V Community Prevention Grants Program

January 1, 2003

Grants Program U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Report 2003Report toCongress Title V Community Prevention U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General Tracy A. Henke Acting Assistant Attorney General J. Robert Flores Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities www.ojp.usdoj.gov Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
2003 Report to Congress
Title V Community Prevention
Grants Program
OJJDP Report NCJ 207694 U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
For the past decade, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has supported communities nationwide in their efforts to improve the lives of youth and their families and to prevent delinquency.
To date, more than 1,500 communities have received grants through the Title V Community Prevention
Grants Program to launch efforts to reduce the risk factors in a young person?s life associated with juvenile delinquency and enhance the protective factors that support healthy personal and social development. Congress established the Title V Program in its 1992 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to encourage local leaders to assess the risk factors in their neighborhoods, draw on available resources, and develop and implement data-driven delinquency prevention strategies. Beyond its financial commitment, OJJDP supports these local efforts with constantly evolving training and technical assistance to help communities plan, implement, and evaluate effective prevention programs. As this 2003 Report to Congress details, the Community Prevention Grants Program is at a crossroads. In FY 2003, after subtracting funds for Title V earmarked programs, OJJDP determined that the remaining $2 million was too small of a sum to be distributed on a formula basis and suspended Community Prevention Grants Program prevention allocations to the states. While many communities have benefited from federal support for Title V prevention programming, many thousands more communities have requested, but not yet received, funding and technical assistance to develop their own prevention programs. Many states have told OJJDP that they have exhausted every option available to them to expand their support for prevention programming.
The states have embraced the Title V prevention model, but OJJDP considers the program to be a work in progress. As research shows, great strides have been made in our efforts to control and, ultimately, eliminate juvenile crime and delinquency, but continued support and patience at the federal level are critical at this time. As the program enters its second decade, OJJDP is preparing to release a set of recommended Title V performance measures, by which the states will report every year on the effectiveness of their subgrantees? prevention efforts. These performance measurement tools will support local, state, and OJJDP outcome management, resource allocation, strategic planning, and decisionmaking. OJJDP strongly encourages communities
to implement prevention programs that have been proven effective based on systematic and objective research and evaluation. Over the past 10 years, committed and determined citizens across America have worked through the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program to prevent and reduce delinquency within their communities. At this critical time in the program?s history, OJJDP will build on the existing momentum in juvenile delinquency reduction and continue preparing the nation?s youth for healthy and productive futures. J. Robert FloresAdministrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Table of Contents
Foreword .....................................................................................................................................iii
The Community Prevention Grants Program: 10 Years of Prevention ..................................1
Program Background and Structure ..............................................................................................................1Strengthening the Community Prevention Grants Program ......................................................................2Emphasis on a More Balanced Approach to Prevention Planning ..........................................................3Support for Selecting Evidence-Based Programs......................................................................................4Improvements in the Training and Technical Assistance Curriculum ......................................................4History of Title V Appropriations and Earmarks Under Title V ..............................................................6Title V Activities in 2003 ..............................................................................................................9
State Activities .................................................................................................................................................9Local Activities ...............................................................................................................................................11Accomplishments at the Local Level ........................................................................................................11Sustainability Success Stories ..................................................................................................................13Federal Support Through Title V Training and Technical Assistance ....................................................14Model Programs Guide and Database ....................................................................................................14Meeting the TTA Needs of States and Communities ..............................................................................15Monitoring and Improving the Curriculum ............................................................................................ 15
Impact of the Suspension of Title V Funds ............................................................................17
States? Response to Suspension of Title V Funds ......................................................................................17Training and Coordination To Access Other Funding Sources..............................................................17State Funding Sources ..............................................................................................................................18Impact at the State Level ..............................................................................................................................18
Inability To Fund New Grants and Continue Existing Grants ..............................................................18Reduced Services for Youth and Families................................................................................................19Challenges in Implementing Research-Based Programs ........................................................................19Longer Term Implications ........................................................................................................................20Program Sustainability .................................................................................................................................20
Next Steps in Delinquency Prevention ....................................................................................21
References .................................................................................................................................23
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 OJJDP Response to State Title V Training Needs......................................................................5 Exhibit 2 Overview of Current Title V Training Curriculum ......................................................................5 Exhibit 3 Title V Earmarks Compared to Amounts Distributed to States, FY 1994?FY 2003 ..........................................................................................................................6 Exhibit 4 Title V Community Prevention Grants Program Total State Allocations, FY 1994?FY 2003 ..........................................................................................................................7 Exhibit 5 Allocation of Title V Community Prevention Grants Program Funds, by State ......................10
The Community Prevention Grants Program: 10 Years of Prevention For the past decade, the Title V Community Prevention
Grants Program1 has helped communities nationwide foster positive changes in the lives of children and families through a comprehensive, research-based model for delinquency prevention. The program focuses on reducing the risk factors in a youth?s life associated with juvenile delinquency and enhancing the protective factors that support healthy personal and social development. Title V encourages local leaders to initiate multidisciplinary assessments of the risks and resources within their communities and to develop prevention plans that use evidence-based strategies to address their unique needs. Program Background and Structure During the late 1980s and early 1990s, juvenile crime and delinquency increased sharply in the United States. Juvenile arrests for violent crimes increased 51 percent between 1988 and 1994 (Snyder, Sickmund, and Poe-Yamagata, 1996). At that time, experts predicted that, if left unchecked, juvenile crime would continue to peak, resulting in grim consequences for many communities and youth. States and counties called for new federal resources they could invest in local delinquency prevention
to help stem the rising tide of juvenile crime and delinquency. Until the mid 1990s, only limited Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act funds (Formula Grant) had been available for front-end prevention activities. For many states, the more expensive back-end costs of In this Report, the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program is referred to as Title V, the Title V program, the Community Prevention Grants Program, and the program. enforcement and treatment and other juvenile justice
priorities dominated budgetary considerations and expenditures, leaving few and, most often, no funds to develop and implement prevention activities. Also during the 1980s and 1990s, researchers? understanding of adolescent problem behaviors and their relationship to important social, psychological, and familial conditions grew exponentially. As a result, researchers, policymakers, and other professionals
began to develop comprehensive, community-based initiatives as a key strategy for addressing persistent and complex social problems such as delinquency, substance abuse, and teen pregnancy (Connell et al., 1995). Many of these initiatives underscored the importance of reducing the factors that put a juvenile at risk of delinquent behavior (i.e., risk factors) and enhancing the factors that support positive development (i.e., protective factors).
At the same time, findings from years of research pointed to a more balanced and integrated approach to combating youth violence and crime. Juvenile justice policymakers embraced this approach by incorporating prevention with sanctions,
offender accountability, and treatment. Against this backdrop, Congress, in its 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act of 1974, established the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program.
This groundbreaking program provided states and communities with the funding, framework,
and tools to establish community-based juvenile
crime prevention initiatives, and, over time, many states adopted the Title V model as an integral
part of their approach to addressing juvenile delinquency. This program offers a funding incentive
that encourages community leaders to initiate
multidisciplinary assessments of local risks and resources and to develop comprehensive, collaborative
plans to prevent delinquency. To help communities formulate, implement, and evaluate their delinquency prevention plans, OJJDP sponsors
orientation training for local leaders, offers training on collecting and analyzing community risk and resource data, helps communities choose promising
strategies for their prevention plans, and provides other technical assistance. Since a comprehensive
approach increases the efficacy of prevention efforts while reducing duplication of services, the Community Prevention Grants Program requires communities to form multidisciplinary Prevention Policy Boards (PPBs). The program stipulates that the state or local government must provide a 50percent
cash or in-kind match to encourage collaboration
in developing resources, sharing information, and obtaining additional funding to sustain the long-term efforts. Since the program?s inception, the prevention landscape
has evolved. States have made initiatives that focus on risk and protective factors integral parts of their program planning and have increased their emphasis on prevention activities. More than 1,525 communities nationwide have participated in the Community Prevention Grants Program over the past 10 years. During that same period, researchers have expanded our knowledge of ?what works? in delinquency prevention, and matching local needs with evidence-based programs has become easier. Also over the past decade, juvenile arrest statistics have significantly improved. The juvenile arrest rate for violent crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) in 2002 was at its lowest level since 1980 and nearly half the rate in 1994 (Snyder, 2004). Between 1994 and 2002, the juvenile
arrest rate for property crimes dropped 43 percent,
to its lowest level since at least the 1960s (Snyder, 2004). These trends and the early successes
of the Community Prevention Grants Program are encouraging, and OJJDP remains committed to enhancing the program and its support of community efforts to eradicate juvenile crime and delinquency. Strengthening the Community Prevention Grants Program When the Community Prevention Grants Program was introduced in 1994, it broke new ground because it integrated a research-based approach into local delinquency prevention efforts. Since then, the program has accomplished many things, including nationwide participation, state use of the program model in prevention planning, increased multidisciplinary
collaboration at the local level, increased use of data-driven assessment, and positive systemic changes in how services are provided for children and families. At the same time, the program has presented states and communities with new challenges? including translating the theory-based model into practice, shifting mindsets from ?program first? thinking to comprehensive prevention planning, developing evaluation capacity at the local level, and embracing the implementation of research-based strategies to meet prevention needs. Over the past decade, OJJDP has adapted and fine-tuned the program to reflect state and local feedback, legislative priorities, emerging prevention research, and findings from state monitoring efforts. In addition, the national evaluation of Title V has enabled OJJDP to better understand and improve the program. This long-term evaluation assessed program implementation and outcomes in 11 communities
from 6 participating states (Hawaii, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia). Specifically, the evaluation was intended to examine the Title V model?s viability and effectiveness
in preventing juvenile delinquency. Very broadly, the evaluation was designed to address the following research questions: What has been the impact of the Community Prevention Grants Program on risk factors, protective
factors, and juvenile problem behavior? What factors and activities lead to the effective implementation of the Community Prevention Grants Program model and to positive program outcomes?
Using a mixed-method, multilevel design, the evaluation
moved from a broad description of the Title V program in every community to increasingly detailed
investigations of program implementation and outcomes. The approach also included a technical assistance component designed to build the evaluation
capacity of the participating communities. Based on the findings of the evaluation, OJJDP enhanced the Community Prevention Grants Program in the following three areas: Emphasis on a more balanced approach to prevention planning. Support for selecting evidence-based programs. Improvements in the training and technical assistance curriculum. These enhancements build on the early momentum of Title V and put communities in a better position to make the most of the program and produce long-lasting results for youth and families. Emphasis on a More Balanced Approach to Prevention Planning The theoretical framework of the Title V program mirrors the public health approach for addressing a contagious disease. It first identifies the risks known to increase the likelihood that the disease will spread and then reduce those risks and take steps to build resistance to them. When Title V was first introduced,
the supporting research focused heavily on the role that risk factors play in predisposing children
to becoming involved in delinquency and other adolescent problem behaviors. It also addressed? though less predominantly?the protective factors that buffer the negative influences and help build resilience in youth. Centered on the seminal work of Dr. J. David Hawkins and Dr. Richard F. Catalano in the 1980s and early 1990s (Hawkins and Weis 1985; Hawkins et al., 1986; Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992), Title V promoted the identification of community risk factors in five domains: community, school, family, peer groups, and individuals. Local grant applicants were required to thoroughly analyze
community risk factors based on indicator data they had collected and then determine which risk factors warranted attention and resources. The early Title V training, which drew heavily from the Communities
That Care (CTC) curriculum (Hawkins and Catalano, 1992), devoted much time to discussing risk factors and building skills to conduct risk assessments. During the 1990s, some prevention researchers and advocates emphasized the importance of building resiliency over reducing risks (see, e.g., Bernard, 1991, and Benson, 1997). These advocates emphasized
prevention strategies that concentrate on assets and strengths rather than risks and deficits. Likewise, many communities and local service providers were drawn to the positive nature of asset-based approaches. For example, the Search Institute promoted an approach that focuses on 40 developmental assets, which are defined as positive experiences and personal qualities that young people
need to grow up to be healthy, caring, and responsible individuals (www.search-institute.org/ aboutsearch, May 2004). Some of the asset-based approaches, however, concentrate solely on resiliency
and do not address the underlying conditions that put youth at risk. This may not be as effective as simultaneously enhancing protective factors and reducing risk factors (Pollard, Hawkins, and Arthur, 1999). As the Community Prevention Grants Program progressed,
OJJDP recognized the importance of a balanced approach to delinquency prevention. Building on emerging research and grantee experiences,
OJJDP integrated an emphasis on both protective
factors and risk factors into the new Title V grant announcements and guidelines. OJJDP also instructed training and technical assistance providers to introduce current and prospective grantees to a variety of models that included risk-and protection-focused prevention as well as community
asset building. The current Title V framework
and curriculum underscore the importance of both lessening the negative conditions that may contribute to problem behavior and building buffers that mitigate the negative influences and increase resiliency.
Support for Selecting Evidence-Based Programs A key link in the Title V theoretical framework is the premise that communities will select and implement
evidence-based programs that have already been proven effective in reducing identified risk factors
and enhancing protective factors. Although specific
programs are not prescribed, communities are expected to develop strategies based on the available research on ?what works? in delinquency prevention.
Throughout the program?s first decade, some local grantees implemented research-based programs
while a sizable number did not. In the earlier years, this dichotomy could be attributed in part to a lack of available information on effective programs. In more recent years, however, more prevention research and evaluations have been conducted and, as a result, the number of effective evidence-based programs has grown. OJJDP is committed to the use of a research-based approach. The Office sponsors the Blueprints for Violence Prevention Initiative, which has evaluated more than 600 programs using a strict research-based standard to determine how effectively the programs
reduce adolescent problem behaviors. Further, OJJDP requires all of its grant programs?includ-ing the Community Prevention Grants Program?to integrate evidence-based strategies. In accordance with Section 504, part (c), of the JJDP Act of 2002, OJJDP will ?give priority to [Title V] applicants
that demonstrate ability in . . . developing data-driven prevention plans, employing evidence-based prevention strategies, and conducting program evaluations to determine impact and effectiveness.? OJJDP encourages states to review local subgrant applications for the inclusion of both a comprehensive
delinquency prevention plan that is data driven and proposed prevention strategies that research has shown to be exemplary, effective, or promising. To help communities identify evidence-based delinquency
prevention programs that fit their specific needs, OJJDP sponsored the development of the Title V Model Programs Guide and Database (Title V MPGD). The Title V MPGD is the new generation of the Promising and Effective Programs (PEP) Guide, which was originally developed for use during the pre-Title V grant award training. The Title V MPGD, which is available both via OJJDP?s Web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp, under Programs in the main menu) and in CD format, provides communities
with easily accessible and current information that can help them locate scientifically tested and proven delinquency prevention programs and strategies. Improvements in the Training and Technical Assistance Curriculum To help communities successfully implement the Title V program, OJJDP has offered training and technical assistance (TTA) to new and potential grantees across the country since 1994. Although the early training provided grantees with a foundation
for initiating their community prevention grants, it was limited in how much it helped them build the requisite knowledge and skills to establish an effective prevention initiative. In recent years, OJJDP has taken steps to ensure that TTA more effectively meets state and community needs. Those steps include the following: In April 2000, OJJDP awarded a contract to a new Title V TTA provider. With OJJDP oversight,
this provider developed a new Title V training
curriculum that enhances continuity across training sessions, is more tailored to individual community conditions, and emphasizes a balanced
and research-based approach to community
prevention planning. Also, OJJDP now offers followup TTA that can be modified to meet the unique circumstances of specific states and communities.
For easy access, technical assistance is offered both onsite and via the telephone. Input from more than 30 juvenile justice specialists
and state Title V coordinators during four regional focus groups helped shape the development
of the new curriculum (see exhibit 1). In the early years of Title V, TTA was offered through multiple sessions, including a 1-day orientation session for key community leaders and high-level executives and a 3-day risk and resource assessment workshop for selected PPB members. Feedback from state juvenile justice specialists and community members revealed several limitations of this approach. Among them was a disconnect between the key leaders (the
OJJDP Response Improve continuity across training sessions. Modified curriculum and invited the same participants to three training sessions. Make training more responsive to local needs. Offered modified training at the community level rather than at the regional level. Address a variety of risk- and protection-focused Modified training materials to address asset models in training. and resiliency models. Help community members with data collection for Developed the Community Data Collection Manual. risk and resource assessment. Provide examples of successful, research-based Developed the strategies. and Database. Exhibit 1. OJJDP Response to State Title V Training Needs State Suggestions for Training Improvements Title V Model Programs Guide Exhibit 2: Overview of Current Title V Training Curriculum| Community team orientation. This half-day training brings together policymakers, high-level agency and organization executives, planners,
and business leaders from a single community to familiarize them with the research basis for risk- and protection-focused prevention. The training provides an overview of Title V and addresses team building, community
mobilization strategies, and data collection needs.| Community data collection and analysis. This 2-day training helps community members review, interpret, and prioritize risk- and pro-tective-factor data. Participants also learn how to assess their resource availability and gaps, craft a community profile, and write a community
assessment report.| Community plan and program development. This 1-day training focuses on developing the community?s 3-year delinquency prevention plan and identifying effective and promising prevention strategies that meet community needs and conditions. first training group) and PPB members (the second
training group) that occurred when the key leaders failed to adequately communicate with PPB members regarding their vision for the initiative
and frequently retreated from involvement following the training. To overcome this limitation,
the new training curriculum (exhibit 2) asked communities to identify appropriate participants
to attend three training sessions, thereby improving continuity. Focus group participants offered additional recommendations
that were incorporated into the new training. For example, participants noted that community members needed greater assistance
with collecting data for the risk and resource assessments. As a result, OJJDP developed
an easy-to-use Community Data Collection (CDC) Manual for training participants. The CDC Manual provides detailed information on risk and protective factors, national trend information, and templates for plotting risk factor indicator data. Participants also called for more examples of successful,
evidence-based prevention strategies. In response, OJJDP developed the science-based Title V MPGD. Finally, OJJDP made identifying and integrating evidence-based prevention strategies that meet community needs a central topic of the final training session.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Funding Amount (in millions) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Earmarks under Title V Amount distributed to states through Title V Year Earmarks under Title V Amount distributed to states 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 $13,000,000 $0 $19,257,000 $19,933,000 $18,933,000 $18,833,000 $40,544,000 $36,416,000 $37,322,720 $26,709,760 $0 $1,000,000 $200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $51,200,000 $53,700,000 $52,700,000 $64,000,000 $44,000,000 Exhibit 3: Title V Earmarks Compared to Amounts Distributed to States, FY 1994?FY 2003 The Title V MPGD for selecting evidence-based programs,
combined with a more balanced approach and an enhanced training and technical assistance curriculum, helps communities effectively mobilize themselves, collect and analyze data, and select research-based delinquency prevention strategies. As a result, communities receive a solid foundation for understanding the Title V model and help in building the requisite skills to translate the model into practice. Collectively, these changes mean local communities have greater opportunities to reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. History of Title V Appropriations and Earmarks Under Title V Since 1994, Congress has appropriated funds under Title V to support states2 in implementing delinquency
prevention strategies. In the program?s first year, Congress appropriated $13 million for Title V, with all of it going to the Community Prevention Grants Program. As shown in exhibit 3, from the 2 The term ?states? also includes U.S. territories and the
District of Columbia.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Funding Amount (in millions) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 20031999 Year $13.0 $19.3 $19.9 $18.9 $18.9 $40.5 $36.4 $37.2 $26.7 0 Exhibit 4: Title V Community Prevention Grants Program Total State Allocations, FY 1994?FY 2003 second year on, Congress allocated an increasingly larger portion of total Title V funds to earmarked programs,3 which has resulted in fewer dollars being allocated to the Community Prevention Grants Program. From 1995 to 1998, approximately $20 million was appropriated under Title V for the Community Prevention Grants Program. In 1999, Title V appropriations were more than doubled to $40.5 million; then, over the next 3 years, appropriations
declined by one-third to about $27 million in 2002 (see exhibit 4). Consequently, the number of A federal earmark is a grant provided directly from a member of Congress to a local program or grant agency. Funds for earmark
grants come from the congressional member?s personal annual appropriation pool, which is then allocated through the federal appropriations process. OJJDP congressional earmark grants are awarded annually to programs and agencies to address juvenile delinquency or child abuse and neglect. In recent years, earmark grants have become more common, thereby decreasing the amount of money available to programs authorized in the JJDP Act?in this case, the Community Prevention Grants Program. communities funded has decreased from 511 in FY 1999 to 380 in FY 2002. In 1999, the total amount for earmarks began to exceed the total Title V allocations
to the states. In 2002, the total amount for earmarks was 2.4 times greater than the total Title V allocation to the states. In 2003, after subtracting funds for earmarked grants, about $2 million remained for the Community
Prevention Grants Program?an amount that OJJDP determined was insufficient to be distributed
nationwide on a formula basis. As a result, OJJDP did not distribute Title V funds to the states in FY 2003. Because OJJDP made no Title V awards in 2003, a number of states turned to alternatives, including combining funds from other sources, to support at least some of their ongoing prevention activities. The next section of this Report examines the states? efforts to sustain their delinquency prevention activities,
local-level Title V accomplishments in 2003,
and how OJJDP supported these efforts. The Report then discusses the impact of the suspension of Title V funding in 2003, including effects on state and local-level prevention efforts. The Report concludes
with a discussion of OJJDP?s commitment to delinquency prevention, stressing the importance of continuing and expanding federal financial support so more communities can implement the Title V delinquency prevention model.
Title V Activities in 2003
Each year, juvenile justice specialists submit two pieces of information for this Report. First, they respond in writing to a series of questions about the implementation of Title V in their state. Second, they update their state?s fiscal table, which documents
how funds were spent in previous fiscal years (1994?2002) and in the current fiscal year (in this case, FY 2003). Of the 55 states and territories that participated in the Community Prevention Grants Program in FY 2002, 54 provided information on how they spent their FY 2002 funds. Puerto Rico did not provide this information. This year, 47 states, 4 territories, and the District of Columbia submitted the narrative section, which is the basis for the next section of this Report. Delaware, Georgia, and Puerto Rico did not submit narrative information. This chapter presents what the states told OJJDP about the Title V activities they conducted in 2003 and how these efforts compare with previous years. The chapter also examines the steps many states took to support local prevention efforts when Title V funds were suspended, highlights several local Title V programs that have yielded positive outcomes,
and describes how OJJDP supported state and local prevention efforts. State Activities Since 1994, more than 1,525 communities across the nation have received Title V funds to implement local delinquency prevention efforts.4 Exhibit 5 shows the total allocation of Title V funds from FY This number reflects records that juvenile justice specialists, Title V coordinators, or project staff have updated. Records were not updated for Puerto Rico. South Dakota did not participate
in the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program from FY 1998 through FY 2002. 1994 through FY 2002 (no funds were awarded in 2003). As of May 15, 2004, 48 of the 54 states that submitted the requisite information had awarded some or all of their Title V FY 2002 funds. Alaska, Florida, Maine, Mississippi, Oregon, and Puerto Rico had not yet awarded these funds. In FY 2003, the 48 states used unobligated FY 2002 funds to award a total of 380 subgrants: 157 new subgrants (to grantees who had not received a subgrant in previous years) and 223 continuation subgrants (to grantees who had received a subgrant in previous
years). Forty-eight communities received continuation subgrants for the final 12 months of implementation. One hundred eighty-three of these awards were made before April 10, 2003, and the remaining 197 awards were made between April 11, 2003, and May 30, 2004. Overall, the subgrantees reflect a diverse group nationwide, including urban and rural, small and large communities such as Chicago, IL; Lansing, MI; Meeker, CO; Tippecanoe, IN; and Windham, CT. Characteristics of the awards include the following: The awards ranged from $1,000 to $340,725, with the average subgrant being approximately $14,000. Fifty percent of the subgrants were less than $45,000; 25 percent were between $46,000 and $75,000. Ten percent of grantees received more than $118,000. Although states received no FY 2003 Title V allocation,
60 percent (27 states, 1 territory, and the District of Columbia) supported continuation grants. Of these 29 states, 40 percent supported
Exhibit 5: Allocation of Title V Community Prevention Grants Program Funds, by State
State/Territory FY1994?2001 FY 2002 Total State/Territory FY 1994?2001 FY 2002 Total Alabama $31,490,000 $413,000 $31,903,000 New Hampshire $941,000 $108,000 $1,049,000 Alaska 791,000 100,000 891,000 New Jersey 5,761,000 768,000 6,529,000 Arizona 3,567,000 503,000 4,070,000 New Mexico 1,353,000 187,000 1,540,000 Arkansas 1,909,000 250,000 2,159,000 New York 11,881,000 1,537,000 13,418,000 California 25,842,000 3,403,000 29,245,000 North Carolina 4,844,000 647,000 5,491,000 Colorado 2,946,000 405,000 3,351,000 North Dakota 775,000 100,000 875,000 Connecticut* 21,060,000 277,000 21,337,000 Ohio 8,334,000 1,063,000 9,397,000 Delaware 779,000 100,000 879,000 Oklahoma 2,569,000 328,000 2,897,000 Florida 10,004,000 1,341,000 11,345,000 Oregon 2,362,000 311,000 2,673,000 Georgia 5,445,000 755,000 6,200,000 Pennsylvania 8,408,000 1,075,000 9,483,000 Hawaii 972,000 109,000 1,081,000 Rhode Island 865,000 100,000 965,000 Idaho 1,052,000 136,000 1,188,000 South Carolina 2,633,000 351,000 2,984,000 Illinois 8,735,000 1,128,000 9,863,000 South Dakota? 801,000 100,000 901,000 Indiana 4,388,000 579,000 4,967,000 Tennessee 3,849,000 514,000 4,363,000 Iowa 2,122,000 270,000 2,392,000 Texas 15,230,000 2,044,000 17,274,000 Kansas 2,024,000 262,000 2,286,000 Utah 2,009,000 264,000 2,273,000 Kentucky 2,842,000 366,000 3,208,000 Vermont 775,000 100,000 875,000 Louisiana 3,341,000 422,000 3,763,000 Virginia 4,771,000 639,000 5,410,000 Maine 957,000 111,000 1,068,000 Washington 4,222,000 557,000 4,779,000 Maryland 3,735,000 499,000 4,234,000 West Virginia 1,218,000 148,000 1,366,000 Massachusetts 4,009,000 522,760 4,531,760 Wisconsin 3,745,000 474,000 4,219,000 Michigan 7,007,000 902,000 7,909,000 Wyoming? 775,000 100,000 875,000 Minnesota 3,659,000 473,000 4,132,000 District of Columbia? 775,000 100,000 875,000 Mississippi 2,212,000 285,000 2,497,000 American Samoa 256,000 33,000 289,000 Missouri 3,853,000 495,000 4,348,000 Guam* 256,000 33,000 289,000 Montana 846,720 100,000 946,720 N. Mariana Islands 256,000 33,000 289,000 Nebraska 1,298,000 166,000 1,464,000 Puerto Rico 3,365,000 402,000 3,767,000 Nevada 1,267,000 188,000 1,455,000 Virgin Islands** 256,000 33,000 289,000 * Did not apply for FY 1994 funds. ? Did not apply for FY 1998?2002 funds. ? Did not apply for FY 1994?FY 2000 funds. ? FY 1998 funds withheld. **Did not apply for FY 1994?FY 1998 funds.
continuation grants at a significantly reduced level. However, many states reported having to compromise
other programs or use resources from other funding streams to compensate for the loss of Title V funds. The funding sources used included the following: Unobligated Title V funds from earlier years. The most frequently reported source of funding was unobligated Title V funds from previous fiscal
years. Some states had these funds available for two reasons: (1) As a result of the congressional
budget cycle and OJJDP?s administrative process, the states often do not receive their Title V awards until late in the fiscal year; and (2) many states have an extended subcontractingprocess (i.e., offering training, issuing a request for proposals, scheduling grant reviews, and issuing
subgrants). Seventeen states, the District of Columbia, and one territory (39 percent of states) reported using Title V dollars from previous fiscal years to support 2003 activities. Title II funds. Six states (12 percent) used Title II funds to compensate for the loss of Title V funds. Title II Formula Grants, which are allocated
to states based on the proportion of their population
younger than 18 years old, allow for a broader scope of activities than Title V Grants. Title II allows states to use funds to support programs
related to preventing and controlling delinquency
and improving the juvenile justice system. For example, Minnesota used Title II funds to support 10 continuation grants. West Virginia also used Title II funds to support its four existing
Title V grantees at a reduced level of funding. Other federal funding sources within the state. Ten states (19 percent) reported using other federal
or state dollars to fund Title V communities in FY 2003. These other sources included: The Bureau of Justice Assistance?s Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program, which helps states and units of local government
control and prevent drug abuse, crime, and violence. OJJDP?s Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws and Challenge Grant Programs, which support state and local efforts to improve the juvenile justice system and prevent delinquency
(although these efforts are of limited scope). In Iowa, Title V funds were pooled with other federal, state, and local funds, and community subgrantees received small grant awards ($1,600) in a lump sum. The practice of pooling
funds is becoming increasingly common as individual funding sources decrease and states must find alternative means to fund prevention activities. Local Activities Accomplishments at the Local Level Each year, juvenile justice specialists identify, through local evaluation efforts, communities that have achieved positive outcomes or sustained their Title V prevention activities after the end of their grant period. This section features these accomplishments
and shows that communities continue to work toward their prevention goals despite reduced funding. The Town Action for Prevention (TAP) Program
in Batesburg-Leesville, SC, is a community-wide, comprehensive program to reduce four key risk factors among area youth: negative attitudes toward school, academic failure, family history of problem behavior, and child victimization and maltreatment. Five program components address these risk factors: life skills training, an after-school program, a parenting program, a mentoring
program, and an educational program. Evaluation of the educational component indicates
that students who participated in TAP showed significant improvements in grade point averages and Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test5 scores. TAP participants also had fewer incidents of in- or out-of-school suspension than students in a comparison group. 5 The Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test is a standardized proficiency test given to children across the nation as part of the President?s No Child Left Behind Act.
The Boomerang Program, supported by the Maine Office of Substance Abuse, is a four-session alcohol and substance abuse awareness program for teens who are first-time alcohol offenders. The program, offered in partnership with the Kittery Police Department, deters youth from future alcohol use and further offenses, educates youth and their parents about the risks associated with alcohol use, and helps youth make better decisions regarding alcohol use. The program?s evaluation, which included telephone interviews with a representative parent sample and face-to-face interviews with a representative youth sample, indicates that the program is producing
behavioral and attitudinal changes. Interview data specifically suggest that, after participating in the program, both parents and teens have a better understanding of the risks of alcohol use and a stronger awareness of the consequences
associated with teen drinking. Teen data also indicate improved decisionmaking skills related to alcohol use and, most importantly, a decrease in teens? alcohol use. The On-Track Truancy Prevention Program is a unique collaboration between the San Francisco (CA) Police Department and the San Francisco Unified School District. This program focuses on participants? attachment to school and provides academic and social support to chronically truant seventh and eighth graders. The program also helps parents improve their parenting skills and connections to community resources. A full-time school resource officer who works closely with school staff to return truant students to school is at the heart of the program. Now in its third year of implementation, the program has become a critical factor in how schools improve overall attendance, reduce violence, and maintain a positive
climate. School attendance has increased 70 percent, and the overall school attendance rate for the first semester has reached 98 percent. The students who have improved their attendance have done so by an average of 16 days per year. Anecdotal information suggests that teachers see fewer conflicts between students and adults, improved problem-solving skills in students, and more students seeking help before they get into fights or verbal conflicts, rather than as a consequence
of conflict. The Minneapolis Police Athletic League (PAL) provides free afterschool activities in which local police officers volunteer as coaches, mentors, and role models. The program is based on the premise that engaging youth in prosocial activities between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., when most juvenile crime occurs, and encouraging participants to build bonds with law enforcement officers help prevent involvement in criminal activity. The program is demonstrating success. From 2002 to 2003, the program served more than 1,500 youth and included more than 3,000 law enforcement volunteer
hours. For the same period, comparisons between youth who were active in PAL and those who were not indicated that fewer active PAL participants were involved in status and criminal offenses than youth who were not active in the program (5 percent versus 8 percent, respectively).
In addition, PAL participants tended to commit
fewer serious offenses than nonparticipants. The Skagit County Truancy Intervention Project in Skagit County, WA, is specifically targeted
at truancy reduction in this impoverished area. The county?s high school dropout rate (14 percent) is the seventh highest among Washington?s 38 counties. This court-based program
responds to youth for whom schools have filed truancy petitions. The program uses a multitiered
approach that includes an assessment of the problem, referrals to appropriate support and treatment services, ongoing case management, and monitoring to ensure that youth return to school or an appropriate alternative to resolve truancy problems. The program increases the intensity of services based on a child?s truancy history. Children who are truant for the first time must participate in a 1-hour truancy information class; children who are truant for a second time must attend a more intensive, 3-hour session. For children who are truant more than twice, the intensity of the intervention increases considerably.
In addition to receiving a comprehensive assessment to identify problems that may underlie the truancy (e.g., mental health, substance abuse,
or family violence), these children and their parents
are offered an array of services to address the issues identified in the assessment. The increasing intensity of the intervention, combined
with the ancillary services offered to children identified as at-risk for chronic truancy, have effectively
reduced truancy in this community. Results for the second year of the project were positive. Of the 447 truancy petitions received, only 25 youth (5 percent) served time in a detention facility, a 49percent
decrease from the previous year. The court dismissed 54 percent of the cases based on completed
agreements that the student would return to school. Only 5 percent of the participants returned to court on a second truancy petition. Finally, 266 youth were referred to intervention programs and other professional services that they most likely would not have received if not for their involvement in the project. Skagit County also used its evaluation data to guide program modifications, which, in turn, helped the county achieve desired outcomes. For example, during
the first 2 years of program implementation, the evaluation showed that many schools relied on the courts to force youth back to school, an approach that was not working. In fact, this tactic actually deterred youth from returning to school. Program staff also identified a cohort of youth with chronic truancy issues that accounted for a significant percentage
of the petitions filed. Using these data as a guide, the intervention was changed to include early assessments of youth for identification of issues underlying their truancy problems, such as family and learning problems. Services were then directed at those issues. The program was modified to allow early parental involvement in program activities. Sustainability Success Stories Sustaining prevention efforts once they have been implemented and the initial grant award has ended is of critical concern to every program. The following
examples illustrate programs that made sustainability
a key component of their program plan; as a result, these programs thrive. The Hannahville Indian Community. The Hannahville Indian Community in Hannahville, MI, started its delinquency prevention program after tribal authorities became concerned about the rates of substance use, delinquent behavior, dropping out of school, early sexual behavior, and suicide among tribal youth. After making a connection between these behaviors and the relative lack of organized recreational and other prosocial activities offered for youth on the reservation, tribal authorities and community
members decided to increase the number of recreational options for youth. A team of community members brainstormed ideas, attended Title V training
in response to a 1995 Title V grant solicitation, and later received both a planning grant and a Title V grant. The tribe?s show of support was one of the most important aspects of its grant application. Acting on its sense of responsibility to the community and support
of the Title V program model, the tribe had a sustainability plan from the outset. For each of the implementation years planned, the tribe agreed to assume a larger portion of the fiscal responsibility for the grant activities until the end of the grant period,
when the tribe accepted full financial responsibility.
With this support, the afterschool and weekend activities that began under Title V blossomed into a full-blown community center that offers recreational, educational, cultural, and health-based activities to youth and their families. According to Carol Bergquist, the program director, ?We went from almost nothing to this, and it?s still growing. Each year we add more. The tribal support keeps the program
stable but, without Title V, this would have never happened.? Skagit County, WA. The county believes its evaluation
findings are the reason that Title V programs have been sustained. The evaluation of the Skagit County Truancy Intervention Program has produced
empirical evidence of its success. Using evaluation
findings, the program staff, with support from the Title V PPB, has gained support from the local school system and the police department. The schools provide fiscal support and truancy referrals to the program. The police department recently set up portable police stations in targeted neighborhoods
to help with truancy cases. These efforts have helped sustain program activities over time and
achieve a 40-percent school reentry rate among program participants. Federal Support Through Title V Training and Technical Assistance In conjunction with the Title V funding and grant award process, OJJDP continued throughout FY 2003 to provide TTA to states and communities. Title V TTA is available prior to a grant award to help potential grantees develop the knowledge and skills necessary to negotiate each key stage of the comprehensive risk- and protection-focused planning
process. Ongoing TTA is also available to ensure that current Title V grantees have the skills necessary to successfully implement and monitor their delinquency prevention strategies. OJJDP?s three-part Title V training curriculum focuses on the requirements for Title V subgrant applications (as outlined in the Federal Register) and the tools community prevention planning teams need to meet these requirements. Specifically, the user-friendly and location-specific curriculum is designed to help communities interested in applying for Title V funds collect data on local risk and protective
factors and select research-based strategies that meet their needs. It includes three sessions: Community Team Orientation Training, Community Data Collection and Analysis Training, and Community
Plan and Program Development Training (see exhibit 2, page 5). By the end of the third session,
participating communities will have drafted all of the major risk and resource components of a comprehensive plan and are engaged in developing the Title V application. In 2003, more than 741 participants
from more than 100 communities in 9 states and territories participated in the training. Model Programs Guide and Database To help communities choose evidence-based prevention
strategies?one of OJJDP?s priority areas? OJJDP developed the Title V MPGD. In July 2003, OJJDP listed the Title V MPGD on its Web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp). As an interactive Web page available to both current and potential Title V subgrantees, juvenile justice practitioners, and researchers, the Title V MPGD is organized into three sections: Overview. This section includes the theoretical context for risk-focused prevention, a review of risk and protective factors, an overview of program
types, and an explanation of the program rating categories (i.e., exemplary, effective, and promising). Program research summaries. This section describes state-of the-art research on 16 programs organized within the 5 main spheres of influence. The spheres include the? Community sphere, which describes community-
and problem-oriented policing programs, afterschool and recreation programs, and other community strategies. School sphere, which includes strategies that can be easily implemented in schools, including
prevention curriculums and strategies related to behavior management, school and classroom environment, academic skills enhancement, and truancy prevention. Family sphere, which presents information about parent training and family therapy. Peer sphere, which includes programs such as peer mediation and gang prevention. Individual sphere, which presents information about mentoring programs, vocational and job training, leadership and youth development, and other prevention services. Searchable database and program descriptions. This section is a comprehensive, easy to use list of more than 100 programs that meet stringent criteria for demonstrating statistically significant changes in delinquency or risk and protective factors related to delinquency. The Title V MPGD contains summary information on programs that meet specific methodological criteria and adhere to a strong theoretical foundation. Based on the methodological strength of its research design, each program is labeled an exemplary program,
an effective program, or a promising program.
The Title V MPGD is searchable by age group, racial/ethnic group, gender, target population, and program type. Each item in the results of a search is linked to a detailed program description that includes the risk and protective factors the program addresses, the target population, an effectiveness rating and endorsements, descriptions of the intervention,
a recommended evaluation design and performance
measures, findings, references, and contact information. New programs that meet the strict evaluation criteria are continually added to the database. To help communities use this tool effectively, OJJDP offers on request both regional training and training for individual states. In FY 2003, 10 such training events were conducted, including 1 session at each of OJJDP?s regional training locations
(Atlanta, GA; Chicago, IL; Jersey City, NJ; and Portland, OR), 2 state sessions (Michigan and Washington), 2 sessions for OJJDP staff, 1 session for OJJDP contractor staff, and 1 presentation at the American Society of Criminology?s annual conference.
Approximately 475 individuals attended these sessions. Meeting the TTA Needs of States and Communities OJJDP has also been proactive in meeting the unique needs of states and communities. For example,
when a state or community has specific technical
assistance needs, or when the series of training sessions does not fit a state?s funding cycle, OJJDP offers customized training and technical assistance. Customized training is often a condensed version of the three training sessions conducted with State Advisory Group members, PPB members, and representatives
of county agencies. Also, OJJDP makes presentations on Title V to state juvenile justice
specialists, state Title V coordinators, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, practitioners, and researchers at various training events or other OJJDP-sponsored conferences. Other activities included evaluation training, the Title V MPGD user information sessions mentioned above, and the delivery of training in communities that want to develop comprehensive delinquency prevention plans and apply for funding streams other than Title V. In FY 2003, a new component was added to the Community Plan and Program Development Training. This new module features the principles associated with effective implementation, including tips for hiring caring and knowledgeable staff, reviewing program and implementation plans with staff, setting and maintaining high standards for staff performance, monitoring program progress, and planning for staff turnover. The session also covers
topics related to involving parents, guardians, and community members in program implementation. Postaward training is also offered to Title V sub-grantees. In FY 2003, OJJDP developed, tested, and conducted a day-long curriculum on performance
measurement and program evaluation with 48 participants from 2 states, in response to the renewed emphasis on program evaluation set out in the JJDP Act of 2002. A 4-hour training called ?Recruiting, Developing and Keeping PPBs Alive? is also available
on request for subgrantees. Monitoring and Improving the Curriculum To ensure the appropriateness of training content and the effectiveness of trainers, each training session
is evaluated using participant satisfaction scores. These scores are a composite measure derived from two 5-point scales. The first scale asks each participant to assess his or her degree of satisfaction
with each training module on a range from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 5 (extremely satisfied). The second scale asks each participant to assess the trainer?s skill in several areas, including the extent to which the trainer was knowledgeable in relevant content areas, answered questions clearly and completely,
gave clear instructions for each exercise, and was well prepared and organized. The data are entered into a database that produces an overall score for both the training curriculum and each trainer. On this 5-point scale (in which 5 indicates the best possible score), the average evaluation score for the Community Team Orientation Training in FY 2003 was 4.3. For the Community Data Collection and Analysis Training, the average was 4.4; and for Community Plan and Program Development Training, the average was 4.2. The overall trainer evaluation score was 4.6. OJJDP
applies the evaluation findings to curriculum enhancement and trainer performance review. In a separate effort to improve the effectiveness of Title V training and customize it to the needs of particular
areas, OJJDP has added video teleconferencing
as a training method. Video teleconferencing enabled 30 communities to participate in training that was simultaneously aired to 7 satellite locations in 1 state in FY 2003. The format made it possible for the main and satellite sites to interact so questions
from all participants could be answered. OJJDP also supports a Title V newsletter, Community
Prevention: Title V Update. Each issue of the newsletter, which is sent to all state juvenile justice specialists, state Title V coordinators, existing Title V subgrantees, and potential subgrantees (via Title V training sessions), focuses on a different theme. The Spring 2003 issue provided information on performance
measurement and evaluating Title V projects. It discussed building results-driven programs and identifying
key issues in performance measurement. It also highlighted resources for Title V subgrantees who want to learn more about implementing performance measurement. To disseminate the newsletter in a timely
and efficient manner, OJJDP maintains its database
of current Title V subgrantees, which is updated annually. OJJDP uses the database to produce the mailing list for the Title V newsletter and to send relevant funding information out to the field. In addition, OJJDP continued to use its Title V listserv
to facilitate communication throughout FY 2003 among OJJDP, juvenile justice specialists, and state Title V coordinators. Across the country, thousands of community members
have learned the value of comprehensive risk-and protection-focused delinquency prevention planning. Technical assistance and funding opportunities
have made communities more proficient in implementing this approach and helped them embrace the Community Prevention Grants Program
as a strategic approach for reducing juvenile delinquency.
Impact of the Suspension of Title V Funds
The Title V Community Prevention Grants Program has had far-reaching effects on the delinquency prevention
field. Since 1994, the program has been a primary source of delinquency prevention dollars for states and communities nationwide. State juvenile
justice staff across the country are well-versed in its comprehensive, community-based prevention model and its emphasis on long-term, data-driven planning. Many states have applied the Title V model to all state prevention efforts. At the local level, subgrantees in more than 1,525 communities have received training and used Title V funds to implement local prevention efforts. As a result, many communities have seen positive changes in the risk factors associated with juvenile crime and delinquency. The growth of the Title V program came to a halt in FY 2003. After Congress allocated the majority of the OJJDP Title V appropriations to earmarked programs, the Community Prevention Grants Program was effectively suspended. This chapter describes how states and communities adjusted to the loss of Title V funds in FY 2003. States? Response to Suspension of Title V Funds To determine the extent to which the 2003 Community
Prevention Grants Program budget cuts affected states and communities, OJJDP asked juvenile justice specialists to share the strategies they employed to compensate for the suspension of Title V funds and what strategies their states might use to fund delinquency prevention activities if Title V funds are further reduced or eliminated. Several juvenile justice specialists reported efforts and plans to equip communities to access other funding sources. Training and Coordination To Access Other Funding Sources Juvenile justice specialists in several states, including
Alabama, Colorado, and Michigan, plan to offer training to help build communities? capacity to secure funds from sources other than Title V. The training will be in areas such as grant writing, fund development, and outreach. For example, in Colorado, the state juvenile justice agency has collaborated with other state agencies that fund prevention to form the Prevention Leadership
Council, which has been designated to coordinate
prevention funding and activities across the state. One of the council?s main goals is to train all Colorado communities in the Title V risk- and pro-tective-factor prevention model and then to ask each community to develop a 3-year plan outlining gaps in services. Communities then could apply to the council for funds to implement prevention efforts. The council pools resources across state agencies and manages grant activities statewide, thus ensuring
that funds, however meager, are available each year, reducing duplication of efforts among agencies, and increasing coordination and efficiency of service delivery at the local level. The Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice (MCJJ) hopes to build local prevention capacity through training, thereby decreasing local dependence
on any single funding source. To this end, MCJJ has approved a plan to offer several types of community-based training that focus on building and sustaining prevention efforts. The plan first seeks to support OJJDP-sponsored Title V training,
regardless of whether Title V funds are available.
Michigan communities also can participate in state-sponsored training in grant writing and fund
development. These types of trainings are expected to empower communities to continue collaborative efforts started under Title V and to seek additional resources for sustaining prevention efforts. Finally, outreach and media relations training can help communities
develop public awareness campaigns and communicate evaluation findings. Michigan emphasizes
evaluation to its Title V and other grantees as a means to attract funding from foundations and other sources. State Funding Sources Three states currently have programs from which they can support Title V grantees should it become necessary. Kansas has developed a $5.4 million state block grant program using tobacco settlement moneys.
The state currently funds more than 180 prevention
programs in 31 judicial districts. Oregon?s High-Risk Juvenile Crime Prevention Program is funded through the state?s general fund. Oregon?s 36 counties and 9 federally recognized tribes are all eligible
to receive funds through the program, which began in 1999. Because both of these state programs hold grantees to the same standards required by Title V (i.e., collaboration, risk- and protection-fac-tor focus, implementation of research-based programs,
evaluation), they again demonstrate these states? commitment to long-term prevention planning. Maryland has developed a Consolidated Youth Strategies Program?a cutting-edge, multiyear grant program that consolidates OJJDP funds and other state and federal dollars into one large pool of money. The initiative is designed to support delinquency
prevention activities in 24 jurisdictions. Like the programs in Kansas and Oregon, this program follows the basic tenets of the Title V model. Impact at the State Level When juvenile justice specialists were asked, ?What was the impact of the lack of 2003 Title V funds on your state?s delinquency prevention activities?? they identified the following problems: An inability to fund new grants and continue existing grants. Reduced services for youth and families. Challenges in implementing research-based programs. Inability To Fund New Grants and Continue Existing Grants Despite community interest, a large number of states could not fund new prevention grants in 2003. Respondents from 21 states and 1 territory said they did not fund new prevention efforts this year because of the funding shortage. This resulted in a significant disruption of delinquency prevention efforts. For example, several Nebraska communities that had completed Title V training and were in position to receive grants did not receive federal moneys because of the funding reduction. When the state was unable to find alternate funding for these new projects, the communities did not implement prevention
activities at any level. The Minnesota juvenile
justice specialist reported that, if funding had not been cut, the state would have funded at least 15 new subgrantees who planned to focus on underserved
rural and Native American communities. Three of the states that could not support new grantees also could not fund any continuation grantees. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington, no delinquency prevention grants were awarded in 2003. A combination of severe state budget cuts and federal funding cuts made it impossible for these states to compensate for the lack of Title V funds. In Washington, funding was discontinued for 4 projects
that had served more than 700 youth in rural and underserved areas of the state in 2002. The juvenile justice specialist encouraged the affected communities to seek local funds, but only one community
was successful at this, and at a significantly lower funding level. Only one state and one territory funded both new and continuation grants in 2003. In both cases, unobligated Title V funds from previous fiscal years were used to support prevention activities; however, this support was at a reduced level. Virginia used
the remainder of its 2002 grant funds to make continuation
awards and to fund some, but not all, of the requests for new funding. Reduced Services for Youth and Families Because of the 2003 funding reduction, 20 states and 1 territory funded continuation grants, but at a significantly reduced level. The North Carolina juvenile justice specialist reported that the funds received in 2002 supported approximately 10 prevention
programs that served more than 2,200 youth. Had funds been available in 2003, they would have supported tutoring, parent training, counseling, and interpersonal skills training in an additional 8?10 communities, serving approximately 2,000 more youth and families. South Carolina and the Virgin Islands faced similar circumstances. South Carolina eliminated five Title V programs because of budget cuts. The juvenile justice specialist there estimates that more than 1,000 youth previously served went without services.
In the Virgin Islands, approximately 100 high-risk youth did not receive prevention services in 2003. Colorado supported eight existing grantees at minimal
funding levels. The state could not recruit potential Title V communities to participate in training.
As a result, local communities relied on limited county funds to subsidize prevention activities. Many communities reduced the number of priority areas they addressed and eliminated programs accordingly. In many cases, this proved difficult. Having spent many months developing long-term prevention plans?including conducting needs assessment activities to identify priority areas and finding the right programs to address them?com-munity members struggled to adjust their plans. Fewer programs also meant fewer opportunities to meet the prevention goals laid out in these plans. The New York juvenile justice specialist noted that as the New York Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) strengthened its commitment to prevention over time, so did local grantees. In 1994, DCJ funded
7 Title V communities; by 2002, an additional 65 grantees had received Title V funds. DCJ had made good on its commitment to fund all local communities
that met the requirements for prevention grants. The loss of Title V funds, however, meant that DCJ could no longer meet its commitment. Continuation grantees in 2003 received half the amount of funds they received in 2002. Juvenile justice specialists in four states and one territory reported that they could not compensate for the lack of Title V funds. In Wisconsin, where Title V was the only funding stream specifically focused on delinquency prevention, a severe cut in the state?s juvenile justice funds left the state with no way to make up for the lack of Title V funds. As a result, 13 subgrantees (including 3 in their final year of continuation funds) did not receive any funding in FY 2003. For some smaller states, such as New Hampshire and Vermont, resources were already so limited that no available options existed for compensating
for lost Title V funds. Neither New Hampshire nor Vermont provided financial support to Title V communities in FY 2003. Challenges in Implementing Research-Based Programs The juvenile justice specialists in Michigan and Maryland expressed concern about the future of research-based programming in their states, especially
given its high implementation costs. In both states, many communities are implementing either multisystemic therapy (MST) or functional family therapy (FFT)?two strategies that effectively reduce delinquency among high-risk youth. MST is a treatment methodology that has been shown to have positive effects on serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. FFT is a family-based prevention and intervention program that has been successfully applied to high-risk youth and their families. Both programs are costly to implement. Based on an average annual service capacity of 50 youth and families per team per year, the total cost of MST program support and training is $22,500?$32,500 annually, or $400?$650 per youth. The cost for FFT is $1,350?$3,750 per family. FFT also requires a three-phase training model at an estimated cost of $26,000. Insufficient funding may make these programs
cost prohibitive in the future.
Longer Term Implications Because Title V has a longer and steadier history than any other federal delinquency prevention program,
it represents more to states and communities than a simple funding source. Its effectiveness in producing positive outcomes has made Title V the primary model for prevention planning nationwide. As reported in the 2000 Title V Report to Congress (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2002), 26 percent of state juvenile justice
specialists said Title V had enhanced their state?s investment in prevention. Several states, including New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, apply Title V principles to all state prevention
efforts. These factors have helped solidify the credibility of the Title V Program model among state and local stakeholders. Some juvenile justice specialists said the suspension of Title V had a negative impact on prevention efforts in general. As prevention funds have been reduced or eliminated, communities have shifted their programming emphases. After years of building
support for prevention efforts, state program administrators are concerned that gains made under Title V will be reversed, and juvenile crime and arrests will begin to increase. Several juvenile justice specialists said they are seeing
increased delinquency rates. The Nevada specialist
wrote, ?For the past 5 years, there has been a decrease in delinquency rates. In fact, the rate [of delinquency] was growing slower than the population.
In 2003, delinquency rates were double the rate of the population growth.?6 This shift coincided with cuts in state and federal prevention dollars and the concurrent loss of prevention programming, especially in rural areas, he said. Program Sustainability Program sustainability has become a critical issue for local communities. Providing evidence of success is critical to securing ongoing funding. One barometer
of the overall success of the Community From 2002 to 2003, the population rate in Nevada increased 3.4 percent. In that same time period, referrals to the juvenile justice system increased 6.2 percent (Nevada State Demographics
2002 release, ASRHD estimates and projections). Prevention Grants Program is grantees? ability to institutionalize or sustain prevention programs after the grant award period ends. Sustainability has sometimes been difficult for Title V communities. In fact, grantees reported concerns as early as 1998, when a number of communities reported being unable to continue grant activities past their Title V funding period. Many of the communities that state juvenile justice specialists nominated for inclusion in the 2000 Title V Report to Congress said they were unsure how they would acquire the resources to continue their efforts. Given the current limitations on resources and the expectations that federal and state budgets will be further reduced (the FY 2004 Title V budget has been appropriated at a level significantly
lower than in recent years), understanding how to help communities obtain funds for sustaining programs is critical. However, several issues make assessing the extent to which Title V communities have sustained their efforts in past years and how they will do so in the future difficult. Specifically, although OJJDP each year asks juvenile
justice specialists to identify communities in their state that have been particularly successful in sustaining their prevention initiatives, most lack both the time and resources to follow Title V grantees once their grant period has ended. In some states, the same communities are nominated each year; in others, there are no nominations. This situation does not lend itself to understanding the factors that either facilitate or hinder sustainability
efforts?factors that could assist OJJDP in helping communities sustain their Title V programs long term. In addition, other options for tracking and gathering sustainability data, such as mail or telephone surveys, are likely to be cost prohibitive given current funding conditions and the more than 500 past Title V grantees that exist in any given year. These issues are problematic, but now, more than ever, OJJDP needs to strengthen its understanding
of sustainability so it can continue to support
prevention efforts.
Next Steps in Delinquency Prevention
Supporting children and families is a key component of OJJDP?s mandate. The Office recognizes that prevention of and early intervention in problem behaviors are essential for achieving its goals of deterring youth crime and violence and reducing the number of juveniles arrested and detained. Over time, effective front-end delinquency prevention services
reduce the burden that the back end of the juvenile
justice system?adjudication and confinement? bears and the human and economic costs. OJJDP introduced the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program 10 years ago to serve as a catalyst for promoting research-based prevention activities. As presented in this Report, states and communities have widely accepted and implemented the model with encouraging results. Ongoing long-term support for prevention ensures the well-being of the nation?s youth and protects public safety. But simply funding Title V is not enough. We must also continue to assess how to use prevention funds more effectively and draw from lessons learned to strengthen the program?s efficacy. As the program enters its second decade, OJJDP is concentrating on three key areas to enhance the positive impact of the limited Title V funds: Provide enhanced support for grantees to implement evidence-based practices. OJJDP requires local grantees to propose prevention strategies that research has shown to be promising,
effective, or exemplary in reducing risk factors
and enhancing protective factors associated with juvenile delinquency. OJJDP supports the identification of such strategies through its online Title V Model Programs Guide and Database. This year, OJJDP added service programs to MPGD in the areas of intervention, treatment, and aftercare.
The tool is a cost-effective way to help states and communities access current research and match evidence-based programs to their needs and circumstances. OJJDP plans to complete
the expansion of Title V MPGD in 2004, making it a user-friendly source of evidence-based programs for all juvenile justice initiatives, regardless of funding source. Promote performance measurement. Performance
measurement and program evaluation are vitally important to ensure accountability, assess outcomes, and keep programs on track. OJJDP is committed to helping all grantees, including those funded by Title V, track their performance. Toward that end, OJJDP has contracted for the development of recommended performance measures
and performance reporting systems. These tools are expected to support local, state, and OJJDP outcome management, resource allocation,
strategic planning, and decisionmaking. Enhance training and technical assistance. As funds permit, OJJDP will continue to enhance and offer training and technical assistance that builds state and local capacity in data-driven planning, program implementation, sustainability, performance measurement selection and reporting,
and other key areas linked to effective prevention
initiatives. Community mobilization takes time. Achieving long-term community commitment to a delinquency prevention
model focused on increasing protective factors and reducing risk factors and delinquency rates takes even longer. In its first 9 years, the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program steadfastly
progressed at both the state and local levels in advancing its prevention model and reaping positive outcomes, which OJJDP has supported through
training and technical assistance. Even in its 10th year (FY 2003), when OJJDP did not allocate Title V funds, a number of states found ways to fund local delinquency prevention efforts, albeit with fewer subgrants and lower funding levels. On the other hand, it is clear that most options that these states employed to maintain some level of prevention
activities came at the expense of other juvenile
justice priorities and/or were one-time, stop-gap measures. Over the past decade, OJJDP has built upon the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program?s achievements and valuable momentum to prevent delinquency at the local level. A measure of this success
is that thousands of communities have submitted
requests to their state agencies for funding and technical assistance to implement this community-based and data-driven prevention approach. The demand for prevention programming exists. Federal support is critical to sustain the momentum that has been created. OJJDP stands ready to provide cutting-edge support to delinquency efforts across the nation and to increase the accountability of state and local recipients to make maximum use of future Title V appropriations.
Bernard, B. 1991. Fostering Resiliency in Kids: Protective Factors in the Family, School, and Community. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Benson, P. 1997. All Kids Are Our Kids: What Communities Must Do to Raise Caring and Responsible Children and Adolescents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Connell, J., Kubisch, A., Schorr, L., and Weiss, C., eds. 1995. New Approaches to Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, Roundtable on Comprehensive Initiatives for Children and Families. Hawkins, J.D., and Catalano, R.F. 1992. Communities That Care?: Action for Drug Abuse Prevention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and Miller, J.Y. 1992. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in early adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention.
Psychological Bulletin 112:64?105. Hawkins, J.D., Lishner, D.M., Catalano, R.F., and Howard, M.O. 1986. Childhood predictors of adolescent
substance abuse: Toward an empirically grounded theory. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society 8:1?48. Hawkins, J.D., and Weis, J. 1985. The social development
model: An integrated approach to delinquency
prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention 6:73?97. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2002. Title V Community Prevention Grants Program: 2000 Report to Congress. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Pollard, J., Hawkins, J.D., and Arthur, M. 1999. Risk and protection: Are both necessary to understand
diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence? Social Work Research 23(3):145?158. Snyder, H. 2004. Juvenile Arrests 2002. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., and Poe-Yamagata, E. 1996. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
iand the ments from OJJDP and the field about a bimonthly topics as JUVJUST?plus recent OJJDP Glance Corrections and Detention 2004, NCJ 202713 2004, NCJ 202885 2002, NCJ 187078 2004, NCJ 202019 Delinquency2003, NCJ 193410 School. Gangs 2001, 2002, NCJ 191524 2004, Access to Counsel (Causes and Correlates Issue), 2003, 2003, 2003, Missing and Exploited Children 2002, 2002, NCJ 190448 NCJ 199832. 2001, NCJ 190105 2002, NCJ 194639 National Estimates of Missing Children: 2002, NCJ 196467 2000, 2002, NCJ 196469 2004, NCJ 203934 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, Victimization. ization. 2004, cent Victimization. 2002, NCJ 191052 2004, 2002, NCJ 195737 OJJDP produces a wide varety of materials,
including Bulletins, Newsletters, Fact Sheets, Reports, Summaries, videotapes, Juvenile Justice journal?all available
from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse
via the Internet. View and download
materials at OJJDP?s Web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp). Order materials at puborder.ncjrs.org. Ask questions about materials at askjj.ncjrs.org. Publications may also be ordered by phone (800?851?3420). To receive notification of new publications? and current information on developments in the field and at OJJDP?subscribe to OJJDP?s free electronic services: The JUVJUST listserv e-mails announcenew
publications, funding opportunities, and upcoming conferences. OJJDP News @ a Glance, newsletter, covers many of the same activities?in greater depth. Subscribe to JUVJUST and News @ a online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp. Assessing the Mental Health Status of Youth in Juvenile Justice Settings. (8 pp.). Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000: Selected Findings. 2002, NCJ 196595 (4 pp.). Juveniles in Corrections. (24 pp.). Courts Juvenile Drug Court Programs. 2001, NCJ 184744 (16 pp.). Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability and Providing Treatment. (12 pp.). Juveniles in Court. 2003, NCJ 195420 (32 pp.). Delinquency Prevention 2002 Report to Congress: Title V Community Prevention Grants Program. (48 pp.). Blueprints for Violence Prevention (available online only). 2004, NCJ 204274 (180 pp.). Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention. 2003, NCJ 186162 (20 pp.). Prevalence and Development of Child . 2003, NCJ 193411 (8 pp.). Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency. 2003, NCJ 193409 (16 pp.). Successful Program Implementation: Lessons From Blueprints. 2004, NCJ 204273 (12 pp.). Treatment, Services, and Intervention Programs for Child Delinquents. (16 pp.). Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in 2001, NCJ 188947 (16 pp.). Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs. NCJ 189916 (8 pp.). Modern-Day Youth Gangs. (12 pp.). Youth Gangs in Indian Country. NCJ 202714 (16 pp.). General Juvenile Justice (available online only). 2004, NCJ 204063 (34 pp.). Aftercare Services (available online only). 2003, NCJ 201800 (31 pp.). Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability: Overview. 2003, NCJ 184745 (12 pp.). Changes to OJJDP?s Juvenile Accountability Program. 2003, NCJ 200220 (6 pp.). Juvenile Justice Volume IX, Number 1. 2004, NCJ 203555 (40 pp.). Latest Resources From OJJDP. BC 000115 (56 pp.). OJJDP?s Tribal Youth Initiatives. NCJ 193763 (8 pp.). Race as a Factor in Juvenile Arrests. NCJ 189180 (8 pp.). Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and Characteristics. NCJ 196466 (12 pp.). Explanations for the Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. 2004, NCJ 199298 (12 pp.). A Family Resource Guide on International Parental Kidnapping. (139 pp.). Also available in Spanish. 2002, Issues in Resolving Cases of International Child Abduction by Parents. (20 pp.). A Law Enforcement Guide on International Parental Kidnapping. (116 pp.). An Overview. 2002, NCJ 196465 (12 pp.). Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates
and Characteristics. (16 pp.). Overview of the Portable Guides to Investigating
Child Abuse: Update 2000. NCJ 178893 (12 pp.). Prostitution of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS. 2004, NCJ 203946 (12 pp.). Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates
and Characteristics. (12 pp.). When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide. 2004 Update, NCJ 204958 (108 pp.). Also available in Spanish. 2002, NCJ 178902. Substance Abuse Detection and Prevalence of Substance Use Among Juvenile Detainees. (16 pp.). Violence and Victimization Addressing Youth Victimization. NCJ 186667 (20 pp.). Animal Abuse and Youth Violence. NCJ 188677 (16 pp.). Community Correlates of Rural Youth Violence. 2003, NCJ 193591 (12 pp.). Crimes Against Children by Babysitters. NCJ 189102 (8 pp.). Gun Use by Male Juveniles: Research and Prevention. 2001, NCJ 188992 (12 pp.). Homicides of Children and Youth. NCJ 187239 (12 pp.). How Families and Communities Influence Youth 2003, NCJ 201629 (12 pp.). Juvenile Delinquency and Serious Injury Victim2001,
NCJ 188676 (8 pp.). Juvenile Justice (School Violence Issue), Volume VIII, Number 1. 2001, NCJ 188158 (40 pp.). Juvenile Suicides, 1981?1998. NCJ 196978 (8 pp.). Offenders Incarcerated for Crimes Against Juveniles. 2001, NCJ 191028 (12 pp.). Protecting Children in Cyberspace: The ICAC Task Force Program. 2002, NCJ 191213 (8 pp.). Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Adoles2002,
NCJ 191210 (16 pp.). Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending: An Analysis of Victim Survey Data. (20 pp.). Victims of Violent Juvenile Crime. NCJ 201628 (8 pp.). Violent Victimization as a Risk Factor for Violent Offending Among Juveniles. (12 pp.). Publications From OJJDP Revised 08/09/2004
20531 DOJ/OJJDP*NCJ~207694* U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Washington, DC Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID PERMIT NO. G?91 OJJDP Report