have been shown to significantly reduce recidivism among juvenile offenders, and significantly reduce the attendant costs of crime and delinquency imposed upon the juvenile and criminal justice systems. (16) Comprehensive programs that target kids who are already serious juvenile offenders by addressing the multiple factors in peer, school, neighborhood, and family environments known to be related to delinquency can reduce recidivism among juvenile offenders and save the public significant economic costs. (17) There are many alternatives to incarceration of youth that have been proven to be more effective in reducing crime and violence at the National, State, local, and tribal levels, and the failure to provide for such effective alternatives is a pervasive problem that leads to increased youth, and later adult, crime and violence. (18) Savings achieved through early intervention and prevention are significant, especially when noncriminal justice social, educational, mental health, and economic outcomes are considered. (19) The prevention of child abuse and neglect can help stop a cycle of violence and save up to $5.00 for every $1.00 invested in preventing such abuse and neglect. (20) Targeting interventions at special youth risk groups and focusing upon relatively low-cost interventions increases the probability of fiscal benefit. (21) Evidence-based intervention treatment facilities have been shown to reduce youth delinquency and to be cost-effective. (22) States, including Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania, have seen a reduction in juvenile incarceration due to a reallocation of criminal justice funds towards prevention programs. 1 Federal coordination of local and tribal juvenile justice information and efforts 214. PROMISE Advisory Panel (a) Organization of State Advisory Group Member Representatives Section 223(f) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 ( 42 U.S.C. 5633(f) ) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1), by striking an eligible organization composed of member