PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on Youth Violence.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 17, 1998
National Youth Crime Prevention Demonstration Act - Directs the Attorney General to make a five-year national youth crime prevention demonstration project grant to the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, a not-for-profit organization incorporated in the District of Columbia. (Sec. 3) Authorizes the Center to award grants to grassroots organizations to develop youth intervention models in the following cities: (1) Washington, D.C.; (2) Detroit, Michigan; (3) Hartford, Connecticut; (4) Indianapolis, Indiana; (5) Chicago (and surrounding metropolitan area), Illinois; (6) San Antonio, Texas; (7) Dallas, Texas; and (8) Los Angeles, California. (Sec. 4) Requires eligible grassroots entities to: (1) be not-for-profit community organizations with demonstrated effectiveness in mediating and addressing youth violence by empowering at-risk youth to become agents of peace and community restoration; and (2) submit grant applications to the Center to fund intervention models that establish violence-free zones. Requires the Center to consider the grassroots entity's: (1) track record (and that of its key participating individuals) in youth group mediation and crime prevention; (2) engagement and participation with other local organizations; and (3) ability to enter into partnerships with local housing authorities, law enforcement agencies, and other public entities. (Sec. 5) Authorizes use of grant funds for youth mediation, youth mentoring, life skills training, job creation and entrepreneurship, organizational development and training, development of long-term intervention plans, collaboration with law enforcement, comprehensive support services and local agency partnerships, and activities to further community objectives in reducing youth crime and violence. Directs the Center to identify local lead grassroots entities in each designated city which include: (1) the Alliance of Concerned Men of Washington in the District of Columbia; (2) the Hartford Youth Peace Initiative in Hartford, Connecticut; (3) the Family Help-Line in Los Angeles, California; (4) the Victory Fellowship in San Antonio, Texas; and (5) similar grassroots entities in other designated cities. Requires the Center, in cooperation with the Attorney General, to provide technical assistance for startup projects in other cities. (Sec. 6) Directs the Center to evaluate the effectiveness of grassroots agencies and other public entities involved in such demonstration project and to report to the Attorney General. (Sec. 8) Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Coats, Daniel [R-IN] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to Subcommittee on Youth Violence.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8483-8484)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2327 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2327 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2327 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2327 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.