U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Juvenile Justice: OJJDP Reporting Requirements for Discretionary and Formula Grantees and Concerns About Evaluation Studies

NCJ Number
192733
Date Published
October 2001
Length
101 pages
Annotation
This study reviewed the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) major programs and the evaluations it has funded.
Abstract
This report provides information on programmatic reporting requirements for OJJDP grantees, the reasons for these requirements, and examples of the information grantees have reported. It also presents information on how many juveniles OJJDP grantees reported directly serving in fiscal year 2000, along with whether OJJDP required grantees to report the number of juveniles they directly served, and if not, why. Findings were reported from an analysis of the methodological rigor of the impact evaluations OJJDP had funded for its own programs since 1995, along with information on the other types of evaluations OJJDP had funded. In addition, information was provided on how much OJJDP awarded to various grant programs from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 and the types of organizations that received these awards. The review of 16 of OJJDP's major programs showed that although virtually all grantees were required to report on their progress twice a year, the information they reported varied. There were eight programs in which all grantees reported the number of juveniles they directly served. Grantees in these programs reported serving about 142,000 juveniles in fiscal year 2000. The in-depth review of 10 of OJJDP's impact evaluations undertaken since 1995 raised some concerns about whether many of the evaluations will produce definitive results. All of these evaluations are still ongoing. Variations across sites regarding how the programs are implemented will make it difficult to interpret evaluation results. The report's recommendation is intended to ensure that potential evaluation problems related to comparison groups and data collection are mitigated. The Assistant Attorney General agreed with the findings and recommendation, but disagreed with the focus on the use of comparison groups as the only valid evaluation design. 12 tables, 2 figures, and appended awards data for fiscal years 1996-2000, the process for disseminating published products, and descriptions of programs, reporting requirements, and examples of reported information