FOREWARD Pursuant to Section 504(4) of Title V of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as Amended (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), it is my pleasure to present to you this second annual Report to Congress. In the 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act, Congress established Title V-Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. The purpose of this program is to prevent young people from becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. Since 1994, Title V has served as a stimulus for States and units of general local government across the country to pool available services in their communities to design and implement comprehensive, risk-focused delinquency prevention plans. In 1995, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) distributed $20 million in support of Title V delinquency prevention programs at the local level. The first two years of operations have seen widespread support for the Program: Title V funds have been distributed to 49 States, four Territories, and the District of Columbia. Additionally, OJJDP has continued to make available two phases of risk-focused prevention training to interested local leaders and practitioners. This training provided local communities with leadership support and the ability to focus on developing a research-based, comprehensive, risk-focused delinquency prevention plan. During 1994 and 1995, more than 3,700 local participants representing a cross-section of communities attended OJJDP-sponsored training sessions. Much has been accomplished during this initial period to assess and improve Title V. As part of our evaluation efforts, we have developed and disseminated a Community Self-Evaluation Workbook for Title V communities to assist them in gathering data to evaluate their local Title V Programs. Through Title V we have made significant progress toward the establishment of a comprehensive, nationwide approach to delinquency prevention-one that puts control of resources and planning at the grass roots level. In the relatively short time since its initial funding and implementation in 1994, Title V has brought communities together to focus on preventing juvenile delinquency. Title V grants have facilitated a commitment of local financial and human resources in more than 280 communities. Feedback from the States participating in the Title V Program indicates that their long-term expectations for the Title V approach are more promising than for the fragmented and unfocused approaches to delinquency prevention that have been tried in the past. And, because we believe that a balance of prevention, early intervention, and graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders is the key to successfully addressing rising rates of serious and violent delinquency, we have incorporated risk- focused delinquency prevention into OJJDP's broad-based plan of community action, A Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. It is our hope that these combined actions will further the significant progress made during the first two years of the Program. As you read the 1995 Report to Congress, it will be apparent that this Program is not "business as usual," but instead takes a bold step toward encouraging local communities to take a leadership role in establishing an environment that fosters strong and healthy families and helps children become law abiding and contributing members of society. Last year we predicted that subsequent Reports would reflect the interest and ownership that communities nationwide have put into this pioneering delinquency prevention program. As you will see, our expectations have been enthusiastically met. Shay Bilchik Administrator INTRODUCTION Title V of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as Amended in 1992 (PL 93-415; 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), established a new prevention program-Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs-to assist and encourage communities to focus on preventing juveniles from entering the justice system. This is the second annual report fulfilling the requirements of Section 504(4) of Title V, which states that the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) shall submit a report to the Committee on Education and Labor, Economic and Educational Opportunities, in the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary in the Senate: * Describing activities and accomplishments of grant activities funded under the title * Describing procedures followed to disseminate grant activity products and research findings * Describing activities conducted to develop policy and to coordinate Federal agency and interagency efforts related to delinquency prevention * Identifying successful approaches and making recommendations for future activities to be conducted under the title. The Report to Congress begins with a review of the Title V Program background and delineates the role Title V plays in the prevention and control of juvenile problem behaviors. The following chapter describes how much has been done to "set the foundation" in the first two years of Program implementation. The third chapter highlights the Program's early indications of success. Finally, the last chapter offers conclusions on the past and future contributions of Title V Program activities. I. TITLE V: FOUNDATION OF A NATIONAL PREVENTION PROGRAM In the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as Amended (JJDP Act), Congress established Title V-Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs (Title V) in response to the need for comprehensive strategies to address the rising tide of juvenile crime and delinquency. With Title V there is a renewed commitment to prevention programs that complement existing juvenile justice initiatives. A MAJOR CATALYST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TITLE V PROGRAM WAS A REQUEST FROM STATES AND COUNTIES FOR FEDERAL RESOURCES TO INVEST IN LOCAL DELINQUENCY PREVENTION STRATEGIES. A major catalyst in the development of the Title V Program was a request from States and Counties for Federal resources to invest in local delinquency prevention strategies. Although the existing State Formula Grants Program provided substantial funds to States to enhance their juvenile justice systems, resources under this program generally were not being devoted to prevention efforts. The State Formula Grants Program, which the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers in 55 participating States and Territories, was a central component of the JJDP Act of 1974. This program provides funding for a wide variety of activity at both the State and local levels, but does not allocate funding directly to units of general local government. In 1992, the National Association of Counties (NACO) testified before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that the structure of the JJDP Act put them in an "untenable" position. Counties were caught in a cycle of paying the expensive "back-end" costs of the juvenile justice system- enforcement and treatment-but were not provided with an alternate source of Federal juvenile justice funds for "front-end" prevention strategies. In seeking relief from this problem, NACO requested of the Subcommittee that: * Counties be empowered to plan their own delinquency prevention strategies * These strategies favor comprehensive coordination of youth-serving agencies and elected officials at the local level * Units of general local government receive Federal money in the form of grants to fund these interventions * Federal funds be used to leverage resources from State and local sources. These recommendations became the guiding principles of Title V. With Title V, Congress for the first time provided specific incentives that favored delinquency prevention. Title V required local planning for local initiatives and provided a rationale to coordinate the actions of agencies serving youth. Through Title V, Congress provided the means to break the cycle of mandate-driven reaction to juvenile delinquency and to enable local jurisdictions that were ready and willing to invest in a healthier community and a safer future for their children. This first chapter of the Report to Congress on Title V begins with a summary of the role Title V plays in the prevention and control of juvenile problem behaviors. The second section of the chapter presents an overview of the Program's strategic approach and funding structure. 1. TITLE V's ROLE IN THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF JUVENILE PROBLEM BEHAVIORS The need for action to stem the rising tide of delinquency and youth violence is great and immediate. The response to this need requires both effective prevention strategies and a system of accountability and sanctions for youthful offenders. Title V, which provides a foundation for the front end of this two-pronged strategy, seeks to interrupt the processes that produce delinquent and criminal behavior while concurrently promoting environments that encourage positive youth development, functional families, and healthy communities. 1.1 The Need: Alarming Levels of Juvenile Crime and Delinquency JUVENILE ARRESTS FOR VIOLENT CRIMES INCREASED BY 51 PERCENT BETWEEN 1988 AND 1994. RECENT STATISTICS PREDICT A DOUBLING IN JUVENILE ARRESTS FOR VIOLENT CRIME BY THE YEAR 2010 IF THE LAST DECADE'S TRENDS CONTINUE UNCHECKED. Today's communities face alarming and increasing levels of juvenile crime and delinquent behavior. In 1994, law enforcement agencies made over 2.7 million arrests of persons under 18 years old. Over 150,000 of these arrests were for violent crimes (Snyder, Sickmund, & Poe-Yamagata, 1996). Violent crime among youth is on the rise. Juvenile arrests for violent crimes increased by 51 percent between 1988 and 1994 (Snyder et al, 1996). Recent statistics predict a doubling in juvenile arrests for violent crime by the year 2010 if the last decade's trends continue unchecked (Snyder & Sickmund, 1995). In addition to the growing numbers of juveniles committing violent crime, adolescents also are increasingly victims of violent crime. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, juveniles were murdered at the rate of 5 per day in 1980 and 7 per day in 1994. Further, victimization of adolescents is growing at a faster rate than victimization of the population as a whole. While the total number of murder victims increased by only 1 percent between 1980 and 1994, the number of juvenile murder victims increased by 47 percent during this period (Fox, 1996). As adolescents enter the adult criminal justice system, the costs to society are great in both human and financial terms. Any intervention that prevents a juvenile from becoming involved in the justice system saves money, prevents more people from becoming victims, and helps prevent the next generation from becoming offenders (OJJDP, 1995). The total cost of the violent crime career of a young adult 18- to 23-years-old is assessed at $1.1 million, and one year of juvenile incarceration costs approximately $34,000 (Cohen, 1994). Costs per child of prevention and early intervention programs are substantially lower than incarceration and can save the system money over the long run. For example, one recent study estimated the costs for one year of parent training at $1,500 per family and for early intervention with delinquents at up to $10,000 per child (Greenwood, Model, & Rydell, 1995). Another study conducted to determine the cost benefits of delinquency prevention programs in California demonstrated that every $1.00 spent on prevention resulted in a direct savings of $1.40 to the law enforcement and juvenile justice system (Lipsey, 1984). 1.2 The Response: Prevention and Sanctions RISING LEVELS OF SERIOUS ADOLESCENT CRIME AND VICTIMIZATION UNDERSCORE THE COMPELLING NEEDS OF FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH THAT INTEGRATES LAW ENFORCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND TREATMENT WITH EARLY INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION EFFORTS. Rising levels of serious adolescent crime and victimization underscore the compelling needs of families and communities for a comprehensive approach that integrates law enforcement, prosecution, and treatment with early intervention and prevention efforts. OJJDP works with the juvenile justice system to help meet these needs in order to ensure public safety and reduce delinquency. Toward this end, OJJDP has developed a broad-based plan-the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. The Comprehensive Strategy advocates for an entire change in juvenile delinquency-related activities, but promotes prevention and early intervention as the most cost-effective approach to reducing delinquency. Prevention programs play a critical, proactive role in keeping at-risk youth from becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. Further, prevention programs intervene before young offenders continue on a path to more serious, chronic, and violent delinquent behavior. The prevention component of the Comprehensive Strategy calls for coordinated efforts between the juvenile justice system and other service systems, including mental health, health, child welfare, education, and housing systems, religious institutions, and others. No one sector alone can effectively meet the complex needs of the Nation's children, youth, and families. Working collaboratively, however, community sectors can develop an integrated system of support that encourages positive youth development and provides alternatives to delinquent behavior. The Title V Program embodies the key elements of what is known to be effective in prevention: a comprehensive, risk-focused approach with community-based activities that address all areas affecting young peoples' lives (i.e., their family, school, peers, and community). Title V supports prevention activities consistent with the Comprehensive Strategy by providing critical resources to localities to implement a broad range of programs and services focused on at-risk youth. Title V's widespread implementation provides a solid foundation for local prevention efforts to effectively reduce the number of delinquent youth. The Program grants, which require comprehensive planning efforts and seed community-based programs, foster continued local prevention initiatives of increasing magnitude and effectiveness. Prevention efforts alone, however, cannot serve as the sole course of action in responding to problems of juvenile delinquency and crime. The Comprehensive Strategy, as presented in Exhibit I-1, promotes prevention efforts concurrent with a spectrum of graduated sanctions and treatment options. These include immediate intervention for first-time, non-violent offenders; intermediate sanctions within the community for more serious offenders; secure corrections for the most serious and violent offenders, including the possibility of transfer for criminal prosecution; and aftercare programs with treatment services for all offenders. Graduated sanctions are intended to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions and to ensure community safety, while also providing appropriate treatment and rehabilitation services. PREVENTION PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED TOGETHER WITH GRADUATED SANCTIONS CREATE A "CONTINUUM OF CARE" THAT BOTH PREVENTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF AND INTERRUPTS THE PROGRESSION OF DELINQUENT AND CRIMINAL CAREERS. Prevention programs implemented together with graduated sanctions create a "continuum of care" that both prevents the development of and interrupts the progression of delinquent and criminal careers. To help demonstrate implementation of this compre-hensive continuum of care, OJJDP introduced the SafeFutures Initiative. Six communities were chosen to receive fiscal year 1995 SafeFutures grants supporting communitywide strategies to address juvenile crime and delinquency with prevention, intervention, and a range of graduated sanctions and treatment services. To fund SafeFutures, approximately $1 million in 1995 Title V Program funds were combined with nearly $7 million from other programs, including those related to after-school programs, job training, mentoring, family support, graduated sanctions, drug treatment, aftercare, and victim restitution. AS FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES ARE STRENGTHENED AND MORE CHILDREN AT AN EARLY AGE ARE DIRECTED TOWARD HEALTHY BEHAVIORS, FEWER YOUTH ARE EXPECTED TO BECOME SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENDERS REQUIRING EXPENSIVE BACK-END INTERVENTION OR CONFINEMENT RESOURCES. Prevention programs in general, and Title V in particular, can be viewed as the front end of the continuum of care espoused by the Comprehensive Strategy. This front end encompasses promising programs such as parent training, early childhood education, family support, school management, tutoring, and community mobilization. As families and communities are strengthened and more children at an early age are directed toward healthy behaviors, fewer youth are expected to become serious juvenile offenders requiring expensive back-end intervention or confinement resources. As such, Title V prevention activities provide the foundation needed for a strong juvenile justice system and safe, healthy communities. Think of prevention programs as a fence that keeps children near the edge from falling off a cliff into a sea of delinquency and other dangers. Sanctions and rehabilitation, on the other hand, represent the arduous and expensive rescue efforts that try to pull survivors from the waters and heal their injured bodies. If more children were prevented from nearing the cliff's edge, fewer children would have to be helped out of the water below. 1.3 The Front End: Delinquency Prevention Based on Risk and Protective Factors Research shows that there are identifiable risk factors linked to adolescent problem behaviors (Tolan & Guerra, 1994; Yoshikawa, 1994; American Psychological Association, 1993; Reiss & Roth, 1993; Dryfoos, 1990; Kandel, Simcha-Fagan, & Davies, 1986; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992). Prevention efforts that reduce those risk factors, or employ protective factors to buffer children against their influence, maximize the chances of reducing juvenile delinquency and other related problems. This premise forms the cornerstone of the delinquency prevention model based on risk and protective factors. Risk- and protection-focused prevention maintains that in order to prevent a problem from occurring, the factors that contribute to the development of that problem must first be identified. Prevention programs must develop and implement methods to reduce those factors that increase risks for the problem area (i.e., risk factors) and enhance those factors that protect against risk (i.e., protective factors). PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT A RISK-REDUCTION AND PROTECTIVE FACTOR-ENHANCEMENT APPROACH TO PREVENTING UNHEALTHY BEHAVIORS IS EFFECTIVE. Persuasive evidence exists that a risk-reduction and protective factor-enhancement approach to preventing unhealthy behaviors is effective. For example, comprehensive, community-wide programs to reduce risks and enhance protective factors for heart and lung disease have succeeded in persuading people to change their behavior in areas such as diet, exercise, and smoking (Elder, Molgaard, & Gresham, 1988; Jacobs et al., 1986; Murray, Davis-Hearn, Goldman, Pirie, & Luepker, 1988; Vartiainen, Pallonen, McAlister, & Puska, 1990). Research indicates that delinquency prevention strategies undertaken by communities hold great potential for success when they focus on reducing known risks and enhancing protective factors in several areas of a youth's life (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992). This risk- and protection-focused approach has been incorporated into juvenile delinquency prevention as researchers have increased their understanding of the causes and precursors of juvenile delinquency and documented the factors that put youth at risk of problem behaviors. Risk factors for delinquent behavior and youth violence include conditions, attitudes, or behaviors that increase the likelihood that a child will develop delinquent behaviors in adolescence, leading to crime and arrest. Risk factors exist in the community, school, family, peer group, and within the individual. Examples of risk factors include the availability of drugs, extreme economic and social deprivation, family conflict, favorable parental and peer attitudes toward problem behaviors, academic failure, and lack of commitment to school, as well as alienation and rebelliousness (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992). A list of risk factors that studies have linked to unhealthy adolescent behaviors is included in Appendix A. Balancing risk factors are protective factors-aspects of people's lives that counter risk factors or provide buffers against them. They protect youth either by reducing the impact of risks or by changing the way a person responds to risks (i.e., building a child's capacity to be more resilient). A key strategy to counter risk factors in young people's lives is to enhance the protective factors that promote positive behavior, health, well-being, and personal success (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992). Examples of protective factors include a resilient temperament and natural sociability, positive adult and peer relationships that promote bonding, as well as healthy beliefs and clear standards. Generalizations regarding risk and protective factors have significant implications for community prevention planning and development. Research (Coie et al., 1993; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992) reveals that: * Risks exist in multiple domains. Since risk factors exist in all areas of life, if a single risk factor is addressed only in one domain (e.g., the school), problem behaviors may not be significantly reduced. Communities should focus on reducing risks across several domains (i.e., the community, school, family, peer group, and individual domains). * The more risk factors present, the greater the risk. While exposure to one risk factor does not condemn a child to problems later in life, research shows that exposure to multiple risk factors increases a young person's risk exponentially. Even if a community cannot eliminate all the risk factors that are present, reducing or eliminating even a few may decrease risk significantly for young people living in that community. * Common risk factors predict diverse behavior problems. Several adolescent problem behaviors-substance abuse, delinquency, teen pregnancy, school dropout, and violence-are predicted by the presence of common risk factors. Therefore, when any individual risk factor is reduced, multiple problems in the community are affected. * Risk factors show consistency in effects across different races and cultures. While levels of risk may vary in different racial or cultural groups, the way in which these risk factors work does not appear to vary. As such, programs selected to target specific risk factors should be adaptable to fit the needs of various groups in any community. The implication of the research is clear: If the risks in young people's lives can be reduced or if those risks can be countered with protective factors, the possibility of preventing adolescent problem behaviors associated with those risks will be greatly increased. THE IMPLICATION OF THE RESEARCH IS CLEAR: IF THE RISKS IN YOUNG PEOPLE'S LIVES CAN BE REDUCED OR IF THOSE RISKS CAN BE COUNTERED WITH PROTECTIVE FACTORS, THE POSSIBILITY OF PREVENTING ADOLESCENT PROBLEM BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE RISKS WILL BE GREATLY INCREASED. 2. TITLE V OVERVIEW The Title V Program employs a risk- and protection-focused prevention model to address the critical aspects of children's lives that have been shown to lead to delinquent behavior. Title V provides incentive grants and capacity building tools to localities for a broad range of prevention activities that target youth who have had contact with, or are at risk of contact with, the juvenile justice system. These grants foster local community success by providing seed money, a research-based implementation framework, flexibility to choose programs that fit community-specific needs, and a mechanism to mobilize community support and leverage resources. The following sections describe the basic principles underlying the Title V strategic approach and outline the Program's funding structure. 2.1 Title V Underlying Principles As illustrated in Exhibit I-2, the Title V strategic approach integrates the following six underlying principles: * Community control and decision making * Research foundation for planning * Comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach * Leverage of resources and systems * Evaluation to monitor program success * Long-term perspective. Title V not only merges these fundamental principles into an innovative approach to reducing juvenile delinquency, but also provides a sound framework for their practical application. Community control and decision making. Title V is a grass roots program. It allows local jurisdictions to assess their own delinquency prevention needs. Each unit of general local government receiving Title V funds is given the responsibility and the opportunity to plan, develop, and implement a delinquency prevention initiative that best suits its unique circumstances. As a result, Title V puts control of community safety in the hands of community members. EACH UNIT OF GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECEIVING TITLE V FUNDS IS GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLAN, DEVELOP, AND IMPLEMENT A DELINQUENCY PREVENTION INITIATIVE THAT BEST SUITS ITS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. Research foundation for planning. Title V promotes a rational framework for approaching adolescent problem behaviors that has been verified by years of research on risk-focused prevention (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992). This framework also fosters data collection and analysis to support well-founded and outcome-driven planning efforts at the local level. While community leaders and citizens know they have youth problems, they are not always aware of the root causes of the problems or the best ways to address them. Prevention research reveals that there are certain indicators, or quantifiable data, that provide information about the prevalence of risk factors linked to subsequent problem behaviors (Developmental Research and Programs, 1994). Examples of these indicators include: domestic violence reports, numbers of children living below poverty level, trends in exposure to drug use, school truancy and dropout rates, and youth attitudes toward crime. With empirical data on these indicators of risk, community members can assess where the risks are greatest in their community and identify priority areas warranting attention and resources. Comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach. Recognizing that a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach dramatically increases the efficacy of prevention efforts, while also reducing duplication and redundancy of services, Title V requires the formation of a multidisciplinary community planning board. The Title V planning board, known as the Prevention Policy Board or PPB, is designed to include representatives from law enforcement, juvenile justice, education, recreation, social services, private industry, health and mental health agencies, churches, civic organizations, and other community agencies that serve youth and families. This broad-based approach encourages the commitment and participation of the entire community in developing and implementing a prevention strategy. It also fosters coordination so that a comprehensive system of programs and services can be delivered in a way that best meets the needs of each community's children, youth, and families. THE TITLE V RISK AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS, SUPPORTED BY COMMUNITY DATA, LEND VALIDITY TO COMMUNITY REQUESTS FOR LOCAL AND STATE FUNDING AND ENABLE COMMUNITIES TO USE MORE EFFECTIVELY THE PREVENTION FUNDS THEY SECURE. Leverage of resources and systems. While some Title V subgrant awards to local communities are relatively small, this seed money can provide both a financial base and the incentives necessary for local jurisdictions to secure additional resources and implement comprehensive prevention systems in their communities. The Title V risk and resource assessments, supported by community data, lend validity to community requests for local and State funding and enable communities to use more effectively the prevention funds they secure. Evaluation to monitor program success. At the local level, requisite Title V evaluation activities will provide important feedback to the community, thus allowing local participants to assess progress, refine their programs, and optimize effectiveness over time. Evaluation components also will help communities assess program outcomes and monitor long-term changes in the prevalence of risk factors and adolescent problem behaviors in the community. In addition, evaluation of Title V at the national level will help OJJDP analyze Title V results across communities and assess the impact of Federal Program dollars. Moreover, evaluation will support a better understanding of what does and does not work in delinquency prevention. Long-term perspective. Title V does not propose quick-fix solutions to complicated juvenile problems, but rather has adopted a long-term perspective that fosters positive, sustained community change. Short-term efforts must be combined with long-term investments through gradual and continual reduction of risk factors and enhancement of protective factors in order to create healthier and safer neighborhoods for the long run. 2.2 Title V Program Structure The Title V Program structure is designed to provide communities with a guiding framework for building healthy communities in an objective, systematic, and comprehensive manner. The Title V grant award process-as set forth in the final Program Guideline of the Federal Register, August 1, 1994 (Volume 59, Number 146)-authorizes the State Advisory Group to award grant funds to units of general local government and allows for broad local discretion in applying funds toward community-based prevention activities tailored to the needs of the specific locality. In conjunction with the grant award process, OJJDP has implemented an unparalleled effort of providing widespread training and technical assistance to help communities build their capacity in prevention planning and implementation. The Program's grant award process and capacity building activities are illustrated in Exhibit I-3. Grant Award Process Title V funds are distributed to local communities in a two- step process. In the first funding step, OJJDP awards grants to States through their State Advisory Group (SAG). As provided by Section 223(a)(3) of the JDDP Act, the SAG is an advisory board appointed by the Governor with 15 to 33 members who have training, experience, or special knowledge concerning the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency or the administration of juvenile justice. Statutory responsibilities of the SAG include supervising the preparation and administration of the State's juvenile justice plan, advising the Governor and legislators on responding to juvenile justice needs, and reviewing grant applications related to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Each State, as well as the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories, is eligible to apply for Title V funds provided that it has a State agency designated by the chief executive under Section 299(c) of the JJDP Act and a SAG, as described above. Title V grant amounts are based on a formula determined by the State's population of youth below the maximum age limit for original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction, with a minimum award level of $100,000 for States and $33,000 for Territories in fiscal year 1995. In the second funding step, State SAGs subgrant their Title V funds to units of general local government through a competitive process. In order to be eligible to apply for a Title V subgrant from the State, a unit of general local government must meet four basic requirements: * Receive certification of compliance with the JJDP Act core requirements, which requires deinstitutionalization of status offenders from secure detention, sight and sound separation of juveniles from adults held in secure facilities, removal of juveniles from secure custody in adult jails and lockups, and efforts to address the disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles in secure facilities * Convene or designate a local Prevention Policy Board comprising representatives from various community sectors that provide services for children, youth, and families * Submit a three-year, comprehensive risk-focused delinquency prevention plan to the State, describing the prevalence of identified risk factors in the community and outlining strategies for addressing priority risk factors and enhancing protective factors * Provide a 50-cents-on-the-dollar in-kind or cash match of the Title V subgrant. SAGs may establish additional eligibility criteria for subgrant awards in their States based on criteria related to juvenile crime or other indications of need (e.g., jurisdictions with above average violent crime rates). The comprehensive delinquency prevention plan of a local applicant for Title V funding is required to include: * The formation of a Prevention Policy Board, consisting of 15 to 21 members representing a balance of public agencies, nonprofit organizations, private business and industry, at-risk youth, and parents * Evidence of the commitment of key community leaders to supporting the delinquency prevention effort * Definition of the boundaries of the program's neighborhood or community * An assessment of the community's readiness to adopt a comprehensive delinquency prevention strategy * An assessment of baseline data related to risk factors prevalent in the community * An identification of available resources and promising approaches that address identified risk factors and an assessment of gaps in needed resources * A strategy for mobilizing the community to implement prevention activities * A strategy for obtaining and coordinating identified resources to implement promising approaches that address priority risk factors and strengthen protective factors * A plan for how Title V funds and matching resources will be used to accomplish stated goals and objectives * A description of the Prevention Policy Board's program management role * A plan for collecting performance and outcome evaluation data. Local applications are assessed by the SAG for inclusion and quality of each of the above elements. The grant application process requires data collection and thorough assessment of readiness, risk, and resources in the community before prevention strategies are developed and funded. These assessments then drive an empirically-based plan to implement and/or expand community-based programs and services for children, youth, and families. THE GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS REQUIRES DATA COLLECTION AND THOROUGH ASSESSMENT OF READINESS, RISK, AND RESOURCES IN THE COMMUNITY BEFORE PREVENTION STRATEGIES ARE DEVELOPED AND FUNDED. As a consequence of the individualized assessment processes, the type, scope, and combination of programs and services implemented will vary from community to community. While one community may respond to its risk profile and resource gaps by implementing a family support program, another may identify the need to implement after-school recreation services and youth leadership development activities, and yet another may focus on a widespread media campaign. Each community will, in essence, create a unique prevention initiative tailored to the specific conditions, risk profiles, and existing resources in that community. Capacity Building: Training and Technical Assistance To support communities in conducting quality risk and resource assessments and developing sound delinquency prevention plans, OJJDP offered training and technical assistance to States and communities across the country throughout 1994 and 1995. State Juvenile Justice Specialists, who are responsible for coordinating the administration of juvenile justice grants at the State level, made arrangements for the provision of training and technical assistance to interested communities in their States. Training. Title V risk-focused prevention training is delivered in two phases. The first phase-The Key Leader Orientation (KLO)-consists of a 1-day workshop for key community leaders and high-level executives in the community. The second phase of training-The Risk and Resource Assessment (RRA)-is a 3-day "hands- on" workshop on data collection and analysis for members of the community's Prevention Policy Board. Currently, the available training is based on the Communities That Care model. Technical Assistance. OJJDP has made technical assistance available on a case-by-case basis. State and community representatives requested help with technical aspects of planning or implementing their delinquency prevention strategies. Assistance was available both to strengthen the conceptual understanding of the risk-focused prevention model that was presented in the training sessions and also to present information related to other risk- and resiliency-focused prevention strategies. THE TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES BUILD THE CAPACITY OF LOCALITIES TO APPLY RISK-FOCUSED PRINCIPLES NOT ONLY TO TITLE V EFFORTS, BUT ALSO TO OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL DELINQUENCY PREVENTION INITIATIVES. The training and technical assistance components of Title V support communities in developing Title V applications and prevention plans. Moreover, these activities build the capacity of localities to apply the risk-focused principles and comprehensive strategic planning procedures not only to Title V efforts, but also to other current and future Federal, State, and local delinquency prevention initiatives. The preceding chapter described the critical role Title V plays in building the foundation for local prevention efforts that address the precursors of delinquency. The chapter also delineated the underlying principles of the Title V Program and outlined the Program's funding and capacity building structure. The following chapter presents what has been done to date through the second year of implementation of this comprehensive, community-based, risk- focused initiative. II. SETTING THE FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS Title V is designed to build a foundation for a national delinquency prevention initiative that provides communities with a framework for addressing the precursors of delinquency. To accomplish this goal, Title V has sponsored extensive training for local policy makers from Part C discretionary funds and provided over $32 million in incentive grants to States for distribution to community-level programs. These investments have paid off: Thus far, 283 communities have received funds to implement prevention strategies based on local needs. TITLE V HAS SPONSORED EXTENSIVE TRAINING FOR LOCAL POLICYMAKERS FROM PART C DISCRETIONARY FUNDS AND PROVIDED MORE THAN $32 MILLION IN INCENTIVE GRANTS TO STATES FOR DISTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITY-LEVEL PROGRAMS. This chapter summarizes what has been done in the first two years of program implementation. The first section examines the training and technical assistance provided to local communities; the second focuses on the grants and subgrants awarded to States and communities; the third briefly describes the broad array of local strategies and programs that are currently being implemented nationwide; and the fourth discusses the collaborative efforts of Federal and State agencies to support the implementation of Title V at the local level. 1. CAPACITY BUILDING: TITLE V TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE In 1995, OJJDP continued to support communities nationwide in the development of comprehensive delinquency prevention plans through training and technical assistance. Hundreds of communities from across the Nation have benefited from the risk-assessment, coalition-building, evaluation, and mobilization skills they gained from the training and technical assistance provided through the Title V Program. The following two sections provide an update on Title V training and technical assistance activities. 1. 1 Title V Training OJJDP has continued to make training available nationwide to help States and localities strengthen the knowledge and skills they need to develop and implement communitywide, risk-focused prevention strategies. The training is based on a risk-focused prevention model and is delivered by trainers from Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (DRP) of Seattle, Washington. Communities may elect, however, to adopt other risk-focused prevention models. Juvenile Justice Specialists from each State are responsible for coordinating training schedules, inviting participants, securing meeting space, and obtaining written commitments to attend training from community key leaders. In 1995, OJJDP provided trainers and training materials for 40 to 50 participants at each session. Training is conducted in two phases. The first is an orientation to risk-focused prevention provided to communities' key leaders. The second is a more intensive "how-to" training on conducting risk and resource assessments. Training Phase One: Key Leader Orientation (KLO). The Key Leader Orientation is a 1-day workshop for the major policymakers, business leaders, and high-level agency executives in the community. The primary purposes of the KLO are to familiarize the community's leadership with the theoretical basis of risk-focused prevention and to secure the commitment of community leadership to a long-term, comprehensive, risk-focused prevention strategy. KEY LEADER ORIENTATION * Understanding risk and protective factors * Developing a shared community vision * Assessing community readiness for comprehensive risk-focused prevention * Creating a community planning team or prevention policy board. Training Phase Two: Risk and Resource Assessment (RRA). The Risk and Resource Assessment training is a 3-day, "hands-on" workshop for local Prevention Policy Board members and staff who are or will be involved in the development of the local delinquency prevention plan. The purpose of the RRA is to teach communities how to apply the research framework of risk and protective factors to the assessment of community risks and resources. RISK AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT * Identifying risk and protective factors * Assessing community readiness * Collecting and analyzing data on risk factors * Conducting a resource assessment * Introducing risk-focused prevention to the community. "AFTER THE TRAINING, WE COMPLETED OUR RISK AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR THE FOCUS THIS HAS GIVEN OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAD A CLASSIC CASE OF TURFISM FOR YEARS HERE. NOW FOLKS ARE CALLING US AND ASKING TO BECOME A PART OF THIS PREVENTION PROCESS." -KEY LEADER FROM VISALIA, CALIFORNIA The hands-on exercises and activities conducted during the training sessions prepare communities for developing collaborative community coalitions and comprehensive delinquency prevention plans that reflect their own unique risk reduction needs. These plans form the basis of the local Title V subgrant application and also can be used by communities for applications to other Federal, State, and local funding sources. Since the training was initiated in the Spring of 1994, more than 3,400 community participants and 260 State representatives have attended the two phases of risk-focused training for Title V. These training sessions have brought together, often for the first time, diverse communities and multidisciplinary community representatives to discuss prevention needs, strategies, and plans. "AFTER THE TRAINING, WE COMPLETED OUR RISK AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR THE FOCUS THIS HAS GIVEN OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAD A CLASSIC CASE OF TURFISM FOR YEARS HERE. NOW FOLKS ARE CALLING US AND ASKING TO BECOME A PART OF THIS PREVENTION PROCESS." -KEY LEADER FROM VISALIA, CALIFORNIA Exhibit II-1 presents the States in which the KLO and RRA trainings were held and the number of communities and key leaders that attended. All States but nine (Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Wyoming) have been through one or both phases of the training. Among those States that have not yet taken advantage of the training, Indiana and Oregon have been exposed to similar risk- focused training through other sources; Illinois and Nebraska have received other community collaborative training; and Connecticut, North Carolina, and South Carolina have indicated an interest in scheduling future training for communities in their States. Key Leader Orientations (KLO) Between March 29, 1994, and February 1, 1995, there were 54 one-day KLO trainings in 41 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Overall, nearly 2,000 key leaders from more than 450 communities attended these trainings. Among the community leaders were executives of direct services organizations, judges and other judicial system representatives, educators, police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel, and local government officials. In addition, KLO trainings were attended by almost 200 State Juvenile Justice Specialists, State Advisory Group (SAG) members, and representatives of social services and other agencies outside the target communities. Key Leader Profiles The Title V model is designed to bring together leaders from the full spectrum of community sectors including justice, law enforcement, education, local government, business, civic organizations, the religious community, and housing. As demonstrated in Exhibit II-2, certain sectors were represented more strongly than others at these trainings. Predictably, organizations that are most likely to have contact with the youth population remain the most heavily represented among KLO participants: direct services, judicial, education, and law enforcement. The Title V training model targets high-level decision-makers for the KLO in order to mobilize local prevention efforts. Exhibit II-3 (not available in electronic format) presents the seniority level of the key leaders who have attended the key leader training. Just over one-quarter (28%) of the key leaders who attended training were heads of organizations (e.g., mayor, chief of police, agency executive director, school superintendent, CEO) and over one-third (35%) were senior managers or held influential positions (e.g., council member, judge, principal). One-third of attendees (34%) held "other" positions in the organization, frequently as assistants to the key leaders. Risk and Resource Assessment (RRA) Trainings Since May 1994, 46 RRA training sessions were conducted in 35 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This second phase of risk-focused training was well-attended by communities over the 3-day RRA sessions. Community Board Profiles Nearly 1,500 community board members from more than 340 communities have attended the RRA training sessions. Approximately 60 State Juvenile Justice Specialists, SAG members, and representatives of State-level social services and other agencies outside the target communities also attended these trainings. While the key leaders are expected to mobilize the community into action and provide continued guidance and oversight, the community board members are the ones who conduct the risk and resource assessments, develop prevention strategies, and implement the prevention plans. THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ATTENDED TITLE V TRAINING REPRESENT A BROAD RANGE OF SETTINGS AND POPULATIONS, INCLUDING RURAL COUNTIES, MAJOR METROPOLITAN CITIES, SUBURBAN TOWNS, AND NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL REGIONS. Exhibit II-4 presents the sector representation for community board members. As with key leaders, there were community board members from the full spectrum of community sectors, and their representation has been similiarly distributed. The following six sectors have been strongly represented, each making up over 10 percent of the total attendance at RRA trainings: education, youth- serving organizations, law enforcement, prevention/treatment providers, justice system/ courts, and local government. Community Profiles The communities that have attended Title V training represent a broad range of settings and populations, including rural counties (e.g., Sussex County, Delaware; Cass County, Minnesota; Perry County, Ohio), major metropolitan cities (e.g., Baltimore, Maryland; Jacksonville, Florida; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), suburban towns (e.g., Ft. Collins, Colorado; Waverly, Iowa; Grand Haven, Michigan), and Native American tribal regions (e.g., Navajo Reservation, New Mexico; Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; Fallon Painte-Shoshone Tribes, Nevada). More than one-third (37%) of the communities were rural areas and the remainder represented urban or suburban settings (see Exhibit II-5 not available in electronic format). The participating communities' populations are generally evenly distributed across three groups: less than 25,000, between 25,000 to 100,000, and more than 100,000 (see Exhibit II-6). In keeping with the training model, participants are encouraged to target their prevention efforts toward communities of manageable and measurable size. Most communities that attended the training indicated substantial prior involvement and experience in coordinated interagency approaches to youth issues. Of the more than 400 communities that attended key leader training, 75 percent had existing community coalitions or interagency task forces that deal specifically with youth issues, three-fifths (59%) had teams that attended prior training programs focused on collaborative interagency approaches for responding to community problems, and over half (54%) had received grants supporting the implementation of interagency cooperation. Additional Training "THE TITLE V TRAINING GAVE US THE MOMENTUM TO MOVE FORWARD AND GET OUR COMMUNITY READY FOR THIS [RISK-FOCUSED] MODEL OF PREVENTION. IT HELPED GIVE US A FOCUS ON WHERE TO TARGET OUR ENERGIES." -KEY LEADER FROM COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA In addition to the training sessions indicated above, all of which were funded through OJJDP Part C discretionary funds, three communities (Williston, North Dakota; Mason City, Iowa; and Fort Collins, Colorado) held an additional KLO training for their communities. Five States (Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania) held supplementary RRA training sessions that were supported by State funds. Two States (Oregon and Illinois) did not request training through OJJDP, but have received KLO and RRA training during the past year through other program funding. KLO and RRA training continues to be scheduled and conducted in 1996. 1. 2 Technical Assistance OJJDP has made technical assistance available on a case-by-case basis to State agencies, State Advisory Groups (SAGs), and community planning boards. State and community representatives can request help with any of the technical aspects of planning or implementing their delinquency prevention strategies. Assistance is available both to strengthen the conceptual understanding of the training model and also to present information related to specific needs identified by the State or community. Summary of Technical Assistance Provided Between October 1994 and August 1995, there were 58 technical assistance events in 21 States (see Exhibit II-7). Individual local Prevention Policy Boards (subgrant applicants and/or recipients) accounted for about two-thirds of all technical assistance requests. The remaining requests came from State-wide bodies such as SAGs and from groups of local subgrant applicants/recipients. EXHIBIT II-7 REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, BY STATE OCTOBER 1994 - AUGUST 1995 Alabama 1 Arizona 7 California 10 Colorado 6 Delaware 1 Hawaii 2 Iowa 2 Kansas 1 Kentucky 1 Maryland 1 Michigan 3 Missouri 5 Nebraska 1 New Mexico 1 North Dakota 3 Oregon 1 Pennsylvania 3 Rhode Island 3 Texas 1 Utah 1 Washington 4 There were two predominant categories of requests for technical assistance. The first, accounting for slightly more than half of the technical assistance requested, was from States and communities seeking seminar or briefing-style training sessions similar to the KLO and RRA trainings. These seminars generally were classroom- style sessions on the theories and methods involved in risk-focused planning. The seminars often repeated Title V training material to a different audience than those that attended the original training sessions. Recipients included SAGs, State Juvenile Justice Agency staff, Prevention Policy Board members, and groups of community members. States also requested community training on program approaches to reduce their priority risk factors. Several communities felt that they could not effectively proceed with their 3-year plans without access to additional information about proven program models. The second category of technical assistance requests was for direct assistance to individual communities seeking help tailored to their specific difficulties with the Title V implementation process. Examples of requests for this tailored form of technical assistance include: * Discussing methods for effective community mobilization * Reviewing the community's 3-year plan * Walking the community through the process of conducting a risk and resource assessment * Providing comprehensive program strategies to address identified risk factors * Helping to resolve local agencies' "turf" issues and fostering collaborative approaches * Assisting the community with data collection methods and instruments and with data analysis to address specific risk factors of concern to them * Addressing confusion about the Program Guideline, including instruction related to selecting the program target area and determining the number of relevant risk factors * Facilitating community forums to prioritize risk factors and initiate planning for effective program responses * Defining the community's goals and desired outcomes * Translating data collection results, such as survey responses, into priority risk factors. These types of technical assistance have been especially beneficial to communities that have existing prevention programs in place and wish to match these programs more closely to the priority risk factors identified through their risk assessments, while efficiently utilizing Federal resources. 2. STATE GRANTS AND LOCAL SUBGRANTS Congress appropriated $13 million to fund Title V in fiscal year 1994 and another $20 million in fiscal year 1995. Of the $20 million in discretionary funds appropriated for Title V in fiscal year 1995, $1 million was applied to OJJDP's SafeFutures Project. In accordance with OJJDP's Title V Program Guideline, the Administrator of OJJDP awarded Title V grants to eligible jurisdictions. Each State, as well as the District of Columbia and each U.S. Territory, is eligible for Title V funds, provided that it has a State agency designated under Section 299(c) of the JJDP Act and a SAG appointed by the chief executive officer of each State, as required by Section 223(a)(3). The States, through the State agency and with the approval of the SAGs, then award subgrants to qualified units of general local government for delinquency prevention programming. Exhibit II-8 illustrates the funding structure and basic eligibility requirements for Title V funds. In fiscal year 1994, two States (Connecticut and Wyoming) and two Territories (Guam and U.S. Virgin Islands) did not submit applications for Title V Program funds. The sum of their allotments ($257,000) was combined with the $19 million in fiscal year 1995 Title V funds ($20 million appropriated less the $1 million to SafeFutures) for a total of $19,257,000 available for distribution to the States and Territories. 2.1 State Grants WHERE FEASIBLE, STATES ARE ENCOURAGED TO MAKE EFFORTS TO COORDINATE THEIR TITLE V PLANNING AND AWARD PROCESSES WITH EXISTING PREVENTION INITIATIVES (E.G., FAMILY PRESERVATION, CSAP COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING, EMPOWERMENT ZONES, AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES). State grants are based on a formula determined by each State's population of youth below the maximum age limit for original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction. The minimum award for each State was $75,000 in fiscal year 1994 and $100,000 in fiscal year 1995. For Territories, the minimum Federal award was $25,000 in fiscal year 1994 and $33,000 in fiscal year 1995. Exhibit II-9 presents the allocation of funds for which each State was eligible in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. Up to 5 percent of a State's Title V allocation can be used to cover the costs of administering the Title V subgrants and support SAG activities related to Title V. Only one State (Wyoming) and one Territory (U.S. Virgin Islands) did not apply for fiscal year 1995 Title V funds. 2.2 Local Subgrants State agencies award subgrants to eligible units of general local government, defined as any city, county, town, borough, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State, and any Indian tribe that performs law enforcement functions as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. The award process generally includes a Request for Proposals (RFP), a competitive review of local grant applications, and the subsequent award of subgrants to units of general local government. Subgrants are awarded in annual increments with overall project periods of 12 to 36 months. Based upon the amount of funds allocated to the State and the number and quality of applications, the SAG determines the total number of subgrants within the State and the size of the subgrant made to each locality. Where feasible, States are encouraged to make efforts to coordinate their Title V planning and award processes with existing prevention initiatives (e.g., Family Preservation, CSAP Community Partnerships, Community Oriented Policing, Empowerment Zones, and Enterprise Communities). Exhibit II-10 presents the local subgrant awards of Federal Title V funds for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. Because the award process is ongoing, and each State is on a different timeline for awarding subgrants, the exhibit represents a snapshot of each State's number and amount of subgrants of Federal Title V funds for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 as reported by the Juvenile Justice Specialists in February, 1996. The far right column of the exhibit reports the total number of communities who were awarded Federal Title V funds during either fiscal year. Some States, those relatively new to the Title V initiative, have only recently issued Requests For Proposals (RFPs) to their communities and therefore have not yet obligated program funds. Connecticut, for example, which did not apply for Federal Title V funds in fiscal year 1994, did, however, apply for and receive fiscal year 1995 funds and is currently planning its trainings and developing RFP information. States have adopted a variety of award and funding strategies. Minnesota, for example, in an attempt to distribute the fiscal year 1994 funds quickly, granted funds to three communities (St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth) that exhibited the "most sophistication" in collaborative prevention training, planning, and performing risk- assessments in the shortest time period. Subsequently, with fiscal year 1995 funds, the Minnesota SAG distributed grants in an open bid to 13 smaller communities. Some States, such as Iowa, added significant State funds and/or their State allotment of Title II, to their Title V monies (Exhibit II-10 does not include any non-Title V funding). Iowa awarded all of its fiscal year 1994 Title V funds ($132,050) in one subgrant; however, the State funded 22 additional grants in the Title V model in fiscal year 1994 with $1.8 million in State funds, and the State allocated an additional $1.8 million in fiscal year 1995. 3. LOCAL PROGRAM ACTIVITY ACCORDING TO MANY STATE AND LOCAL GRANTEES, THE TITLE V GRANTS HAVE PROVEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN "SEEDING" NEW COMMUNITY-BASED PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES. Title V incentive grants serve two important functions: 1) they "seed" new community-based delinquency prevention programs, and 2) they help leverage other prevention resources. According to many State and local grantees, the Title V grants have proven very successful in reaching the first of these goals, the seeding new community-based prevention programs and strategies. This section summarizes the types of programs funded by Title V subgrants and highlights several of the many noteworthy success stories. To date, 283 communities across the Nation have received prevention grants from fiscal year 1994 and 1995 Title V funds. Based on their individual risk assessments, these communities are now implementing a broad range of prevention activities for children of all ages, including primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention programs that include: * Parent skills training and family counseling * Outreach and crisis intervention * Crime prevention * Court intake services and arbitration/mediation * Mentoring programs and peer counseling * Alcohol and drug abuse prevention * Employment training * Truancy prevention * Child abuse and neglect prevention programs * Community mobilization. The scope of the programs implemented in each community varies greatly. Some have chosen to develop programs that focus on a limited number of risk factors and/or a specific audience (e.g., programs for pregnant teenagers in a local high school); others have implemented strategies targeting multiple risk factors community- wide (e.g., public forums on community risk factors and prevention strategies). From preliminary reports and discussions, two types of programs have been noted most frequently by State and local representatives. The first is school-based programs, which include activities targeting truancy, school failure, violence, teen pregnancy, anti- social behavior, and drug and alcohol abuse. The second is the integration of multiple programs and activities into a continuum of services for at-risk families through the collaboration of multiple State and local agencies. Other prevention strategies that are currently being implemented across the country include: * Community-wide efforts to raise awareness about the need for risk-focused prevention strategies. Examples include a speakers bureau on prevention models, community forums, and educational activities for the entire community provided by a community mobilizer who coordinates various collaborative activities. * Law enforcement-sponsored programs. Examples include the establishment of three community policing districts, police liaisons to community schools, and arbitration/mediation programs supervised by law enforcement representatives. * Programs for parents. Examples include parenting skills training, behavior-modification training, informal support groups, formal support groups with trained community specialists, parent directories, and parent- child activities. * Health services. Examples include prenatal care and education, health education classes for new parents, and co-locating health and community centers to facilitate collaborative activities. THERE IS ALREADY MUCH ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THESE STRATEGIES ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE. While it is too soon to know whether the programs implemented under Title V are reducing the prevalence of risk factors associated with juvenile problems, there is already much anecdotal evidence that suggests these strategies are making a difference, and communities are energized and eager to share their "success stories" with others (See Exhibit II-11). 4. AGENCY COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION The complexity, magnitude, and scope of the problems related to delinquency and youth violence compel coordinated, multidisciplinary responses at Federal, State, and local levels. At the Federal level, OJJDP is working closely with the other Office of Justice Programs bureaus and offices, as well as the Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Labor to develop and implement comprehensive solutions that alleviate adolescent problem behaviors and promote healthier, safer communities. At the State and local levels, program administrators and grantees are working to combine funding streams where possible to enhance coordinated prevention strategies and effective use of resources. 4.1 Coordination and Collaboration within the Department of Justice OJJDP has promoted inter- and intra-agency coordination and collaboration by sharing information regarding prevention programs, planning new ways to promote integrated approaches, developing policies in collaboration with other justice programs and government agencies, and coordinating with other agencies to implement collaborative programs. Among OJJDP's efforts to share information on Title V, the Agency widely disseminated the 1994 Report to Congress to U.S. Attorneys, Chief Justices, State Courts, Juvenile Justice Specialists, and SAG Chairs, as well as Federal Department Heads, and members of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Through information dissemination efforts such as this, OJJDP keeps various stakeholders in the field of youth services well-informed about interrelated programs. With the goal of fostering increased coordination among important related Programs, the Title V Program Manager has adopted an active role in the Community-Based Initiatives Group (CBI). Formed at the request of the Attorney General, and operating under the leadership of the Associate Attorney General, the CBI group has launched a collaborative effort among the following important Department of Justice Programs: * Title V * SafeFutures * Operation Weed and Seed * Comprehensive Communities Program * Pulling Americas Communities Together (PACT) * Community Oriented Policing Services * Office of Victims Services Program * Empowerment Zone Program (with HUD). This working group pursues concrete opportunities for coordination, particularly at the local level. Activities to date have included the gathering and sharing of specific information regarding program objectives and local site activities. This enables program participants to identify ways in which interrelated initiatives build on one another. The Title V Program Manager also routinely collaborates with Program Managers and State Representatives of other OJJDP discretionary grant programs, as well as the JJDP Act Formula Grant Program. Additionally, the Program Manager serves as a liaison to the Bureau of Justice Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Community Block Grant Program to share information, encourage coordinated efforts, and collaborate on projects whenever possible. 4.2 Coordination and Collaboration between Agencies at the Federal Level In June 1995, OJJDP sponsored-in collaboration with the Children's Bureau, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Intensive Family Preservation Services National Network, and Law Enforcement Television Network-a national teleconference entitled Communities Working Together. The purpose of the teleconference was to provide OJJDP and community leaders with an opportunity to discuss the community collaboration process as it applies to the implementation of local delinquency and violence prevention initiatives. The Communities Working Together teleconference allowed OJJDP and prevention specialists to disseminate information on best practices to a large number of communities nationwide. The teleconference included an overview of the collaborative process, highlights of model communities, and program synopses of seven Federal programs-Title V, Operation Weed and Seed, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Comprehensive Communities Program, Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities Program, Children at Risk Program and SafeFutures Program. Following the presentation, State Juvenile Justice Specialists at participating sites facilitated discussions on developing local collaborative efforts and community action plans to reduce delinquency and violence. OJJDP also has been working with representatives of the Administration for Children Youth and Families (ACYF) to coordinate their respective prevention programs, particularly Title V and ACYF's Family Preservation and Support Services Program. Each of these Programs is designed to help local communities develop prevention and early intervention services for families and youth. Both Programs also require the submission of comprehensive plans that reflect coordination with multidisciplinary public and private agencies. OJJDP and ACYF have encouraged communities to avoid duplicative planning processes and to integrate Title V and Family Preservation Program planning boards wherever possible. A joint publication, Bridging the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems, highlights opportunities for collaboration (See Appendix B). For example, since sizable planning monies are available to the Family Preservation Program but not to the Title V Prevention Program, the Agencies suggest that communities plan their Title V strategies within the context of planning for Family Preservation. To strengthen planning efforts and keep the systems coordinated, child welfare directors, juvenile justice representatives, and court leaders are recommended participants on the respective planning teams. Further, the Agencies recommend that groups continue to work closely together during the implementation phases of the respective programs. By sharing program plans, identifying common elements, and establishing formal linkages, the quality of each program's efforts can be enhanced. In addition to the Family Preservation Program, a number of other Federal programs sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services and other Federal Agencies address the prevention of juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, or youth violence. These programs include, but are not limited to, the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention (CSAP) Community Coalition Program, CSAP Substance Abuse Prevention Program for High Risk Youth, FYSB Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program, Prevention in Housing Communities, Drug Free Schools and Communities, and the Empowerment Initiative. OJJDP has collected and disseminated information on related Federal community prevention programs, provided assistance to State Juvenile Justice Specialists on how to best coordinate different Program efforts at the State-level, and encouraged grantees to supplement their Title V awards with these complementary prevention funding sources. OJJDP also has made efforts to integrate, where possible, program and training activities of Title V and the PACT-Pulling America's Communities Together-Program. Launched in 1993, PACT is an interdepartmental Federal initiative designed to empower communities to reduce crime and violence. PACT is initially focusing on four geographic areas: Metropolitan Atlanta, Metropolitan Denver, the State of Nebraska, and Washington, D.C. Similar to Title V communities, these selected sites are undergoing Communities That Care training to support their development of broad-based, coordinated anti-violence initiatives. To avoid duplication of efforts, OJJDP staff have reviewed training schedules and participant lists, informed communities of the parallel efforts, and where feasible, combined training sessions. Further, the Title V Program Manager has pursued collaborative efforts with numerous public and private agencies providing primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention services to at-risk children and youth. The groups have discussed opportunities for leveraging dollars and services to broaden the impact of community-based prevention programming. 4.3 Coordination and Collaboration at State and Local Levels State and local participants also have actively pursued coordination and collaboration initiatives. Some States (for example, Maryland and Utah) have combined Federal Program funds, including Family Preservation dollars, to support Title V activities. In California, several counties are participating in a State pilot project to blend categorical funding streams. Several communities in other States have reported that their Title V risk assessments enabled them to secure funding from a variety of public and private sources. In line with the Title V Program Guideline, multidisciplinary community agencies nationwide are discovering new ways to coordinate and collaborate in the development of effective prevention strategies. This chapter highlighted the preliminary success of Title V in fostering both sustainable community-based prevention initiatives and inter-agency coordination and collaboration at the Federal, State, and local levels. The next chapter examines the various implementation processes that support local Title V strategies and early indicators of success. III. EARLY INDICATIONS OF SUCCESS The Title V implementation process described in the previous chapter has provided training to hundreds of local communities and distributed program funds for their delinquency prevention plans. Although it is still too soon to measure the outcomes of these grants in terms of reduced delinquency, there are many early indications that Title V is already a successful initiative and is making a difference. The grant funds and training provided by OJJDP have planted seeds in local communities that already are growing prevention initiatives where there were none before. Through Title V, local communities have been empowered to take charge of their own delinquency prevention issues for the first time. ALTHOUGH IT IS STILL TOO SOON TO MEASURE THE OUTCOMES OF THESE GRANTS IN TERMS OF REDUCED DELINQUENCY, THERE ARE MANY EARLY INDICATIONS THAT TITLE V IS ALREADY A SUCCESSFUL INITIATIVE AND IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE. This chapter describes how States and communities have built on the Title V foundation provided by OJJDP to make risk-focused planning and prevention initiatives come to life. The following sections will discuss different aspects of Title V as communities transform the theory of the Federal initiative into practice, including: * Community Action-There is compelling evidence that the Title V plan to provide localities with the expertise and seed money they need to create their own risk- focused prevention initiatives appears to be working. Prevention Policy Boards in hundreds of local communities are not only participating, but also matching and exceeding expectations of their ability to implement the sometimes demanding model. Many appreciate the new way of "thinking about" delinquency reduction, and the result is new hope for effective prevention of juvenile delinquency and other adolescent problem behaviors. * Turning Theory Into Practice: Title V in Pennsylvania- In States such as Pennsylvania, in which Title V has been fully implemented, approaches to delinquency prevention have already been fundamentally changed. * Solid Groundwork for Future Evaluation-Much has been accomplished during the first program year to assess and improve Title V. Gathering of baseline data, use of the Community Self-Evaluation Workbook, and heightened awareness of the importance of evaluation findings all will lead to more answers to the "what works?" question, as well as a better understanding of how best to mobilize communities to achieve their prevention goals. * Program Refinements-Refinements to the Title V process have already occurred as the result of evaluation efforts so far. Issues raised by States and localities during the first year of implementation, and described in the 1994 Report to Congress, were found to inhibit the effective participation of some subgrantees in implementing the Title V model. OJJDP has provided expert assistance and other resources to help localities address these problems. Title V has established an extensive foundation for a national prevention program. While it is still too early to detect its impact on delinquency statistics, communities across the country already are building on this foundation, committed to reducing the incidence of violent juvenile crime. 1. COMMUNITY ACTION Follow-up with communities that attended Title V training indicates that the majority have completed the risk assessment and prevention planning process to some degree. Further, a substantial number of communities have more fully implemented the model and are using it to coordinate the planning, funding, and implementation of prevention programs within a collaborative framework involving a diverse group of local public agencies and private organizations. "THE APPLICATION OF THE MODEL GOES BEYOND THE FUNDING OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS. RISK-FOCUSED PREVENTION PROVIDES AN IMPORTANT FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITIES. IT APPEARS TO BE BROAD ENOUGH, WITH ENOUGH SUBSTANCE, TO GET PEOPLE FOCUSED AND MOBILIZED IN A WAY THAT OTHER PROGRAMS DO NOT." -Juvenile Justice Specialist from a Midwestern State One of the most significant aspects of Title V is the creation of delinquency prevention planning boards in every community that receives subgrant funds-almost 300 so far. Title V requires that these boards conduct community assessments and develop 3-year prevention plans as a prerequisite to receiving grant funds. In order to be eligible to apply for a Title V subgrant from the State, a unit of general local government must meet four basic requirements: * Receive certification of compliance with the JJDP Act Formula Grant core requirements from the State Advisory Group * Convene or designate a local Prevention Policy Board * Submit a 3-year, risk-focused, comprehensive delinquency prevention plan to, the State * Provide a 50 percent in-kind or cash match of the Title V subgrant. These requirements call for the creation of a planning body accountable for both planning and implementing the delinquency prevention initiative. G RANT RECIPIENTS HAVE MOVED WELL BEYOND JUST "DOING PROGRAMS" OR COPYING THE LATEST POPULAR METHODS. THEY ARE MAKING CHANGES THAT LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR RESPONSIVE PREVENTION PLANNING MECHANISMS THAT WILL ENDURE INTO THE FUTURE. Evidence shows that the opportunity provided by Title V grant funding and training combined with the four-point structure of the grant requirements are having the desired effect of mobilizing many communities to make fundamental changes in the way they address delinquency prevention. Grant recipients have moved well beyond just "doing programs" or copying the latest popular methods. They are making changes that lay the foundation for responsive prevention planning mechanisms that will endure into the future. These changes can be seen in five specific areas: * Building new community coalitions to improve planning * Attracting prevention resources from sources other than Title V * Conducting risk assessments to gather information and build community involvement * Coordinating the roles of public and private agencies to maximize efficiency * Evaluating the performance of their prevention programs using baseline data and performance outcome measures. The following sections illustrate the scope of local community responses in these five key areas. 1.1 New Community Coalitions Have Improved Planning FOCUSING ON THE RISK-FOCUSED MODEL HAS PROVEN TO BE AN EXTREMELY UNIFYING EFFORT FOR PREVENTION. IT HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN GIVING COMMUNITIES A RALLYING POINT, AND HAS BROUGHT BRAND NEW PLAYERS TO THE TABLE. IT IS EXTREMELY POWERFUL FOR OUR PREVENTION EFFORTS!" -JUVENILE JUSTICE SPECIALIST FROM A MIDWESTERN STATE The planning process of Title V, in which the Prevention Policy Board reviews local risk-factor data and seeks the participation of the community, has increased community capacity to implement and operate effective programs. Evidence of this improvement is found in Title V grant applications themselves. State Juvenile Justice Specialists report that the quality of grant applications for Title V funds is notably higher than applications they receive from the same communities for other juvenile justice grants. In interviews with Juvenile Justice Specialists from nine States, the majority reported that the applications for Title V grants reflected more investment in planning and research than have other grant proposals. Title V applications were more comprehensive in their approach to the issue and included more measurable outcomes as well as better plans for assessing program success. One respondent said that he thought the reason for the high quality of the applications was a combination of the Title V training they received and the special requirements of the grants, such as preparing a 3-year plan. The applications were more detailed and reflected more community investment, he said, partly because of the skills and the "jump start" provided by the training sessions, and partly because of the grant requirements for a 3-year, risk-focused prevention plan. In addition, Title V's emphasis on the role of the local Prevention Policy Board has helped to shift the focus of the applications to addressing the needs of the community. The involvement of the new planning bodies, with the new perspectives, experiences, and knowledge of their members, helps focus prevention plans on finding ways to address the conditions faced by youth in the community. Free to create their own prevention plans, Prevention Policy Boards are able to select interventions that best fit their needs. Another reason that Title V communities are able to create more effective and meaningful prevention plans is that they are opening the planning process to parents, youth, and other community residents. Many communities report that they have used community forums to inform people about risk-focused prevention and the predominant risks in their neighborhoods. These forums have also been used to modify many of the prevention plans by giving parents and others the opportunity to have input into the process. Communities report that these forums increase buy-in and improve program implementation. For example, they find it easier to recruit volunteers if community members help design the program in the first place. The Bond neighborhood of Tallahassee, Florida, has held a series of community meetings, each one attended by more people than the last. As a result of door-to-door advertising by members of the Teen Council, they were able to push regular attendance over 100. This community has made the forum entirely responsible for drafting its own prevention plan, including the adoption of a statement of purpose and the selection of an approach. Informal key leaders in the neighborhood have been instrumental in achieving this high level of participation. Similarly, in Visalia, California, more than 2,000 people attended a series of community forums on youth violence and a separate youth conference, which was covered in the local press and videotaped for cable television. In Santa Ana, California, Prevention Policy Board members say that the Title V process has involved the community in planning and the successful initiation of an integrated continuum of preventative youth services: The training gave us the tools to assess our community's needs, educate our community, and, as a result, mobilize citizens to join us in moving forward with an action plan that has been created with a great deal of community input. We have held two forums and have another scheduled. The first one was attended by over 100 folks; we gave them an orientation to the risk-focused model. We did another forum specifically for educators. We have been able to collaborate with the Housing Authority, parents, non-profit and city agencies, and schools to develop a continuum of services for youth from pre-natal to teens. Investing in community involvement can also pay dividends in the community's ability to overcome obstacles and maintain the program in difficult times. One Juvenile Justice Specialist says that community momentum has helped several unfunded programs move forward: "Only four months into the project period, communities are reporting sustained enthusiasm and increasing public awareness. Un-funded applicant communities are undertaking pieces of their [prevention] plan on their own." 1.2 Title V Helps Communities Attract Other Prevention Resources The Title V Delinquency Prevention Program incorporates the concept of maximizing the return on limited Federal funds. In the current environment of limited resources, effective leverage of existing funds is critical. Title V grants have helped position many communities to tap into other Federal, State, and local public and private monies. Title V fosters leverage of other prevention resources and systems in several ways. First, the incentive grant stimulates local public and private funding. Grantees are required to provide a 50-cents-on-the- dollar match of the Federal grant with State or local funds or services in-kind. Second, grantees are required to develop a 3-year, outcome- driven prevention plan that supports prevention needs and objectives with empirical data. These planning efforts lend validity to community requests for local funding and enable communities to use more effectively the prevention funds they receive. Third, the Title V Program encourages the expansion of existing local prevention coalitions and programs, thereby enhancing the scope and effectiveness of community systems. STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND COMMUNITY BOARD MEMBERS FROM HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, BELIEVE THAT THE COMMUNITY'S TITLE V RISK ASSESSMENT WAS "INSTRUMENTAL" IN SECURING A $3 MILLION EMPOWERMENT ZONE AWARD. The risk-focused approach that Title V promotes helps communities receive funding from sources other than OJJDP. Communities that attend Title V training say that completing the risk and resource assessment provides them with structure, focus, and actual data, all of which have increased their ability to secure grant funds. They feel that having the results of risk-factor research gives their proposals added credibility. A small but significant number of communities receiving Title V training report that they have already used their risk-factor research to secure grants from other local, State, and private sources. For example, State representatives and community board members from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, believe that the community's Title V risk assessment was "instrumental" in securing a $3 million Empowerment Zone award. The community board integrated the data collected for its Title V risk assessment into a larger application for the Empowerment Zone Program. The two applications shared very defined objectives and strategies focused on economic empowerment, family support, and mobilization against violence. The Title V Program helped to position the community to obtain prevention funds more effectively. In Columbus, Georgia, the Title V training positioned the community to create a new non-judicial program for high school students with behavior problems: The training helped us form a collaborative effort between [the] State Department of Mental Health, local schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, Parks and Recreation, and the Housing Authority. We set up an alternative to out-of-school supervision housed at the Housing Authority. We have served 200 youth and only one was suspended from school after completing the program. We did not get a Title V grant but did receive funds from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, the Governors Commission on Children, and the Youth Council. The Prevention Policy Board in Appanoose County, Iowa, reports that, "the training helped us design a plan and know how to develop as a group. We have successfully written three grants to move us forward using this model." A relatively small amount of seed money can provide both a financial base and the incentives necessary for local jurisdictions to secure additional resources and implement comprehensive prevention systems in their communities. The Title V subgrant awards to local communities can be relatively small; the "positional advantage" the awards offer, however, can be enormous. 1.3 Risk Assessments Provide Both Information and Momentum "BECAUSE THIS IS A RESEARCH-BASED MODEL, IT HELPED US TO MOVE FORWARD IN OUR EFFORTS IN SALEM. PEOPLE LISTENED WHEN WE TALKED BECAUSE OF THE SOUND, PROVEN RESEARCH BEHIND OUR EFFORTS." -COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE FROM SALEM, NEW JERSEY Juvenile Justice Specialists report that conducting risk assessments has been the most demanding part of the process for the subgrant applicants so far. Even though the process can be time consuming, members of Prevention Policy Boards that have completed the process say that the risk assessment has great value. Feedback from Title V communities indicates that many residents often were not previously aware-or had been in denial-of the conditions putting their children at risk for problem behaviors. Data from the risk assessment provides them with empirical evidence for assessing these conditions. Another important aspect of conducting a risk assessment in support of Title V funding is that it gives the Prevention Policy Board statistics that it can use to reach consensus about the extent of the community's problem(s). Forming this agreement on the basis of hard data provides what one Juvenile Justice Specialist called a "rallying point" for planning efforts. The statistics often help to cut through resistance by helping members of the board focus on conditions in the community that put youth at risk rather than assigning blame for youth problems to one agency or another. Further evidence of the powerful effect of the momentum created by a community risk assessment is demonstrated by the experience of the Bond Neighborhood Initiative in Tallahassee, Florida. The Prevention Policy Board held community forums to discuss local conditions and review risk-factor data. Together, the community and the board designed a prevention initiative that has ambitious goals despite starting with no money for programs (they did not have Title V funds initially). Instead of letting the absence of any new funding stand in their way, they have focused instead on what can be done with existing service providers and volunteers. Momentum created by the risk-assessment forums has helped the Neighborhood Initiative establish a core of 350 volunteers ready to help implement program activities. In one meeting, a minister offered to "walk the streets at night if that is what it takes to make this happen." Turning to their volunteers, they have begun a program that will use professional family and marriage therapists to oversee a group of student therapists (all will be unpaid) while they provide counseling to low-income families in the community and at the same time earn hours of practical experience they need to graduate. 1.4 Better Coordination of Agency Roles Maximizes Efficiency "THE COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF SEVERAL AGENCIES WORKING TOGETHER HAS MADE A DIFFERENCE. THE INVOLVEMENT OF CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS HAS MADE LOCAL OFFICIALS MORE INVOLVED IN YOUTH ISSUES." -JUVENILE JUSTICE SPECIALIST FROM A MIDWESTERN STATE According to Juvenile Justice Specialists interviewed, the increase in local collaboration is the most significant impact of Title V so far. Previously, almost all delinquency issues were the sole domain of the juvenile court system. The courts, however, were not designed to address the prevention of delinquency, except when the juvenile had been referred to the system. Through Title V training, communities are learning that prevention occurs throughout the community: in the schools, at home, on the playgrounds, and on the streets. Public and private agencies are responding readily to the idea that responsibility for planning and implementing delinquency prevention needs to expand beyond the boundaries of the courts. "THE TITLE V RISK-FOCUSED PREVENTION MODEL HAS HAD AN INDIRECT IMPACT ON THE STATE ... WHICH IS FAR BEYOND THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER THE PROGRAM. THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION, NOW REQUIRES A SIMILAR COMMUNITY PLANNING STRUCTURE FOR ALL PROGRAMS REGARDLESS OF FUNDING SOURCE, FUNDED THROUGH THIS OFFICE." -JUVENILE JUSTICE SPECIALIST FROM A WESTERN STATE Title V helps local agencies collaborate and remove barriers that separate them, with the goal of promoting comprehensive action to prevent juvenile delinquency. Agencies reportedly are putting their own "agendas" aside for the good of the community and Title V has sped up, or added to, existing collaborative movements. One Juvenile Justice Specialist noted that the "magic" of Title V is that the model brings new people to the youth services table, mixing the chief of police, clergy, and others with the usual social service agency professionals. Title V increases the efficiency of local prevention initiatives by emphasizing the coordination of local effort, reducing overlap and duplication, and engaging non-traditional agencies in the process. The majority of communities that received Title V training reported in a follow-up survey that their Prevention Policy Board is working with more than one local agency to implement their prevention initiative. In Missoula, Montana, Title V training has been taken a step further. Prevention Policy Board members say that the community is organizing all of their community planning efforts using the methods they learned from their Title V training: We are using the risk-focused model for the entire community development process. We have local Planning and Program Development and Land Use/Natural Resources groups using the model. We are working towards community connectedness, mobility issues, and rural cultural change. The team is very pleased with the way this is taking shape and the integration of the model into community development. It is our expectation that many other localities will benefit from the spillover effects of the broadly applicable planning techniques they learned at Title V training. Local communities, responding to the Title V emphasis on interagency coordination, also are reaching out and teaching each other how to coordinate their own prevention efforts. At least two States have formed "user groups" of Title V communities that talk by phone and hold forums to share ideas and news of their progress. Now these groups are forming networks across State lines on their own accord; the desire to learn more about what is happening elsewhere is indicative of the energy and promise felt in these communities. In Visalia, California, an experienced Prevention Policy Board is "mentoring" a new board in a neighboring community through the risk-focused planning process. According to Missouri's State Juvenile Justice Specialist: The city of St. Louis has been very successful in its implementation of the Title V program. It has developed material on how it set up and developed the programs, and on the entire process involved in implementing the program on a community level. This material has been used in training events with other cities and counties. 1.5 Communities are Evaluating the Performance of Their Programs Another improvement seen in community planning is the enhanced focus on outcomes and goals. Title V training teaches communities to set performance benchmarks for their programs and to use hard data to measure their progress. Interviews with Title V community board members indicate that they feel the high expectations have led to improvements in their own capacity to operate programs. They are using the new performance appraisal techniques to help guide their programs and to set up evaluation and assessment processes. Many communities have committed to a demanding and detailed process of self-assessment and performance measurement. (Evaluation and performance appraisal will be discussed further in Section 3.) This section has described the ways in which local communities have responded to Title V, not only by complying with the requirements of the initiative, but also in adopting the spirit of the risk-focused prevention model. Community planners say that the willingness of agencies, service providers, and neighborhood residents to organize is an expression of their deeply held desire for delinquency prevention. Title V is already having a profound impact in participating communities, laying a lasting foundation for rational delinquency prevention. 2. TURNING THEORY INTO PRACTICE: TITLE V IN PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania is representative of a group of States that have embraced the Title V approach to delinquency prevention and have invested significant State-level resources to accelerate its implementation in local communities. In Pennsylvania, this investment has resulted in a State-wide prevention effort of great momentum in eight participating counties. This section discusses the high level of support provided by the State of Pennsylvania and the broad impact of Title V in one community that has fully implemented the model, Blair County. 2.1 A High Level of State Support The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) has provided a tremendous amount of State-level support to communities developing and implementing prevention strategies under Title V. This support has included planning grants, support from State data specialists, formal prevention training and technical assistance, and a monthly users group that meets to share community organizing experiences. Coupled with Title V-sponsored prevention training and grants, this State-level support has had a profound impact on the efforts of local prevention planning teams to mobilize their communities and to implement an array of risk-focused programs. In particular, communities have become much more effective in planning for prevention, leveraging resources, conducting risk assessments, and coordinating the roles of various agencies. In Blair County, State support has resulted in a county-wide implementation strategy that includes programs designed to address specific risk factors as well as community-wide awareness and mobilization efforts. 2.2 Community Mobilization in Blair County In May 1994, Blair County received the PCCD's Title V Delinquency Prevention Program funding announcement. At that time, a number of community leaders were already preparing to implement a Family Resource Center grant under a comprehensive Family Center Initiative effort that advocated prevention, outcome-based planning, and collaboration. Realizing that Title V and the Family Center Initiative had much in common, Blair County sent a team of community leaders-including a judge, a county commissioner, the human services director, the Juvenile Probation Chief, and a business leader-to the Title V Key Leader Orientation. Upon their return, the key leaders requested that the Family Resource Center Board take responsibility for the development of a Title V grant proposal, in addition to their oversight of the Family Resource Center grant. Since the two grants both promoted a prevention-oriented approach based on community needs, it made sense to combine the efforts. The training provided under Title V would assist the team to write the juvenile delinquency prevention plan, and the use of one board would maximize efficiency. The board members agreed to designate a Communities That Care Oversight Committee to oversee the development and implementation of the Title V grant. The joint planning board, which already included parents and key leaders, was expanded to 32 members to include police chiefs and other representatives of the justice system who would take part in the new collaboration board. "THE TITLE V APPROACH IS THE COORDINATION PIECE THAT HELPS DRIVE A BETTER APPLICATION OF RESOURCES ... AND REDUCE THE DUPLICATION OF EFFORT THAT OFTEN OCCURS WITHIN HUMAN SERVICES." -HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA The County subsequently sent several members of its collaboration board to a Risk and Resource Assessment training. According to the Director of Human Services in Blair County, the training coincided with an increase in State emphasis on risk factors and outcomes, and training participants saw the "common language and focus" provided by the training as an invaluable asset to the planning process. Participants understood that the Title V approach was the "coordination piece" that would help "drive a better application of resources...and reduce the duplication of effort" that often occurs within human services. The Director also stated that Title V was particularly appealing to participants because it entailed a process, as opposed to a specific program. This focus allowed the participants, each of whom represented a different agency, to concentrate on a general strategy instead of debating specific programmatic issues. Following the training, a subcommittee of collaboration board and community members met to prioritize the community's risk factors. This smaller committee reviewed the data that had been collected following the training through surveys and focus groups, records from earlier public forums on prevention, and statistics from schools, police, and other public agencies. Based on this review, the committee concluded that the priority risk factors were extreme economic deprivation, family management and family conflict, and early and persistent anti-social behaviors. Furthermore, a major gap was noted in the availability of parenting skills programs, and the community's awareness of risk factors was determined to be very low. The collaboration board attended Promising Approaches training provided by PCCD where they learned about model programs addressing risk factors. Incorporating knowledge learned at all three training sessions, they developed a grant proposal that included a comprehensive 3-year plan focusing on strategies to increase community bonding, raise awareness of risk factors and prevention strategies, and develop programs to address each of the priority risk factors. The proposal was submitted in January, 1995, and in March, the PCCD awarded $69,992 to Blair County for the first year of program implementation, and an award of the same amount for the second year. The Human Services Office administers the distribution of these funds to a variety of service providers, such as schools and nonprofit agencies. Using these funds, a variety of programs have been designed and implemented, including: * Parenting skills courses and discussion groups * Youth and community outreach programs * Conflict resolution training. In addition to these programs, a community mobilizer was hired to promote delinquency prevention countywide. This individual has been responsible for educating the collaboration board and the community on community risks, prevention strategies, and the progress of various local efforts. One of the mobilizer's first tasks was to publicize the efforts of the collaboration board to implement the Title V grant. As a part of these publicity efforts, the mobilizer identified community concerns and perceptions on local prevention needs to share with the collaboration board and with service providers. Other members of the collaboration board also have been presenting the Title V concept at churches, schools, conferences, and other public forums to describe the Title V prevention model to garner support, assess perceptions, and answer questions. This process of raising awareness is seen as a critical component of the county's Title V strategy because it increases community buy-in and, thus, support to each component of the prevention strategy. "TITLE V IS CHANGING WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT PREVENTION PROGRAM PLANNING. REPRESENTATIVES FROM A VARIETY OF COMMUNITY SECTORS- INCLUDING THE COURTS, SCHOOLS, POLICE FORCE, AND HEALTH CARE, HUMAN SERVICES, AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS-ARE NOW WORKING TOGETHER AND OBSERVING FIRSTHAND HOW PREVENTION EFFORTS CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED." -HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA The collaboration board was able to leverage the funds required for the Title V 50-cents-on-a-dollar match largely through the organizations represented by collaboration board members. Funding sources included the Human Services Development Fund, the Department of Education, various Family Resource Center funds, and local hospitals. Examples of in-kind support included: child care provided by the Department of Education, the use of Family Resource Center facilities, and accommodations at the Ramada Inn for a trainer providing technical assistance to parenting program providers. Larger cash donations were provided by agencies such as Altoona Hospital Drug and Alcohol Services, which applied to the grant foundation of Blue Cross for funding to support a countywide media campaign to promote positive parenting messages and positive conflict resolution skills for adults and youth. "THIS COMMUNITY REALLY CAN WORK TOGETHER TO CHANGE LIVES." -SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVE FROM PENNSYLVANIA According to the Human Services Director, Title V is "changing the ways of thinking" about prevention program planning. Representatives from a variety of community sectors-including the courts, schools, police force, and health care, human services, and community organizations-are now working together and observing firsthand how prevention efforts can be successfully implemented. For the first time, school districts and community agencies have been submitting proposals for funds to conduct parenting skills classes and parent/child activities. These service providers are challenged to access in-kind and cash match resources to support their own prevention efforts. The Human Services Director described this process as an important outcome of the Title V process that will have a great impact on the ability of local organizations to develop self-sustaining programs. She believes that "the tremendous pride" exhibited by school and community agencies that successfully obtained funding for their own collaborative prevention efforts was one indication that Title V truly has made a difference at the local level. She quoted one school representative who stated, "This community really can work together to change lives." The fact that this relatively new mindset has been reflected in one school's Strategic Plan and school brochures, each of which contains discussions of the Title V prevention model, is yet another indication that Title V is being integrated into the very framework of Blair County's community institutions. The Human Services Director reported that the effort to enable communities to take responsibility for themselves is working. While the enormous amount of both time and effort required of collaboration board members and other participants can be daunting, the Director reported that the change in attitudes that they have witnessed "makes it all worthwhile." She believes that the process of implementing a Title V strategy is "validating prevention in the face of shrinking resources." 3. SOLID GROUNDWORK FOR EVALUATION FINDINGS Does delinquency prevention work? Do community-based prevention activities effectively bring about reductions in the factors that put youth at risk and lead to reduced rates of juvenile delinquency and violence? Which specific prevention activities work best to promote healthy families and safe neighborhoods? How can communities be mobilized most successfully to achieve their delinquency prevention goals? These are important questions that everyone concerned with the well- being of the Nation's communities wants answered-from Congress and OJJDP to local policymakers, practitioners, and parents. With Title V communities just beginning to get their risk-focused prevention efforts off of the ground, however, it is still too early to have definitive answers about Program outcomes and the overall impact of Title V on communities' youth problems. But the groundwork for assessing program effectiveness has been laid: Communities are collecting baseline data and various evaluation activities have been implemented so that over time we will be able to assess the impact of Title V prevention efforts and answer the important questions posed above. OJJDP has put in place three significant evaluation efforts that form the solid groundwork for assessing the impact of Title V and the risk-focused prevention model: * An ongoing program implementation evaluation * Community self-evaluation tools for Title V communities * An evaluation strategy for conducting a national impact evaluation of Title V. Each is discussed in the following sections. 3.1 Ongoing Program Implementation Evaluation OJJDP has been committed to incorporating evaluation into the Title V Program from its inception. Concurrent with the initial disbursement of Title V funds and the initiation of training and technical assistance activities, a program implementation evaluation was launched. Implementation evaluation activities have included: * Maintaining a database that profiles the key leaders and community board members that attend Title V trainings throughout the country, as well as the communities they represent * Conducting early assessments of the Title V training and providing evaluation feedback to ensure it was supporting community needs * Monitoring technical assistance requests and the types of assistance needed by States and local communities to support their implementation efforts * Developing self-evaluation tools for use by subgrant recipients. OJJDP has also studied States' experiences during their implementation of the Title V Program, particularly as these experiences relate to the process of communicating Title V to localities and administering local grants. The implementation evaluation strengthens the Title V Program in several ways. First, evaluation findings support reporting requirements, such as this Report to Congress. Second, by closely monitoring and assessing early Program activities, the implementation evaluation helps ensure that the Program stays "on track" and points to mid-course corrections for strengthening Program procedures. Finally, the implementation evaluation supports our ability to interpret accurately the data collected in subsequent impact evaluations. To state with certainty that the Program "worked," we must understand how the Program actually was implemented, not just what was intended. Characterizing the Title V activities as they occurred will lead to more accurate assessments of its efficacy and allow for more successful replication, if desired. 3.2 Community Self-Evaluation Tools In all aspects of the Title V Program-including evaluation- OJJDP has emphasized local control and responsibility for delinquency prevention. At the same time, we have provided communities with a prevention framework and the tools to implement it. To assist Title V grantees in meeting their local grant evaluation needs, model self- evaluation instruments have been developed. The Title V Delinquency Prevention Program Community Self-Evaluation Workbook, a collection of self-administered evaluation instruments, supports the capacity of local Title V grantees to assess the processes and outcomes of their prevention activities. The Self-Evaluation Workbook consists of easy to complete forms and step-by-step instructions that guide communities through evaluation activities in three key areas: * Documenting community mobilization efforts, planning and decision-making processes, organizational structure, prevention plans, and resource allocations * Monitoring implementation of Title V-initiated systems change programs and service delivery projects * Tracking changes in community statistics that measure risk levels and adolescent problem behaviors. THE SELF-EVALUATION WORKBOOK PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK FROM WHICH GRANTEES CAN LOOK CRITICALLY AT WHERE THEY ARE IN RELATION TO THEIR PREVENTION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND MEASURE THEIR PROGRESS FROM BASELINE ASSESSMENTS TOWARD IMPROVEMENTS IN RISK FACTORS AND COMMUNITY CONDITIONS. Not only does the Self-Evaluation Workbook provide data collection forms and instructions, but it also includes a series of "things to think about" to help local users interpret and use their evaluation findings. The Self-Evaluation Workbook provides a framework from which grantees can look critically at where they are in relation to their prevention goals and objectives and measure their progress from baseline assessments toward improvements in risk factors and community conditions. In addition to providing evaluation guidance to communities, the Self-Evaluation Workbook also provides a uniform structure for reporting evaluation information across numerous and varied local programs. This uniform structure, which is consistent with the risk-focused prevention theory presented in the training sessions, will be extremely useful to future efforts to consolidate Title V data across sites. So far, the Self-Evaluation Workbook has received an enthusiastic response. Positive feedback on draft versions were provided by evaluation experts, State Juvenile Justice Specialists, and grantees from Michigan, where the Workbook has been tested. In October, 1995, copies of the Self-Evaluation Workbook were distributed to the State Juvenile Justice Specialists for reproduction and dissemination to local grantees at their discretion. In addition, the Workbook will be made available on a Juvenile Justice CD-ROM serving a broad audience of juvenile justice practitioners and grantees. At this early stage of local program evaluation, nearly half of the participating States (23 of 49 States responding) reported that communities in their States already have been using the Self-Evaluation Workbook. Among the other States, some do not know whether the Workbook is being used, several noted that it is too early in the process to tell, and some commented that communities were using other local evaluation resources. Several States have opted to require completion of selected forms from the Self-Evaluation Workbook or to modify forms as appropriate to the particular activities in their State's Title V communities. Juvenile Justice Specialists reported that Title V grantees familiar with the Self-Evaluation Workbook view it as "helpful" and "a very useful tool." One Juvenile Justice Specialist remarked favorably that "communities using the Workbook have expressed much appreciation and enthusiasm for how this has assisted them in risk-factor analysis." 3.3 National Impact Evaluation Strategy IN ADDITION TO SUPPORTING COMMUNITY-LEVEL EVALUATIONS, OJJDP ALSO IS COMMITTED TO CONDUCTING A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF RISK- FOCUSED PREVENTION. In addition to supporting community-level evaluations, OJJDP also is committed to conducting a comprehensive assessment of the impact of risk- focused prevention. Toward that end, a national evaluation strategy has been developed to reliably assess Title V's impact on reducing juvenile delinquency in the Nation's communities. Like the Title V Program itself, the proposed national evaluation strategy is multi-faceted, flexible, and risk-focused. This evaluation strategy approaches the research questions in a variety of ways-using multiple process and impact evaluation methodologies-in order to be able to describe what is going on (the Title V process) and document the Program's impacts in terms of reduced risks and reduced incidence of juvenile problem behaviors over time. Because Title V is a locally driven program, the communities awarded Title V grants will implement local prevention strategies that vary greatly in resource levels, prevention approaches, scope, and magnitude, but that share a number of common characteristics, such as broad-based involvement and a risk-focused approach. As such, the very design of the Title V Program poses a number of challenges to conducting a rigorous evaluation of it. Traditional, multi-site evaluation designs assume either an identical program implementation across sites or a test of different program implementations to identical target groups across sites. These assumptions, however, do not hold for broad-aim programs such as Title V, in which community-specific, multiple, and evolving interventions target overlapping populations within multi-faceted social settings. The proposed evaluation strategy accounts for these evaluation challenges and capitalizes on state-of-the-art evaluation methodologies so that we can provide strong, reliable evidence of whether or not Title V is making a difference in reducing juvenile delinquency in the Nation's communities. The national evaluation design builds on the community focus of the Title V Program. In addition to the process component, which will provide detailed information on the types of prevention strategies adopted, the proposed impact evaluation design will include: 1) a community level time series design, which compares the community to itself as the Program is implemented; and 2) a community comparison design that uses a pool of matched communities that are not implementing the Title V Program to assess the degree to which risk-focused prevention is associated with outcomes and impacts. Because of the importance of this evaluation and the methodological challenges associated with evaluating community-based prevention programs like Title V, a team of national evaluation experts is being convened to contribute to the evaluation design. These experts will assist OJJDP in examining methodological issues in light of analytical power, feasibility, and cost considerations for achieving the goals of the impact evaluation. THE NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE TITLE V PROGRAM WILL REQUIRE A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO REALIZING LOCAL AND NATIONAL IMPACT FROM RISK-FOCUSED DELINQUENCY PREVENTION EFFORTS. The national evaluation is intended to provide Congress, OJJDP, States, and local communities with a framework for understanding the processes and outcomes involved in effective delinquency prevention efforts. The national evaluation of the Title V Program will require a long-term commitment to realizing local and national impact from risk- focused delinquency prevention efforts. The Title V Program itself is not a "quick fix" solution, but rather requires a long-term commitment-5, 10, or even 20 years-to effect substantial change in the Nation's communities and families. Likewise, the evaluation of its effectiveness also must take the long view. If we don't stay the course, we will never know if it would have worked. 4. PROGRAM REFINEMENTS OJJDP has been assessing the Title V implementation process since the inception of the initiative. As part of this effort, the evaluation and training providers have been gathering feedback from State and local level participants in Title V. In response to this feedback, OJJDP has refined training and grant dissemination practices to enhance program efficiency and improve overall community participation. "APPLICANTS NEED MUCH LEAD TIME AND TRAINING. FUNDS ARE NEEDED TO HELP FACILITATE COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION EFFORTS AND TO MAINTAIN IT." -JUVENILE JUSTICE SPECIALIST FROM A WESTERN STATE In an informal survey of 87 communities that had attended Title V training, as well as discussions with State Juvenile Justice Specialists, the following areas were mentioned in response to an open-ended question about obstacles to implementing Title V: * Addressing funding issues * Meeting challenging deadlines * Aligning training with participants * Discussing promising program models during training * Finding matching funds * Mobilizing and maintaining community momentum * Complying with JJDP Act core requirements. This section summarizes the issues of concern to subgrantees and the measures taken to refine the process. "TITLE V HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH FAMILY PRESERVATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAMMING. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FUNDS AVAILABLE THROUGH FPSS THAN TITLE V AND PLANNING GRANTS ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH FPSS. WE HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTED AT THE LIMITED NUMBER OF TITLE V APPLICATIONS." -JUVENILE JUSTICE SPECIALIST FROM AN EASTERN STATE Addressing funding issues. Various funding issues have inhibited the full participation of some communities in Title V. Several State Juvenile Justice Specialists said that the small size of many of the subgrants compared to other similar Federal programs (such as Family Preservation Support) was a disincentive for communities to participate in the process. Further, they reported that many of the communities they contacted about applying for subgrants said that the size of the subgrant awards were small relative to the unusual amount of work required to complete a Title V application (including organizing a Prevention Policy Board, conducting a risk assessment, and drafting a 3-year prevention plan). They predicted that more communities would have applied for Title V subgrants if the amount of funding were greater. A related funding issue was that Title V funds were restricted from use for any of the planning, training, or organizing activities required during the pre-application period. For some communities the costs of transportation, lodging, and staff time to attend training, and the additional costs of collecting risk-assessment data, were a great burden, especially with no guarantee of an eventual award. In some States, communities received planning funds from other sources to help defray the front-end costs of applying for Title V grants. This was found to improve the participation of localities less able to afford staff time and travel. Meeting challenging deadlines. In an effort to distribute program funds to the States quickly, OJJDP established a schedule for training and applications that required Juvenile Justice Specialists and local communities to turn around the grant process very quickly. The tight schedule for implementing Title V made it difficult for many States and local communities to meet the guideline requirements and was not wholly consistent with the assessment process timelines presented in the risk- and protection-focused training model. Specifically, the condition for States to award subgrants to local jurisdictions within 180 days, thereby requiring very quick turnaround of local proposals, conflicted with the 6-month process suggested by the trainers for conducting thorough risk and resource assessments. This was particularly problematic for States that received training late in the funding cycle. While it is too early to tell the impact of the restricted timeframe on the quality of grant applications and risk and resource assessments, several local sources reported that their assessment and planning activities may have been compromised or behind schedule due to the short timeframes and that time pressures did not allow communities to realize the full benefits of their Title V training. For the most part, applicants and Juvenile Justice Specialists have been able to adjust and cope with the necessary deadlines. Many communities are conducting on-going risk assessments to supplement the ones they completed under tight time pressure for their applications. Now that State Juvenile Justice Specialists have been through the first funding cycle, they may be better able to schedule trainings and State subgrant announcements, and also provide necessary technical support to local communities in such a way as to maximize the Title V planning activities in the time available. States also can help local communities respond quickly and appropriately by providing planning grants to potential applicants. Aligning training with participants. In some cases, people in the community who would have derived the most benefit from the training were not in the training delegation, either because the wrong people were selected to go or the community was not able to bring the optimum number of people to the session. As described in the previous chapters of this report, training occurred in two waves. First, the key leaders of the communities were invited to attend a session about the goals and principles of risk-focused prevention and the Title V model. Then, several weeks later, another delegation attended a longer session about methods and the practical aspects of implementing risk-focused prevention planning in the community. The State Juvenile Justice Specialist plays a central role in selecting the individuals who attend each session. The risk-focused prevention model was designed for three to five people from each community. The Juvenile Justice Specialist then informs representatives of the community about the nature of the session and suggests those who should attend. If the description of the purpose of the training is unclear (which some communities claimed was the case), then the community might send the wrong people (i.e., they might send politicians to the nuts-and-bolts session or a data collector to the Key Leader Orientation). To address this problem, Juvenile Justice Specialists were provided with more guidance and materials to help them announce the availability of training and the purpose of each session, with clear guidelines about who should attend and what they should expect. Discussing promising program models during training. OJJDP provided States with two out of three available risk- and protection-focused training modules. In several instances States were able to provide communities access to the third training module on Promising Approaches, which presents model and exemplary programs that have been proven successful in reducing selected risks. Many States received Promising Approaches training from OJJDP as technical assistance to their subgrantees. A significant number of communities that attended this training reported that the module was "the most useful" portion of the Title V training they received. To further disseminate information about promising program approaches, OJJDP has made additional resources available to all States and localities through their 1995 publication, Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. This guide is a compendium of proven program approaches for preventing delinquency that reviews research findings and points to further resources for replicating these programs to obtain similar results. Together with the technical assistance available to all States through OJJDP, these resources help fill the need for promising program models to address local needs and risks. Finding matching funds. In a survey of all Juvenile Justice Specialists (to which 49 responded), 64 percent said that Title V's matching funds requirement had caused little or no problems for subgrant applicants, 23 percent noted that it had caused moderate problems, and 13 percent reported that it had caused significant problems. Although only a small number of States reported any difficulty with the matching requirement, anecdotal evidence indicates that when it is an issue, finding matching funds can be a very serious barrier. For example, in Michigan, four out of an initial group of 25 participating communities withdrew from the program before the training sessions because they could not meet the match requirement. Then, another four communities that received training could not complete their applications because they lacked matching funds, and awards for two other sites are pending the commitment of matching funds. Another community had to reduce the size of their request to $12,000 in order to "afford" the match. At least 10 of the original 25 interested communities in Michigan will not be participating because of the Title V match requirement. Participation of small rural communities in West Virginia has been severely limited by the requirement to match half the subgrant amount. Units of general local government can be very small; many of the proposed Title V subgrants were larger than the entire town budget. Consequently, finding matching resources has been a pervasive problem. In addition, the administrative burden associated with Title V discouraged some units of general local government from participating in towns where "city hall" sometimes has only two or three employees. While units of general local government are only required to secure matching funds (i.e., from any source), and not necessarily to provide them from their own budgets, many of the West Virginia jurisdictions that were awarded subgrants were still very cautious in weighing the potential budgetary impact before accepting their subgrant award. The same structural problems faced by these small units of general local government might affect communities in other States as well. In addition to certain difficulties experienced in finding the match, there appeared to be some confusion surrounding the issues of what constitutes a match, how matching funds can be obtained, what sources may be provided, and by whom. As stated in the Title V Program Guideline: All Title V funds must be matched by recipient units of general local government or by the State with 50 percent of the amount of the grant. This match may be provided in cash or the value of in-kind contributions or services. It is the responsibility of the State or the unit of general local government to provide the match, not nonprofit service providers. Matches do not have to be received in cash, but rather can include in- kind goods and services. Again, according to the Program Guideline: An in-kind match is determined by the value of goods and services received and used in the Program that do not have a money cost to the grantee. An in-kind match may be provided by the grantee or donated by a third party, such as a volunteer or a public or private agency. The Title V Program Manager has worked and will continue to work with State Juvenile Justice Specialists to address and clarify concerns regarding the match and other award requirements. Mobilizing and maintaining community momentum. Title V challenges communities to think about juvenile crime and problem behaviors in a new way and calls on local leaders' abilities to involve a broad base of support. Some communities felt that they did not receive enough information or resources about how to mobilize the community to participate to the extent implied by the risk-focused model. The Title V approach to community mobilization is to provide special training sessions for the key leaders of the community in advance of the adoption of the model. This is intended to secure the support of the elected and informal leaders which can then be called upon by planners to rally support for the program and help secure needed resources. "MORE TEENAGERS ARE BECOMING INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAM WHICH INDICATES THAT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL, PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY ARE BECOMING MORE AWARE OF THE DELINQUENCY PROBLEM AMONG OUR YOUTH AND ARE USING THIS PROGRAM TO COMBAT THAT PROBLEM." -JUVENILE JUSTICE SPECIALIST FROM A WESTERN STATE Some subgrant recipients were not able to sustain community momentum due to various internal issues. Some found the model too complex or "academic" to provide the necessary focus for their community board. Concepts that might have seemed manageable during the training session can become unexpectedly difficult in practice and stalled the progress of the risk assessment. Others said their boards were divided by competing interests and agendas, particularly among agencies that would be affected by proposed prevention strategies. This situation could lead to key agencies not participating or even attempting to thwart the project. Technical assistance has been instrumental in addressing issues such as these in many communities. Approximately 13 percent of the 456 communities that attended KLO training have received some technical assistance, with the majority seeking help to mobilize their community or maintain their momentum. Early detection of issues and swift response to requests for assistance will keep more communities mobilized and maintain progress. To help sustain community momentum, OJJDP will continue to make technical assistance available and explore ways to support the growing networking and idea sharing among Title V grantees. Complying with JJDP Act core requirements. Congress created the statutory requirements of the JJDP Act in order to set minimum national standards for the administration of juvenile justice and conditions of confinement for youth. Communities in which local juvenile justice policies are below the national standards are not eligible to receive Title V subgrants. Some Juvenile Justice Specialists were concerned that this requirement would make many municipalities with significant needs for delinquency prevention resources ineligible to receive subgrants. However, a survey of all State Juvenile Justice Specialists conducted after the first funding cycle found that, for the most part, compliance with the requirements of the Act was not a barrier to the participation of local communities. Nine percent of participating Juvenile Justice Specialists reported, however, that compliance with the requirements had been a significant barrier to local participation, while 20 percent said that it had a moderate impact. The survey also found that the requirement had some positive impact at the local level as well. About 20 percent reported that the stipulation of compliance with the core requirements has given localities an extra incentive to change those practices that place them out of compliance. "THE TRAINING WAS EXCELLENT! BUT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO DEVELOP OUR PLAN BECAUSE OUR COMMUNITY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE [WITH THE JJDP ACT]. SO THE TEAM MET AND DECIDED TO WORK ON THIS AREA FIRST, BY EDUCATING THE PEOPLE WITH POWER TO DO WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO GET IN COMPLIANCE." -REPRESENTATIVE FROM A NEW ENGLAND COMMUNITY BECAUSE THE TITLE V APPROACH IS NOT "BUSINESS AS USUAL" AND MEANS A NEW WAY OF DOING THINGS, IT WILL CONTINUE TO CHALLENGE COMMUNITIES THAT RECEIVE PROGRAM FUNDS TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN THE WAY THEY CONCEPTUALIZE AND ADDRESS THE CRISIS OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, CRIME, AND VIOLENCE. This section has highlighted issues of concern to State Juvenile Justice Specialists and Title V subgrantees. Continued refinement of the program will remove such remaining barriers to complete participation by all communities. Because the Title V approach is not "business as usual" and means a new way of doing things, it will continue to challenge communities that receive program funds to make fundamental changes in the way they conceptualize and address the crisis of juvenile delinquency, crime, and violence. But the groundswell of demand among participating neighborhoods for Title V training, and the evidence of a strong hunger for the assistance and program funds provided, make Title V an initiative that promises to continue to bring out the best in those that benefit from it. It promises a real change in providing youth a safe future, and all the indications of success so far point to more to come. IV. TITLE V IN OUR COMMUNITIES' FUTURE In 1995, the second year of the Title V Program, we learned a number of important lessons. Chief among those lessons is that there is considerable demand at the local level for strategies and approaches for preventing juvenile delinquency. Communities have been struggling with their rising rates of juvenile crime and other problem behaviors. While they clearly need to deal with the problems that already exist, at the same time, they also want to find ways to prevent these problems from occurring in the future. Until recently, however, many simply have not known how to go about putting in place effective delinquency prevention strategies. Title V provides communities with four critical ingredients for success: a theory-driven, research-based prevention framework; the tools for building on that framework; training and technical assistance to help them use these tools; and, perhaps most important, local control of the process. Another important lesson we have learned is that this process will take time and requires real commitment from all levels. Though ultimately rewarding, the planning phase for risk-focused prevention has proven to be a challenge for some communities. It takes time and perseverance to raise community awareness, mobilize community action, and stimulate community investment in the process of delinquency prevention. Even with their subgrant awards in hand, these Title V communities face ongoing challenges that include sustaining the commitment of community coordination and collaboration efforts, improving the efficiency of managing these programs at the State and local level, and learning how to sustain productive team, community, and coalition relationships. We can continue to help communities meet these challenges by continuing to provide the "seed money," tools, and technical support to get their prevention programs up and running. TITLE V PROVIDES COMMUNITIES WITH FOUR CRITICAL INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESS: A THEORY-DRIVEN, RESEARCH-BASED PREVENTION FRAMEWORK; THE TOOLS FOR BUILDING ON THAT FRAMEWORK; TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO HELP THEM USE THESE TOOLS; AND, PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT, LOCAL CONTROL OF THE PROCESS. With the Title V evaluation efforts currently in place, we are well- positioned to begin to identify and describe successful approaches to delinquency prevention in subsequent years' Reports to Congress. OJJDP has accomplished much in preparing communities to participate in this large-scale, comprehensive evaluation. Mechanisms have been established, most notably the Community Self-Evaluation Workbook, to help document the change and learn "what works" to prevent juvenile delinquency. With systematic evaluation of the Title V approach, we are confident that we will be able to identify and report not only more "promising approaches" to delinquency prevention, but also additional "proven approaches" to preventing this problem in America's communities developed through Title V. THE LOCAL RESPONSE TO THE TITLE V PREVENTION APPROACH REMAINS EXTREMELY POSITIVE AND THE SURGE OF LOCAL MOMENTUM AND COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION CONTINUED THROUGHOUT ITS SECOND YEAR. Our message from last year's Report to Congress remains essentially unchanged: In the current environment of limited resources, effective leverage of existing funds is critical. Title V program funds position grantees to tap into other Federal, State, and local and private funds. A relatively small amount of seed money and technical support can provide both a financial base and the incentives necessary for local jurisdictions to secure additional resources and implement comprehensive prevention systems in their communities. Title V continues to show every indication of promise as an effective community response to rising rates of juvenile delinquency, violence, and other problem behaviors. With Title V, communities have ownership of the problem, a prevention framework for dealing with it, resources and tools to address it, and seed money to get going. The local response to the Title V prevention approach remains extremely positive and the surge of local momentum and community mobilization continued throughout its second year. In light of this strong response, we remain confident that continuing Title V program support will make a difference in reducing delinquency in our Nation's communities in the years to come. APPENDIX C SOURCES Ahmed, S.W., Bush, P.J., Davidson, F.R., & Iannotti, R.J. (1984, November). Predicting children's use and intentions to use abusable substances. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Anaheim, CA. Alexander, G.R., Massey, R.M., Gibbs, T., & Altekruse, J.M. (1985). Firearm-related fatalities: An epidemiologic assessment of violent death. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 165-168. American Psychological Association. (1993). Violence and youth: Psychology's response. Washington, DC. Bachman, J.G., Lloyd, D.J., & O'Malley, P.M. (1981). Smoking, drinking and drug use among American high school students: Correlates and trends, 1975-1979. American Journal of Public Health, 71, 59-69. Barnes, G.M., & Welte, J. W. (1986). Patterns and predictors of alcohol use among 7-12th grade students in New York state. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47, 53-62. Bohman, M. (1978). Some genetic aspects of alcoholism and criminality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 269-276. Brook, J.S., Brook, D.W., Gordon, A.S., Whiteman, M., & Cohen, P. (1990). The psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family interactional approach. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 116. Bursik, R.J., & Webb, J. (1982). Community change and patterns of delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 24-42. Cairns, R.B., Cairns, B.D., Neckerman, H.J., Gest, S.D., & Gairepy, J. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815-823. Cohen, M.A. (1994). The monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Paper supported by the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Coie, J.D., et al. (1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program. American Psychologist, 48, 1013-1022. Cook, P.J., & Tauchen, G. (1982). The effect of liquor taxes on heavy drinking. Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 379-390. Developmental Research and Programs. (1994). Preventing juvenile violence and delinquency using communities that care. Risk and resource assessment training guide. Prepared for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention under contract No. OJP-94-C-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Elder, J.P., Molgaard, C.A., & Gresham, L. (1988). Predictors of chewing tobacco and cigarette use in a multiethnic school population. Adolescence, 23, 689-701. Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance use and mental health problems. New York: Springer-Verlag. Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Morse, B. (1986). Self-reported violent offending: A descriptive analysis of juvenile violent offenders and their offending careers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 472- 514. Eron, L., & Huesman, L.R. (1987). Television as a source of maltreatment of children. School Psychology Review, 16, 195-202. Farrington, D. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence. In D. Pepler & K.H. Rubin, (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Farrington, D.P., Loeber, R., Elliott, D.S., Hawkins, J.D., Kandel, D.B., Klein, M.W., McCord, J., Rowe, D.C., & Tremblay, R.E. (1990). Advancing knowledge about the onset of delinquency and crime. In B.B. Lahey & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology, 13, (pp. 283-342). New York: Plenum Press. Fingerhut, L.A., Kleinman, J.C., Godfrey, E., & Rosenberg, H. (1991). Firearm mortality among children, youth and young adults 1-34 years of age, trends and current status: United States, 1979-88. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 39, (11, Suppl.), 1-15. Fox, J. (1996). Supplementary homicide reports 1976-1994. [machine-readable data file.] In H.N. Snyder, M. Sickmund & E. Poe- Yamagata (1996), Juvenile offenders and victims: 1996 update on violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Goodwin, D.W. (1985). Alcoholism and genetics: The sins of the fathers. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 171-174. Gorsuch, R.L., & Butler, M.C. (1976). Initial drug abuse: A review of predisposing social psychological factors. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 120-137. Gottfredson, G.D. (1988). Issues in adolescent drug use. Unpublished final report to the U.S. Department of Justice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. Greenwood, P.W., Model, K.E., & Rydell, C.P. (1995). The cost- effectiveness of early intervention as a strategy for reducing violent crime. Paper prepared for the University of California, Berkeley. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Hansen, W.B., Graham, J.W., Sobel, J.L., Shelton, D.R., Flay, B.R., & Johnson, C.A. (1987). The consistency of peer and parent influences on tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use among young adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 135-154. Hawkins, J.D., & Catalano, R.F. (1992). Communities that care: Action for drug abuse prevention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., & 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., & Lam, T. (1987). Teacher practices, social development, and delinquency. In J.D. Burchard & S.N. Burchard (Eds.), Prevention of delinquent behavior. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hawkins, J.D., & Weis, J.G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated approach to delinquency prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6. Herting, J.R., & Guest, A.M. (1985). Components of satisfaction with local areas in the metropolis. The Sociological Quarterly, 26, 99- 115. Howell, J.C. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Huesmann, L.R., & Eron, L.D. (1986). The development of aggression in American children as a consequence of television violence viewing. In L.R. Huesmann & L.D. Eron (Eds.), Television and the aggressive child: A cross-national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jacobs, D.R., et al. (1986). Communitywide prevention strategies: Evaluation design of the Minnesota Heart Health Program. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 39, 775-788. Jessor, R. (1976). Predicting time of onset of marijuana use: A developmental studyof high school use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 125-134. Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. San Diego: Academic Press. Johnston, L.D., O'Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J. G. (1991). Drug use among American high school seniors, college students, and young adults, 1975-1990: Vol. 1. high school seniors. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Kandel, D.B. (1982). Epidemiological and psychosocial perspectives on adolescent drug use. Journal of American Academic Clinical Psychiatry, 21, 328-347. Kandel, D.B., & Andrews, K. (1987). Processes of adolescent socialization by parents and peers. International Journal of the Addictions, 22, 319-342. Kandel, D.B., Kessler, R.C., & Magulies, R.S. (1978). Antecedents of adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 13-40. Kandel, D.B., Simcha-Fagan, O., & Davies, M. (1986). Risk factors for delinquency and illicit drug use from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Drug Issues,16, 67-90. Kellam, S.G., & Brown, H. (1982). Social adaptational and psychological antecedents of adolescent psychopathology ten years later. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Kellerman, A.L., Rivara, F.P., Rushforth, N.B., Banton, J.G., Reay, D.T., Francisco, J.T., Locci, A.B., Prodzinski, J., Hackman, B.B., & Somes, G. Drugs, first, and firearms: Risk factors for homicide in the home. Manuscript submitted for publication. Lerner, J.V., & Vicary, J.R. (1984). Difficult temperament and drug use: Analyses from the New York longitudinal study. Journal of Drug Education, 14, 1-8. Levy, D., & Sheflin, N. (1985). The demand for alcoholic beverages: An aggregate time-series analysis. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 4, 47-54. Lispey, M.W. (1984). Is delinquency prevention a cost-effective strategy? A California perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21 (4). Loeber, R. (1988). Natural histories of conduct problems, delinquency, and associated substance use: Evidence for developmental progressions. In B.B. Lahey & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Psychology, 11 (pp. 73-124). New York: Plenum Press. Loeber, R., & Dishion, T.J. (1984). Boys who fight at home and school: Family conditions influencing cross-setting consistency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 759-68. Murray, C.A. (1983). The physical environment and community control of crime. In J.Q. Wilson (Ed.), Crime and Public Policy, (pp.107-122). San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies. Murray, D.M., Davis-Hearn, M., Goldman, A.I., Pirie, P., & Luepker, R.V. (1988). Four- and five-year follow-up results from four seventh- grade smoking prevention strategies. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11, 395-405. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1995, June). Delinquency prevention works: Program summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. National Research Council. (1993). Losing generations: Adolescents in high-risk settings. Panel on the High Risk Youth, Committee on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Patterson, G.R., & Dishion, T.J. (1985). Contributions of families and peers to delinquency. Criminology, 23, 63-77. Peterson, P.L., Hawkins, J.D., Abbott, R.D., & Catalano, R.F. (1994). Disentangling the effects of parental drinking, family management, and parental alcohol norms on current drinking by black and white adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 4, 203-227. Reiss, A.J., Jr., & Roth, J.A. (Eds.). (1993). Understanding and preventing violence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Robins, L.N., & Przybeck, T. R. (1985). Age of onset of drug use as a factor in drug and other disorders. In C.L. Jones & R.J. Battjes (Eds.), Etiology of drug abuse: Implications for prevention, (pp. 178- 192). (NIDA Research Monograph No. 56, DHHS Publication No. ADM 85- 1335). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Robins, L.N., & Ratcliff, K.S. (1979). Risk factors in the continuation of childhood antisocial behavior into adulthood. International Journal of Mental Health, 7, 76-116. Rutter, M., & Giller, H. (1983). Juvenile delinquency: Trends and perspectives. New York: Penguin. Sampson, R.J. (1986). Crime in cities: The effects of formal and informal social control. In A.J. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research: Vol. 8. communities and crime, (pp.271-311). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Snyder, H.N., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Snyder, H.N., Sickmund, M., & Poe-Yamagata, E. (1996). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1996 update on violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Thornberry, T.P. (1994). Violent families and youth violence. (Fact Sheet #21). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Vartiainen, E., Pallonen, U., McAlister, A., & Puska, P. (1990). Eight-year follow-up results of an adolescent smoking prevention program: The North Karelia Youth Project. American Journal of Public Health, 80. Wilson, J.J., & Howell, J.C. (1994). Comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic offenders: Program Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Wilson, J.Q., & Herrnstein, R.J. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wintemute, G.J. (1987). Firearms as a cause of death in the United States, 1920-1982. The Journal of Trauma, 27, 532-536. Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Pyschological Bulletin, 115, 28-54. IV. TITLE V IN OUR COMMUNITIES' FUTURE TITLE V PROVIDES COMMUNITIES WITH FOUR CRITICAL INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESS: A THEORY-DRIVEN, RESEARCH-BASED PREVENTION FRAMEWORK; THE TOOLS FOR BUILDING ON THAT FRAMEWORK; TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO HELP THEM USE THESE TOOLS; AND, PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY, LOCAL CONTROL OF THE PROCESS. In 1995, the second year of the Title V Program, we learned a number of important lessons. Chief among those lessons is that there is considerable demand at the local level for strategies and approaches for preventing juvenile delinquency. Communities have been struggling with their rising rates of juvenile crime and other problem behaviors. While they clearly need to deal with the problems that already exist, at the same time, they also want to find ways to prevent these problems from occurring in the future. Until recently, however, many simply haven't known how to go about putting in place effective delinquency prevention strategies. Title V provides them with four critical ingredients for success: a theory-driven, research-based prevention framework; the tools for building on that framework; training and technical assistance to help them use these tools; and, perhaps most importantly, local control of the process. Another important lesson we have learned is that this process will take time and requires real commitment from all levels. Though ultimately rewarding, the planning phase for risk-focused prevention has proven to be a challenge for some communities. It takes time and perseverance to raise community awareness, mobilize community action, and stimulate community investment in the process of delinquency prevention. Even with their subgrant awards in hand, these Title V communities face ongoing challenges that include sustaining the commitment of community coordination and collaboration efforts, improving the efficiency of managing these programs at the State and local level, and learning how to sustain productive team, community, and coalition relationships. We can continue to help communities meet these challenges by continuing to provide the "seed money," tools and technical support to get their prevention programs up and running. With the Title V evaluation efforts currently in place, we are well- positioned to begin to identify and describe successful approaches to delinquency prevention in subsequent years' Reports to Congress. OJJDP has accomplished much in preparing communities to participate in this large-scale, comprehensive evaluation. Mechanisms have been established, most notably the Community Self-Evaluation Workbook, to help document the change and learn "what works" to prevent juvenile delinquency. With systematic evaluation of the Title V approach, we are confident that we will be able to identify and report not only more "promising approaches" to delinquency prevention, but also additional "proven approaches" to preventing this problem in America's communities developed through Title V. Our message from last year's Report to Congress remains essentially unchanged: in the current environment of limited resources, effective leverage of existing funds is critical. Title V program funds position grantees to tap into other Federal, State, and local and private funds. A relatively small amount of seed money and technical support can provide both a financial base and the incentives necessary for local jurisdictions to secure additional resources and implement comprehensive prevention systems in their communities. Title V continues to show every indication of promise as an effective community response to rising rates of juvenile delinquency, violence, and other problem behaviors. With Title V, communities have ownership of the problem, a prevention framework for dealing with it, resources and tools to address it, and seed money to get going. The local response to the Title V prevention approach remains extremely positive and the surge of local momentum and community mobilization continued throughout its second year. In light of this strong response, we remain confident that Continuing Title V program support will make a difference in reducing delinquency in our Nation's communities in the years to come.