to answer tough questions about crime and delinquency and to obtain a better understanding of off ender motives. One of the excellent developments in our fi eld over the last decade is an expanded dialogue—more consistently sophisticated and mutually more respectful than past conversations—between researchers and those who apply their discoveries. Th is development is so important, and so welcome, in grasping the link between youthful delinquency and later criminal behavior. Indeed, few public safety issues cry out for a reconciliation of knowledge and practice more loudly than those relating to the germination, continuation, and cessation of juvenile off ending. In my four decades of policy and academic experience, I’ve observed in the fi eld a fervent hope by many that criminal and juvenile justice practitioners would abandon their reliance on tradition and intuition and turn to research as the foundation for their decisions. I am happy to report that this goal appears closer to reality than in the past. Getting “smart on crime” has become a cri de coeur of public safety leaders from the Attorney General of the United States to local elected offi cials and law enforcement leaders. When I launched my Evidence Integration Initiative at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Offi ce of Justice Programs in 2009, I envisioned a prominent role for the federal government in helping translate the evidence derived from research into criminal and juvenile justice practice. Aft er all, success in applying science, in any fi eld, depends on both developing a solid base of knowledge and communicating the relevance of that knowledge. It is welcome news that practitioners and policy-makers are interested in, and even eager for, information researchers have to share. Th e scientifi c community must be prepared to meet this demand, especially in the complicated and politically fraught arena of juvenile justice.