescent development, community-based youth organizations constitute a cornerstone of the institutions necessary for people to reach their full potential. "Afterschool activities that are viewed as voluntary and enjoyable provide a developmental transition between childhood play and disciplined activities of adulthood"[57] needed by all adolescents--especially those who lack creative play and supportive adults at home or in school. In today's world, where many single parents have low incomes and less time to spend with their children and where many schools are literally and figuratively falling apart, activities in the community--including those of youth-serving organizations--achieve increasing importance. Youth organizations are seen as places in the community that can most readily provide necessary resources children and teens fail to find elsewhere.[58] This is especially important in neighborhoods where all essential resources for children and teens are scarce and crime rates are high. Youth Organizations Are Trying to Reach Youth Most at Risk for Violence Although youth organizations have played a recognized role in raising the Nation's children, a seminal study by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development found that communities least likely to have the benefit of youth organizations' afterschool programs are those in which parents and schools have the fewest resources to devote to children and teens.[59] In many of these communities, national youth organizations are striving to pull together the fundamental resources needed to implement afterschool programs. They are simultaneously struggling to recruit children and adolescents already involved in crime and violence and to minimize the costs of crime at their own program sites. Recognizing the formidable problems that children and teens in many communities face at home and on the streets, youth organizations are developing new approaches to help young participants overcome serious obstacles to their well-being and to reach their full potential. Youth organizations are acutely aware of what they need to do to recruit participants at the age when they are most vulnerable to violence-- adolescence--from economically depressed neighborhoods with high crime rates and with residents who cannot provide safety for their kids or collectively solve neighborhood problems. Youth-serving organizations know that for this at-risk population they need to duplicate the elements that have for generations appealed to their adolescent participants: o An environment in which kids are valued and adolescents are considered to be resources rather than problems for their community. The environment includes clear rules for behavior and membership, accompanied by flexibility in responding to the real crises faced by many teens. It also includes adults who are attuned to the interests, aspirations, and values of adolescents, treat them as adults, yet recognize that--like all children--they still need protection. o Activities that present teens with challenges and experiences in planning, preparing for, and publicly presenting projects they and their communities value. Presented with enough activities to allow choice, teens are encouraged to take on activities that will develop their capabilities through hands-on experience and practice. Prodded, nagged, teased, and loved, teens are persuaded to meet the challenges the activities present. o Ongoing outreach to teens and adults in the community, with messages that are understandable. Outreach activities involve other neighborhood institutions and people who are integral to the day-to-day lives of the teens.[60] At the same time, national organizations and their local affiliates know that to create these environments, to provide these activities, and to conduct successful outreach in neighborhoods where youth are at highest risk for violence, they must deal with the pressing need to deal with crime that touches participants and staff. Police in some communities are playing a major role in addressing this issue. Endnotes 1. Although analysis of several different sets of national data shows an increase in juvenile arrests for violent crime in the period from 1985 to 1993, calculations of the levels of increase vary depending on the source of data and the types of offenses included in the category of violent crime. Two data sets are commonly used to estimate numbers of crimes committed by juveniles. One is collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics about victimizations of persons 12 years and older; these data are collected in a survey of a national probability sample of U.S. households (the National Crime Victimization Survey). The other set of data is collected by the FBI and includes Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data provided by police departments and other law enforcement agencies; the UCR data include crime incidents reported to the police and details about arrestees, such as their age; supplementary data are collected about homicides. 2. Sickmund, Melissa, Howard N. Snyder, and Eileen Poe- Yamagata, 1997, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update on Violence, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 3. Ibid. 4. Yoshikawa, Hirokazu, 1994, "Prevention as Cumulative Protection: Effects of Early Family Support and Education on Chronic Delinquency and Its Risks," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 1:28-54. 5. Snyder, Howard N., and Melissa Sickmund, 1995, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 6. Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997. 7. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, June 1994, Juvenile Victimization: 1987-1992, Fact Sheet no. 17, Washington, D.C. 8. Bastian, Lisa, 1995, Criminal Victimization, 1993, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 9. Sosin, Daniel M., Joseph E. Sniezek, and Robert J. Waxweiler, 1995, "Trends in Death Associated With Traumatic Brain Injury, 1979 Through 1992," Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 2273, no. 22:1778-1780. 10. May, John P., 1995, "Taking Aim at Handgun Violence," Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 2273, no. 22:1739-1740. 11. Sosin, Sniezek, and Waxweiler, 1995. 12. Langan, Patrick, and Caroline Harlow, 1994, Child Rape --Victims, 1992, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 13. U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995, A Nation's Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 14. See, for example, statistics on ages of homicide victims in 1994: Greenfeld, Lawrence A., 1996, Child Victimizers: Violent Offenders and Their Victims, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, fig. 16, p. 17. 15. Focus groups on violence against women as girls were conducted by LINC in cooperation with Girls Incorporated, Girls Incorporated of Rapid City, Pocatello (Idaho) Police Department, and Rapid City (South Dakota) Police Department as part of a locally initiated police research project sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (95-IJ-CX-0047). 16. Maltz, Michael, September 1997, personal communication based on analysis of FBI supplementary homicide reports. 17. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995, p. 4. 18. Kelly, Barbara Tatum, David Huizinga, Terence P. Thornberry, and Rolf Loeber, 1997, Epidemiology of Serious Violence, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 19. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995. 20. Ringel, Cheryl, 1997, Criminal Victimization 1996, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 4. 21. See, for example, Simon, Rita J., 1975, Women and Crime, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath. 22. Kelly, Huizinga, Thornberry, and Loeber, 1997. 23. Ibid. 24. Greenfeld, 1996. 25. Widom, Cathy Spatz, 1989, "Child Abuse, Neglect, and Adult Behavior: Research Design and Findings on Criminality, Violence, and Child Abuse," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59:355-367. Also Barbara Tatum Kelly, Terence P. Thornberry, and Carolyn A. Smith, 1997, In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 26. For example, a U.S. Department of Education survey of teachers conducted in 1990-1991 estimated that from 2 to 8 percent of teachers had been victims of violence. However, a Harris poll of a nationally representative sample of teachers assigned to grades 3 to 12 in 1992-1993 found that 11 percent of teachers reported having experienced violence in the school setting. And a 1993-1994 survey of teachers in 44 schools in Lucas County, Ohio, found that in schools serving grades 7 to 12, 2 percent of the teacher respondents had been victims of robbery; 43 percent had been victims of theft; and 21 percent had been physically threatened. 27. For studies of the development of violence, see Elliott, Delbert S., 1994, "Serious Violent Offenders: Onset, Developmental Course, and Termination--The American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential Address," Criminology, vol. 32, no. 1:1-22; also David Huizinga, 1997, "Developmental Sequences in Delinquency," in L.J. Crockett and A.N. Crouter, eds., Pathways Through Adolescence: Individual Development in Relationship to Social Contexts, New York: Erlbaum; and R. Loeber and D.H. Hay, 1994, "Developmental Approaches to Aggression and Conduct Problems," in M. Rutter and D.H. Hay, eds., Development Through Life: A Handbook for Clinicians, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 488-515. 28. Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls, 1997, "Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy," Science, August, 277:918-924. 29. National Research Council, 1995, Citro, Constance F., and Robert T. Michael, eds., Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 30. Sampson et al., 1997. 31. Timmer, S.G., J. Eccles, and I. O'Brian, 1985, "How Children Use Time," in F.T. Juster and F.B. Stafford, eds., Time, Goods, and Wellbeing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. 32. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995. 33. See Thornberry, Terence, Alan J. Lizotte, Marvin Krohn, Margaret Farnworth, and Sung Joon Jang, 1994, "Delinquent Peers, Beliefs, and Delinquent Behavior: A Longitudinal Test of Interactional Theory," Criminology, vol. 32, no. 1:47-84. 34. Thornberry, Terence P., and James H. Burch, 1997. Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 35. Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997. 36. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1992, A Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours, New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 37. Wilson-Brewer, Ren‚e, Stu Cohen, Lydia O'Donnell, and Irene Goodman, 1991, Violence Prevention for Young Adolescents: A Survey of the Art Educational Development Center Inc., prepared for the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. 38. Rudenstine, Sonya, 1995, Juvenile Admissions to State Custody, 1993. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 39. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995. 40. Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997. 41. Mackenzie, Doris, Ernest L. Cowles, and Thomas C. Castellano, 1995, "'Boot Camp' Drug Treatment and Aftercare Intervention: An Evaluation Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 42. Ruefle, William, and Kenneth Mike Reynolds, 1995, "Curfews and Delinquency in Major American Cities," Crime and Delinquency, vol. 41, no. 3:347-63. 43. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995. The National Institute of Justice is currently funding research on curfews in several cities. Reports on this research are projected to be available in 1998. 44. Krisberg, Barry, James Austin, Karen Joe, and P. Steele, 1989, The Impact of Juvenile Court Sanctions, San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency; also Katherine Hunt Federle and Meda Chesley-Lind, 1992, "Special Issues in Juvenile Justice: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity," in Ira M. Schwartz, ed., Juvenile Justice and Public Policy, New York: Lexington Books, pp. 165-195. 45. Chaiken, Marcia, and Jan Chaiken, 1990, Redefining the Career Criminal: Priority Prosecution of High-Rate Dangerous Offenders, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; also Jan M. Chaiken and Marcia R. Chaiken, 1982, Varieties of Criminal Behavior: Summary and Policy Implications, Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation. 46. Wilson-Brewer et al., 1991. 47. Information about the number of contacts was provided by J. Thomas McEwen, Institute for Law and Justice. Information about the number of programs on PAVNET in October 1996 was provided by John Gladstone, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 48. See Lipsey, Mark W., 1992, "Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability of Effects," in Cook, Thomas, ed., Meta-Analysis for Explanation, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 83-126; also Patrick Tolan and Nancy Guerra, 1994, What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of the Field, Boulder, Colorado: The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado. 49. See Tolan and Guerra, 1994; Brewer, Devon D., J. David Hawkins, Richard F. Catalano, and Holly J. Neckerman, 1995. "Preventing Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offending: A Review of Evaluations of Selected Strategies in Childhood, Adolescence and the Community," in Howell, J.C., B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson, Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; also University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1997, Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 50. See Tolan and Guerra, 1994; also Brewer et al., 1995. 51. Pittman, Karen J., 1991, A Rationale for Enhancing the Role of the Nonschool Voluntary Sector in Youth Development, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. 52. Hamburg, Beatrix, 1990, Life Skills Training: Preventive Interventions for Young Adolescents, Report of the Life Skills Training Working Group, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. 53. Based on J. Wynn, 1987. Communities and Adolescents: An Exploration of Reciprocal Supports, Chapin Hall Center for Children, Chicago: The University of Chicago. 54. Chaiken, Marcia, and David Huizinga, 1995, "Early Prevention of and Intervention for Delinquency and Related Problem Behavior," The Criminologist, vol. 20, no. 6. 55. Hawkins, J. David, Richard F. Catalano, and J.Y. Miller, 1992, "Risk and Protective Factors for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for Substance Abuse Prevention," Psychological Bulletin, no. 112:64-105. 56. Bogenschnieder, Karen, Stephen Small, and David Riley, undated, received at LINC 1992, An Ecological Risk-Focused Approach for Addressing Youth-At-Risk Issues, Chevy Chase, Maryland: National 4-H Center. 57. Larson, R., and D. Kleiber, 1992, "Free Time Activities as Factors in Adolescent Adjustment," in P. Tolan and B. Cohler, eds., Handbook of Clinical Research and Practice With Adolescents. New York: Wiley. 58. Based on J. Wynn, 1987. 59. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1992. 60. McLaughlin, Milbrey W., Merita Irby, and Juliet Langman, 1994, Urban Sanctuaries: Neighborhood Organizations in the Lives and Futures of Inner-City Youth, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. ------------------------------- Chapter 2 Crime and Youth Organizations "In January, at about 7 p.m., gunfire started going off behind the building, scaring all the kids who were inside and outside. Most of the kids ran home after the first shots were fired. The shots continued for about 45 minutes to an hour. When the police finally arrived, they arrested three teenagers who live about 150 feet from the building. They were shooting at the apartments right above the [youth organization]. They had all been drinking." LINC Survey Respondent This incident is an all too common occurrence for millions of children and teenagers living in inner-city neighborhoods, and the time--7 p.m.--is in the time range when dangerous events involving young people are most likely to occur. When they are out of school and out of their homes, young people are most at risk for committing offenses and most vulnerable to becoming victims of crime themselves. Today major youth-serving organizations are reaching millions of children and teenagers nationwide, with the Girl Scouts alone reporting 2.5 million members. They are targeting this time period--and increasingly the most at-risk youth--for recruitment into safe, wholesome, enjoyable, and age-appropriate activities. The organizations studied in the survey sponsored by NIJ and the Carnegie Corporation of New York (Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Boy Scouts of America, Girls Incorporated, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., National Association of Police Athletic Leagues, National 4-H Council and USDA 4-H and Youth Development Service, and YMCA of the USA) are offering safe havens and alternatives to risky, delinquent behavior for youth in the most "dangerous" hours of the day for them--from the time school is dismissed until the early evening hours. Our survey found that during the school year 3 p.m. is the most common time for youth organizations to begin activities, and 9 p.m. is the most common time for activities to end. Youth-Serving Organizations Are Reaching Kids in Economically Depressed Urban Areas Our conversations with key staff of the national organizations collaborating in this study indicated that despite the findings of a seminal Carnegie Corporation study[1] showing youth organizations to be least likely to serve those most in need of such programs (young people in neighborhoods most affected by poverty), these organizations were committed to providing programs for more children and teens in the most impoverished neighborhoods. Also contrary to the assumption that national youth organizations focus almost exclusively on relatively well-to-do communities, among all responding organizations in our study sample of 579,[2] under half were located in neighborhoods that could be characterized as prosperous (6 percent) or middle-class (40 percent). Most were in communities that were working class (37 percent) or poor (16 percent). Many neighborhoods were experiencing some structural decay (26 percent) or extensive structural decay (12 percent). Although very few organizations were located in areas that were considered to be unsafe for walking during daylight hours (8 percent), slightly over half were in neighborhoods thought to be unsafe after dark. Local affiliates of Boys Clubs (now named Boys and Girls Clubs) and Girls Clubs (now named Girls Incorporated) have long been providing programs for school-age youth in the least affluent sections of cities. More recently, with the assistance of funding from Federal agencies, both organizations have made successful strides in establishing centers and branches in public housing and on the grounds of schools in inner city and other economically depressed areas. In addition to the solid comprehensive core programs for guiding children productively into and through adolescence, both organizations have developed age- and culture-appropriate (and, at Girls Incorporated, gender-appropriate) programs for preventing a spectrum of harmful behavior, including substance abuse and early initiation of sexual activity. Key to the programs' success is the incorporation of activities that children and teens not only learn from but greatly enjoy.[3] Police Athletic Leagues (PALs) and the "Ys" (YMCA corporations and branches) too have long served urban youth. Under the supervision of off-duty police officers, PALs have organized baseball leagues for city boys for many years, and "Y" aquatics programs have become relatively ubiquitous. In recent years, both of these organizations have reoriented their primary mission toward providing more comprehensive services to people in inner cities. While baseball and aquatics programs remain fundamental activities that bring youth into PALs and Ys, affiliates now include programs to meet other needs such as tutoring to enhance academic and employment skills. In some cities PALs have combined efforts with other youth organizations to provide more comprehensive services; for example, in Washington, D.C., PAL has organized boys and girls clubs to sponsor programs staffed by officers from the Metropolitan D.C. Police Department. Around the country YMCA affiliates have expanded their mission so extensively that administrators often repeat a new informal organizational motto: "We are still the YMCA, but "A'" [for "Association"] is the only letter that still tells what we are." As with Girls Incorporated and Boys and Girls Clubs, local Y branches are also providing more activities in inner city locations away from their traditional buildings. Inner-city areas do not have many afterschool programs, as the Carnegie Corporation study made abundantly clear. So it is not surprising that when a national organization charters an affiliate to provide youth activities in an impoverished area, school-age children come in droves. On average almost three times as many participants were being served by each responding affiliate in a poor city neighborhood as in prosperous neighborhood. Youth Organizations Are Reaching Kids Already Involved in Crime as Victims or Offenders In response to the growing involvement in crime and substance abuse of "latch-key" children and undersupervised teens, all seven national youth organizations collaborating in our study are implementing programs designed to help youth avoid "risky" behavior as well as more traditional programs providing opportunities for constructive contributions. Realizing that children and teens in inner-city areas are most likely to engage in harmful activities and least likely to be provided with activities essential for their wholesome development, all collaborating organizations are attempting to bolster the ability of their affiliates and charter members to serve communities where the need is most pressing. The LINC national survey of youth-serving organizations provided evidence that actions are being taken to provide more programs for children and youth in types of neighborhoods that are commonly underserved. By design, about half of our survey sample of 579 were nationally affiliated youth organizations in large cities with relatively high rates of crimes (about 300), with the remainder in small cities and towns (about 150) or in large cities with relatively low crime rates (about 150). Contrary to the myth that some of the national youth-serving organizations confine their services to relatively crime-free towns, all seven of the national organizations collaborating in our study were providing programs for children and teens in large cities with high crime rates that were randomly selected for the LINC survey. Moreover, almost three-fourths (72 percent) of the reporting organizations were involving participants during the developmental stages when young people are most likely to become involved in delinquent acts--early adolescence through the teen years. Based on the reported problems involving young participants, organizations were opening their doors to and actively recruiting children and teens at risk for delinquency or violence. Twenty percent of responding organizations reported having taken action in the past year on behalf of a participant who had been abused or neglected. Over 20 percent of responding organizations reported that a participant had committed an offense at their program sites during the past year. Although a relatively small proportion (2 percent) reported the need to deal with a participant who had brought a gun, over 7 percent reported having to take action when a participant brought another type of weapon. Girl Scout and Boy Scout organizations, too, have implemented a number of promising initiatives for actively involving girls and boys in urban neighborhoods where children and teens lack constructive opportunities in the nonschool hours. Both scouting agencies have supplemented their traditional activities with programs to help participants recognize consequences and successfully deal with the harsh realities faced by many of our youth, such as violence and substance abuse. Led by volunteer police officers, Boy Scout Explorer posts in neighborhoods where poverty is rampant and violence is epidemic are successfully recruiting adolescents to work as law enforcement paraprofessionals. Girl Scout Councils are reaching out to girls in extreme need of adult support and opportunities for productive activities in the nonschool hours--including daughters of women in prison. Although 4-H and the USDA 4-H and Youth Development Service may still be best known for their activities involving youth in the farmlands of the United States, their services are reaching deep into the lives of children and teens in urban America. Rather than simply extending traditional agrarian activities to city locations, programs are based on research and are carefully designed to promote problem-solving skills, intellectual abilities, communication skills, and self-efficacy--attributes known to help prevent delinquency.[4] In some urban areas hardest hit by epidemics of substance abuse and crime, 4-H and Youth Development staff are among the front line organizations implementing programs for children and teens with the highest probability of violent incidents and deaths; for example, in Washington, D.C., outreach for teen prostitutes is provided from a van that is dispatched on Friday and Saturday nights to downtown locations.[5] The More Vulnerable the Kids They Serve, the More Crime the Youth Organizations Experience Given the high rates of crime in cities and neighborhoods in which affiliates of collaborating youth organizations are providing services, as well as the at-risk status of young participants, it is not surprising that crime had occurred at many program locations during the previous year. Among organizations included in the LINC study, more than half (51 percent) reported that an offense occurred at or immediately outside the primary program site during the program year beginning in the fall of 1993. Vandalism was the most common type of incident and was reported by approximately 40 percent of the organizations. Theft of organizational, staff, or participant property was the second most common form of offense and was reported by 38 percent of organizations. Incidents involving violence in the past year were reported by slightly over 20 percent of organizations. Felonious assaults on staff or participants were somewhat less common. In general, the less economically prosperous an area served by a large city youth organization, the more likely the organization was to have experienced crime--especially violent crime. Crime was a significantly greater problem at program locations in communities and neighborhoods where needs for youth services are most pressing. Among organizations located in large cities with relatively high rates of crime, 61 percent reported at least one crime at the primary program site in the past year, and 45 percent reported at least one incident of vandalism. Significantly more organizations in large cities reported an incident involving violence or threats of assaults; violent (or latently violent) incidents were reported by 26 percent of organizations in large cities[6] and 16 percent of organizations in small cities and towns. Within large cities, crime took a greater toll on youth organizations in relatively poor, minority neighborhoods experiencing many forms of urban blight. Compared to large-city organizations located in all-white areas, those serving minority neighborhoods were significantly more likely to experience vandalism (54 percent compared to 29 percent) and property crime (64 percent compared to 35 percent); they were almost four times more likely to be affected by violent crime (38 percent compared to 10 percent). Overlying these findings is an additional significant factor the survey analysis uncovered. The relatively high number of offenses experienced by organizations serving economically disadvantaged big-city neighborhoods appears in large part to be a factor of the relatively numerous school-age children they are serving and the prolonged time periods in which programs are operating. Responding organizations in poorer neighborhoods were serving significantly more participants and were operating more hours each year than organizations in more affluent neighborhoods. In fact, our study found that the level of crime experienced by the organizations was more strongly associated with the number of hours they operated and the number of children they served than with the economic level of the neighborhood or the presence of minority groups in the neighborhood. The annual hours of operation and number of children served by the organization together accounted for approximately 13 percent of the variation in the number of offenses reported by the responding organizations. However, even after controlling for the number of children served and hours of operation, several aspects of program setting and participants' characteristics appeared to be significantly associated with the amount of crime affecting the youth-serving establishments. As could be expected from a large body of past findings, age and gender of participants were significant factors associated with the overall level of crime. Organizations serving more boys than girls reported higher levels of crime, as did organizations serving children of a mix of ages including adolescents (compared to those serving exclusively younger children or just teens). Program location was found to be associated with a small but significant variation in the number of offenses reported--organizations located in less affluent areas in youth club settings had higher rates of crime, independent of the number and characteristics of youth served. Together number and characteristics of participants, number of hours in operation, and setting accounted for more than 20 percent of the variation in the number of offenses. Gender of participants and the relative economic level of the neighborhood were the factors found to have the strongest correlation with the number of incidents involving violence that reportedly took place. After controlling for the number of hours in the program setting, which explained a significant but small variation in violence, gender and socioeconomic level accounted for additional variation in the level of violence. Together these three factors accounted for only a relatively small amount of variation between organizations. In fact, there was little variation to be explained because, in general, youth-serving organizations appeared to be sanctuaries from violence--and for staff and adult volunteers, sanctuaries from all types of victimization. Most Offenders Are Kids Independent of where they were located and whom they were serving, organizations affected by crime during the past program year preponderantly reported that offenders committing these crimes were children or teens rather than adults. Approximately 32 percent of organizations affected by crime reported that offenses had been committed by an adult, and about 66 percent reported that offenses had been committed by a child or teen. Adult offenders were significantly more likely to victimize organizations located in relatively poor areas than ones in more prosperous neighborhoods; among those affected by crime, 36 percent of organizations in poverty areas and 41 percent in working class areas reported being victims of an adult offender compared to about 22 percent in middle-class and 1 percent in affluent neighborhoods. Adult strangers were more likely to commit offenses in or immediately outside the program locations than adults related to participants or well known to staff or than adults who were known by sight to the staff. About three-fourths (76 percent) of organizations affected by adult offenders reported that the offenders were strangers, compared to about one-third who reported being victims of well-known adults (32 percent) or recognizable adults (31 percent). More Offenses Are Committed by Nonparticipants Than Participants In general, among organizations reporting offenses by juveniles, nonparticipants were more likely to be the offenders than participants; 42.3 percent reported that offenses had been committed by nonparticipants, 21.4 percent by participants, and 36.3 percent by both members and nonmembers. The balance of young insiders or outsiders committing offenses did not differ significantly across neighborhoods with different economic levels. However, significant variations in the membership status of youthful offenders were found between organizations in different settings and between organizations serving youth with different characteristics. Not surprisingly, organizations exclusively serving young children were most likely to report that juvenile offenses affecting their organization were committed just by outside youth; 67 percent said that nonparticipants were responsible for all juvenile offenses, whereas only 32 percent of organizations serving adolescents reported that nonparticipants were solely responsible for offenses. Among organizations serving more boys than girls, just 22 percent blamed outside youth alone for crimes affecting the organization. Crime Takes a Heavy Toll on Organizational Resources Administrators of national youth organizations point out that crime is a serious barrier to providing programs for children and teens in inner-city neighborhoods and in other areas with high rates of poverty and violence. According to these experienced directors, not only is crime costly in terms of organizational and staff property lost or stolen, but parents and guardians need to know that their children are safe--otherwise they don't want them to participate. The children and teens themselves are anxious to find afterschool locations where they are not in danger. Yet unlike organizations that expel troublemakers to prevent crime, in collaborating youth organizations administrators note that young participants, especially adolescents, are more likely to participate voluntarily if program sites both literally and figuratively have an open-door policy. Organizations that are highly selective may eliminate some troublemakers, but they also eliminate youth most in need of delinquency prevention and youth development activities. By being selective they can earn a reputation among neighborhood youth for being unfriendly or, worse, for being elitist and therefore justifiable targets for vandalism and other hostile acts. Findings about the relative personal safety of program directors (under 10 percent reported personally being victims of a crime in the program setting) are not likely to dampen their concern about the effects of crime on their organizations. Among the organizations reporting at least one violent incident or property crime in the 1993-1994 program year, more than 75 percent indicated that the organization suffered in a definable manner as a consequence. Economic consequences were sustained by 57 percent of organizations; for example, 43 percent of organizations reporting any crime had more than $100 worth of property purposely destroyed. The second type of consequence most likely to result was the burden on staff who had to deal with incidents involving offenses committed by and against their participants. Close to half (48 percent) of organizations reporting crime also reported that staff were involved in activities directly related to dealing with crime incidents. Staff were just as likely to be reacting to incidents in which young participants had been victimized outside the program environment as to crimes that had taken place at the program site. For example, staff in organizations experiencing crime were just as likely to be taking action on behalf of children abused or neglected at home as they were to be actively engaged in dealing with participants who were abusing other members at the program site. For about one-third of the organizations (33 percent), crime also had discernible negative consequences for program operations and activities. Fifteen percent had started to limit the hours the program operated to times when they thought participants and adults could be most safe when traveling to and from the program location. About an equal percentage had to curtail some activities because equipment or other necessary materials had been maliciously destroyed. Fear of crime made it difficult to recruit staff and participants for 12 percent of the responding organizations. Most Steps Taken to Prevent Crime Haven't Worked Whether or not they reported crimes during the 1993-1994 program year, practically all organizations responding to our survey had instituted at least one approach that they hoped would create a safer environment for their school-age participants. The most widely used approaches simply involved using locks on doors, gates, cabinets, and closets to prevent unauthorized access to program areas (reported by 60 percent of organizations) and organizational equipment (reported by 67 percent). These were also among the crime prevention approaches most recommended by the responding program directors. Preventing access to organizational equipment was found to be associated with lower rates of car or van theft. However, in our analysis, locking doors to program areas was not found to be significantly related to lower rates of any type of crime; moreover, unless doors can be locked to prevent entrance but not exit from the program area, this measure presents a fire hazard. Another widespread and highly recommended approach involved requiring a responsible adult to accompany participants when they left the program site. The findings of the study support this recommendation, since this was the only measure that was found by itself to be significantly correlated with lower overall rates of crime.[7] Approaches that were gaining in popularity involved conducting background and criminal record checks on staff and volunteers; from 1993 to 1994, 10 percent of all responding organizations had instituted checks on volunteers and 6 percent had checked on staff. This measure was recommended by more than 80 percent of program directors; however, fewer than half of responding organizations were conducting these checks at the time of our survey. Measures that were used by the fewest organizations and recommended by the fewest program directors involved conspicuous distrust of youth; in particular these were practices for denying participation to youth who were most likely to be delinquent (implemented by 4 percent of organizations and recommended by under 10 percent of program directors) and installing metal detectors (implemented by under 1 percent of organizations and recommended by 8 percent of program directors). Other approaches that were recommended by many program directors but used by fewer than half of organizations included programs to help youth avoid becoming victims of crime, programs to prevent participants from becoming offenders, approaches that actively involve youth in crime prevention activities, and collaborative efforts with other organizations to prevent crime. While these approaches may be effective in preventing crime in other settings, they may be more a reaction to high levels of crime than effective ways to prevent crime. The survey results showed that the more crime an organization experienced, the more preventive measures it adopted. Police Responsiveness Is a Significant Factor in the Level of Crime The study did, however, find one factor that appeared to be strongly associated with less crime. Police responsiveness to organizational requests was strongly and significantly related to lower levels of overall crime experienced by the reporting organizations.[8] The next chapter describes ways police responded to the needs of the organizations. Endnotes 1. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. 1992, A Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours, New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 2. Six hundred organizations responded to the LINC survey; 21 were eliminated from the study because of incomplete or otherwise flawed data in the returned questionnaires. 3. See for example, Chaiken, Marcia, 1993, The Girls Incorporated Teens for Teens Project: How It Works, New York, N.Y.: Girls Incorporated. 4. Bogenschnieder, Karen, Stephen Small, and David Riley, undated (received at LINC 1992), An Ecological Risk-Focused Approach for Addressing Youth-At-Risk Issues, Chevy Chase, Maryland: National 4-H Center. 5. Cooperative Extension Service for the District of Columbia, 1995, private communication in response to snowball survey conducted by LINC under subcontract to the Institute for Law and Justice for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Grant 95-JN-X-0010. 6. The percentage of organizations in large cities reporting violent incidents was the same regardless of the crime rates. 7. Once other factors (including the number of children served each year) were held constant, this relationship was no longer significant. 8. Police responsiveness was a subjective measure ranked by responding program directors who had called the police department for any reason. Despite concern that the measure might be capturing dissatisfaction with police among victims of crime, the study found no significant association between respondents' personal experience with crime and their ranking of police responsiveness. ------------------------------- Chapter 3 Partnerships With Police LINC survey responses from directors of youth organizations indicated that the police played an important part in the success of these organizations' efforts to provide safe havens and to provide alternatives to dangerous activities and delinquency, and youth organizations for the most part are prepared to reach out to their police. Like police in the communities described in the three case studies below, police in many cities in which survey respondents were located worked hand in hand with youth organizations in a number of ways. Two out of three of the organizations responding to the survey had called police at least once during the 1993-1994 program year. Among organizations experiencing an incident involving violence, theft, or other property offense, 18 percent called to report a crime in progress, 20 percent to report a crime involving a participant, and 37 percent to report another type of crime that had already occurred at the program location. Many organizations--28 percent of those that said they had experienced at least one offense--did not report these crimes to the police, primarily because they did not consider them to be crimes. Among the organizations that did report crimes, close to half said they only reported some incidents, about a quarter reported most incidents, and the rest said they reported all incidents. Eight out of 10 of the organizations said the departments were "very responsive" to the calls. Most of the rest termed the police "moderately responsive," and only 1 percent said police were "unresponsive." Significantly, organizations asking for help from a police crime prevention unit reported more success in obtaining a response than those requesting the attention of a patrol unit. However, calls for help because of a crime in progress or other crime-related matters generally received a good response. In addition, organizations that reported police were very responsive were more likely to have low rates of crime than those who reported that police were moderately responsive or not responsive. These last two groups reported more than twice the number of offenses at their program sites than those reporting that their police were very responsive. More Organizations Ask for Proactive Than Reactive Policing Contacts with the police were more likely to be initiated by the youth-serving organizations to prevent crime than to report crime. In fact only one in four of all the organizations that called police during 1993- 1994 called to report a crime. About a third called to report another type of emergency. Many more called to ask the department for help in preventing violence and other crimes involving participants, as shown below by the survey responses: o A substantial proportion (nearly 72 percent) wanted an officer to give a one-time talk to youth participants about drugs, crime, child abuse, or other crime-related topic. o About 55 percent wanted pamphlets or other information about crime prevention. o A similar proportion (51 percent) asked the department to provide a drug prevention, crime prevention, or other program the police had developed for youth. o About 50 percent wanted to arrange a field visit to the police (or sheriff's) department. o A substantial proportion (nearly 21 percent) called to report suspicious people in the area who might be about to commit a crime. o About 24 percent requested police or sheriff's surveillance when participants were arriving at or leaving the program location. o A smaller proportion (about 16 percent) asked for a specially trained youth officer to be assigned to work regularly with youth. As can be seen from these findings, many of the organizations (half) asked for more than one of the types of prevention approaches specified above. As part of our survey, we asked respondents to nominate exemplary prevention approaches carried out by their organization or another organization in their area that they recommended detailing in this report. More than 100 approaches were recommended for further study. Although many respondents nominated efforts in which they were personally involved, quite often respondents recommended an approach implemented by another organization. Police programs such as D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T. were among programs nominated as exemplary. Organizations Nominated Diverse Exemplary Programs Based on brief descriptions provided in the completed questionnaires, the programs and approaches were categorized as follows: Type A: Collaborative or relatively comprehensive or extensive community programs and approaches. Type B: Center-based programs with nontraditional staff, hours, or participants. Type C: Workshops and 1-day programs provided for youth by youth. Type D: More traditional programs provided by law enforcement officers. Type E: General, more traditional programs and activities provided by the nationally affiliated youth-serving organizations. Type F: Videos produced by a national organization--their utilization and youth group discussions of them. Type G: More traditional community programs such as Neighborhood Watch and "block homes." Approaches Selected for Case Studies Met Important Criteria Project advisers were asked to help select three of the many interesting programs nominated by the survey respondents for further study. The advisers unanimously agreed that case studies should focus on organizations providing collaborative or relatively comprehensive or extensive community programs and approaches (Type A) or center-based programs with nontraditional staff, hours, or participants (Type B) in cities or neighborhoods with relatively high rates of crime. All advisers independently used active recruitment of youth at high risk for violence or delinquency as a criterion for selecting the programs they nominated. Although many survey respondents nominated traditional police programs such as D.A.R.E. or programs designed to prevent delinquency such as Boys and Girls Clubs' "Smart Moves" and Girls Incorporated's "Friendly PEERsuasion," advisers also independently recommended a focus on approaches that went well beyond delinquency prevention programs and nominated organizations that provide collaborative or comprehensive community programs or nontraditional center-based programs. Realizing that safe places are a critical concern of youth and their families, one adviser examined program descriptions for a mention of police cooperation. Also considered were respondents' assessments of the responsiveness of police to the youth organizations' requests. Based on previous studies conducted in a large number of cities, one adviser recommended against several approaches involving police departments that "on paper look good but are not really happening." The adviser recommended sites that appeared to be making advances in community policing. Another adviser assessed the extent to which the programs reportedly provided resources and opportunities likely to foster childhood and adolescent development, especially those culturally appropriate for minority youth. As previously discussed, research in child development strongly suggests that adolescents require a range of activities that challenge them to solve problems, plan and make decisions, resist negative peer and media pulls to risky behavior, and deal with everyday frustrations. The adviser nominated approaches that described opportunities for adolescents to develop these important skills. Based on the large body of research showing that delinquency prevention is best accomplished by reducing multiple risks and promoting multiple protective factors in adolescence, another adviser focused on the extent of arrangements for cross-agency collaboration available to comprehensively meet these needs. This adviser selected approaches that described active collaboration between public agencies focused on children, fa