[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 146 (Monday, August 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18650]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 1, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VIII





Department of Justice





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention



_______________________________________________________________________



Delinquency Prevent Program Guideline; Notice
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

 

Delinquency Prevention Program Guideline

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention.

ACTION: Notice of final guideline for the Office of Juvenile Justice 
and Delinquency Prevention's Title V Delinquency Prevention Program.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
(OJJDP) published a proposed guideline for the Title V Delinquency 
Prevention Program on February 11, 1994, and solicited public comments. 
Based on the analysis of those public comments, OJJDP is issuing this 
final guideline. This Program is of interest to all Federal, State, 
local, and private organizations involved with prevention planning and 
services for children, youth and families.

DATES: This final guideline is effective on August 1, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Room 
742, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20531

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul E. Steiner, Social Science 
Program Specialist, State Relations and Assistance Division, Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at the above address. 
Telephone (202) 307-5924.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Section 504(1) of the JJDP Act directs OJJDP 
to issue ``such rules as are appropriate and necessary to carry out'' 
the Title V--Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention 
Programs.

Changes to Proposed Guideline

    The following changes are made to the proposed guideline. New 
language is italicized.
    Throughout the guideline, references to ``units of local 
government'' are changed to ``units of general local government.''
    The following sentence is added to the last paragraph under ``Local 
Subgrantee Qualifications'': State Advisory Groups may not arbitrarily 
exclude an eligible unit of general local government from competing for 
Title V funds. 
    Under ``Application Requirements for State Agencies,'' the first 
sentence is amended as follows: State agencies must provide evidence of 
the State Advisory Group's authority to approve the award of Title V 
subgrants or, where a separate supervisory board is vested with such 
authority, to review and recommend approval to the board. No Title V 
subgrants can be made to a unit of general local government absent the 
approval or recommendation of the State Advisory Group. 
    Under ``Application Requirements for State Agencies,'' the 
following paragraph is inserted after the fifth paragraph of that 
section: The application must include a time-task plan providing a 
description of the major tasks which the State will employ to implement 
the Title V program, and the timeframes for completing each of those 
tasks. 
    Under ``Application Requirements for State Agencies'' the fourth 
paragraph is amended as follows: 2. To monitor and assure the audit of 
subgrants for performance, outcome, and fiscal integrity, including 
cash and in-kind match, as specified in the current edition of the 
Office of Justice Programs Guideline Manual M-7100, ``Financial and 
Administrative Guide for Grants.'' 
    The first sentence under ``Process for Subgrant Award and 
Administration'' is amended to read: State agency grantees shall use 
essentially the same process for making Title V subawards as that used 
for the Formula Grant awards, with the State Advisory Group 
establishing applicant eligibility criteria to target specific types of 
communities, if needed, and making or recommending the final decision 
on funding individual applications. 
    Under ``Application Process for Units of general local 
government,'' subsection 3. ``Local Three-Year Delinquency Prevention 
Plan,'' the following sentence is inserted between the second and third 
sentence of the second paragraph of the subsection: The applicant 
should also assure that the PPB, to the extent possible, contains one 
or more members under the age of twenty-one, one or more parents or 
guardians with children who have had contact or are at risk of having 
contact with the juvenile justice system, and an overall membership 
that generally reflects the racial, ethnic, and cultural composition of 
the community's youth population. 
    Under the section titled ``Application Process for Units of General 
Local Government,'' subsection 3. ``Local Three Year Delinquency 
Prevention Plan,'' the eleventh paragraph (paragraph j.) is amended to 
read: A description of how the PPB will provide general oversight for 
developing the plan, approve the plan prior to submission to the State, 
and make recommendations to the responsible local agency for the 
distribution of funds and evaluation of funded activities.
    Under the section titled ``Duration of Grants and Continuation 
Funding,'' the following changes are made: (1) The following sentence 
is stricken: Grants may be awarded for project periods of 12 to 36 
months, with initial awards of up to one year. The following two 
sentences replace the stricken sentence: OJJDP will award grants to 
States for a project period beginning on the date of award and ending 
on September 30, 1996. States will award grants to units of general 
local government in annual increments covering not more than 12 months 
each, with overall project periods of 12 to 36 months; and (2) in the 
second sentence the word ``continuation'' is stricken and replaced with 
Subsequent years'. At the end of that sentence, ``subsequent fiscal 
years'' is stricken.

Background

    A new program was authorized in the 1992 amendments to the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, (hereafter 
``the Act'' or ``the JJDP Act'') in Title V, Sections 501-506, 
``Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs Act.'' For 
Fiscal Year 1994, Congress appropriated $13 million for initial 
implementation of Title V.
    Prevention has been one of the primary goals of the Act since its 
enactment in 1974. The premise is that preventing delinquent behavior 
is a much more cost-effective means of reducing juvenile crime than 
attempting to rehabilitate adjudicated delinquents. Prevention is also 
a much more cost-effective way to deal with juvenile delinquency. In 
addition to reducing the human and financial losses caused by crime, 
effective delinquency prevention also reduces the need for costly 
juvenile justice system processing and adjudication. Each year, 
juvenile courts handle approximately 1.4 million delinquency and status 
offense cases, resulting in nearly 130,000 out-of-home placements. On 
any given day, approximately 90,000 juveniles are held in juvenile 
detention, correctional and shelter facilities. Nationally, nearly $2 
billion a year is spent operating these facilities. The average annual 
cost of confining a juvenile in a training school exceeds $45,000 in 
many States. The cost for intensive, private residential treatment for 
a serious juvenile offender can run as high as $100,000 per year. The 
cost for construction of secure facilities for juveniles is currently 
about $100,000 per bed.
    In order to be eligible to fully participate in the Formula Grants 
Program of the JJDP Act, States must develop and adhere to policies, 
practices, and laws which deinstitutionalize status offenders and 
nonoffenders, separate adults and juveniles held in secure 
institutions, and eliminate the practice of detaining or confining 
juveniles in adult jails and lockups. In addition, States must address 
efforts to reduce the disproportionate representation of minority 
juveniles in secure facilities, where such condition exists. These four 
goals (deinstitutionalization of status offenders, separation, jail 
removal, and disproportionate minority confinement) are commonly called 
the Formula Grants Program ``mandates,'' and are a major focus of 
States' Federally funded efforts under the Act. In order to meet 
statutory requirements for compliance, approximately 70% of the States 
at one time or another have devoted 100% of all available formula grant 
funds toward meeting the mandates. Thus, many States have been limited 
in the amount of JJDP Act funds that could be devoted to prevention.
    Title V of the JJDP Act is designed to provide a dedicated fund 
source for States to award grants for delinquency prevention and early 
intervention programs for local communities, provided that the 
applicant unit of general local government, or combination thereof, is 
in compliance with the JJDP Act mandates.
    Congress has structured the Title V Delinquency Prevention Program 
to support such units that have formulated a community-wide strategy to 
address the prevention of delinquency. A community will be required to 
have a prevention strategy based on assessment of risk factors 
associated with the development of delinquent behavior in the 
community's children.
    Title V authorizes the Administrator of OJJDP to make grants to a 
State, to be transmitted through the State Advisory Group, to units of 
general local government for delinquency prevention programming. The 
State agency which administers the JJDP Act Formula Grant in each State 
will be eligible to apply for funding and receive an amount determined 
by a formula based on the State's population of youth under the maximum 
age of original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction, with a minimum 
allocation of $75,000 per State and $25,000 per Territory.
    States will invite units of general local government that meet the 
statutorily mandated eligibility requirements, and as further limited 
by the State Advisory Group, to apply for funding. In order to be 
eligible, local applicants must: (1) Be certified by the State Advisory 
Group to be in compliance with the JJDP Act Formula Grants mandates; 
(2) designate or convene a local Prevention Policy Board; and (3) 
develop a local, comprehensive delinquency prevention plan.

Approach

    Many past delinquency prevention planning and programming efforts, 
while well intentioned, have been unsuccessful because of their 
negative focus on attempting to prevent juveniles from misbehaving. 
Another weakness of past delinquency prevention efforts is their narrow 
scope, generally focussing on only one or two aspects of a child's life 
such as individual behaviors or family problems. Successful delinquency 
prevention strategies must be positive in their orientation and 
comprehensive in their scope.
    Positive approaches that emphasize opportunities for healthy 
social, physical and mental development and take into account 
individual, family, peer group, school, and community influences on a 
child's development have been shown to have a much greater likelihood 
of success.
    Risk-focused delinquency prevention is a comprehensive approach 
based on the premise that in order to prevent a problem from occurring, 
the factors that contribute to the development of that problem must be 
identified and addressed.
    Research conducted over the past half century has clearly 
documented five categories of risk factors for juvenile delinquency: 
(1) Individual characteristics such as alienation, rebelliousness and 
lack of bonding to society; (2) family influences such as parental 
conflict, child abuse, poor family management practices, and family 
history of problem behavior (substance abuse, criminality, teen 
pregnancy, and school dropouts); (3) school experiences such as early 
academic failure and lack of commitment to school; (4) peer group 
influences such as friends who engage in problem behavior (minor 
criminality, drugs, gangs and violence); and (5) neighborhood and 
community factors such as economic deprivation, high rates of substance 
abuse and crime, and neighborhood disorganization.
    To counter these risk factors, protective factors must be 
introduced. Protective factors are qualities or conditions that 
moderate a juvenile's exposure to risk. Research indicates that 
protective factors fall into three basic categories: (1) Individual 
characteristics such as a resilient temperament and a positive social 
orientation; (2) bonding with pro-social family members, teachers, 
adults, and friends; and (3) healthy beliefs and clear standards for 
behavior. While individual characteristics are difficult to change, 
bonding and clear standards for behavior work together and can be 
changed. To increase bonding, children must be provided with: (1) 
Opportunities to contribute to their family, school, peer group and 
community; (2) skills to take advantage of opportunities; and (3) 
recognition for efforts to contribute.
    At the same time, parents, teachers and communities need to set 
clear standards regarding pro-social behavior.
    A risk-focused delinquency prevention approach calls on communities 
to identify the risk factors to which their children are exposed. 
Risked-focused delinquency prevention provides communities with a 
conceptual framework for prioritizing the risk factors in their 
community, assessing how their current resources are being used, 
identifying resources which are needed, and choosing specific programs 
and strategies that directly address those risk factors through the 
enhancement of protective factors.
    This approach requires a commitment by and participation of the 
entire community in developing and implementing a comprehensive 
strategy. While the roles of governmental agencies in this strategy 
will vary, it is essential that the citizens of the community create a 
diverse and representative coalition in which public officials and 
agencies are equal members with private citizens and agencies. It is 
this coalition which leads the community's prevention strategy in 
addressing the needs of children and their families at risk.
    Another key component of this approach is the coordination and use 
of existing programs and resources. A community-wide prevention 
strategy must inventory available State, local, private, and Federal 
resources, and develop vehicles for making these resources and programs 
readily accessible to children and families in need. Thus, applicants 
for Title V funds are encouraged to coordinate this prevention effort 
with other Federally funded efforts.

Target Population

     The Title V Delinquency Prevention Program is based on a program 
design which addresses those risk factors which are known to be 
associated with delinquent behavior. The program seeks to address these 
factors at the earliest appropriate stage in each child's development. 
The target population is all at-risk children in a given community. 
Funds awarded under this program will be used to address delinquency 
risk-factors in communities, and as such may be used to fund 
ameliorative services for at-risk children.

Funding Structure

     Title V, Section 505 of the Act, authorizes the Administrator of 
OJJDP to make grants to a State, to be transmitted through the State 
Advisory Group, to units of general local government.

Technical Assistance

     Because the Title V Delinquency Prevention Program is based on a 
risk-focused program structure, OJJDP will make training and technical 
assistance on risk-focused prevention available to representatives of 
units of general local government through the State agency 
administering the program.

Program Goal

     The goal of this program is to reduce delinquency and youth 
violence by supporting communities in providing their children, 
families, neighborhoods, and institutions with the knowledge, skills, 
and opportunities necessary to foster a healthy and nurturing 
environment which supports the growth and development of productive and 
responsible citizens.

Program Objectives

     The objectives of the program are:
    1. To form coalitions within communities to mobilize the community 
and direct delinquency prevention efforts;
    2. To identify those known delinquency risk factors which are 
present in communities;
    3. To identify protective factors which will counteract identified 
risk factors, and develop local comprehensive, delinquency prevention 
plans to strengthen these protective factors;
    4. To develop local comprehensive, delinquency prevention 
strategies which use and coordinate Federal, State, local and private 
resources for establishing a client-centered continuum of services for 
at-risk children and their families;
    5. To implement the delinquency prevention strategies, monitor 
their progress, and modify the plans as needed.

Basic Program Design

     The program will be implemented in two phases: the pre-award 
planning phase and the implementation phase. Applicant units of general 
local government may modify or enhance existing prevention planning 
boards, plans and strategies to meet the requirements for Title V 
funding.

Planning Phase

     The planning phase for each local applicant will occur prior to 
the award of funds and consist of the designation or formation of a 
local policy board to direct the project, and the development of a 
three-year delinquency prevention plan. OJJDP is making training and 
technical assistance available through the State agency to interested 
potential local applicants during this phase. Eligible State agencies 
may apply for and receive Title V awards from OJJDP based on this final 
Title V Guideline.

Implementation Phase

     The implementation phase will begin with the award of subgrants to 
units of general local government. Technical assistance will continue 
to be available to grantees.

Funding Structure and Grantee Qualifications

    Title V authorizes the Administrator of OJJDP to make grants to 
States to be transmitted through the State Advisory Groups to qualified 
units of general local government or combinations thereof. The State 
Advisory Group is the board appointed by the chief executive officer of 
the State, as provided by Section 223(a)(3) of the Act (Section 503). A 
unit of general local government means any city, county, town, borough, 
parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a 
State, and any Indian tribe which performs law enforcement functions as 
determined by the Secretary of the Interior. . . (Section 103(8)).
    OJJDP will award grants to States based on a formula determined by 
each State's relative population of youth below the maximum age limit 
for original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction. The States will 
subgrant the funds to qualified units of general local government based 
on a competitive process. Jurisdictions that do not have discrete units 
of general local government may award funds directly to governmental 
agencies or private nonprofit organizations to implement projects in 
furtherance of the jurisdiction's own comprehensive prevention 
strategy.
    All Title V funds must be matched by recipient units of general 
local government or by the State with 50% of the amount of the grant. 
This match may be provided in cash or the value of in-kind 
contributions or services. States are encouraged to supplement Title V 
funds with Formula Grant funds. However, Formula Grant funds cannot be 
used as match for Title V funds.

State Grantee Qualifications

    Each State, as defined in Section 103(7) of the Act, 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 Act, and a State 
Advisory Group appointed pursuant to Section 223(a)(3) of the Act. The 
applicant State agency must provide an assurance that the State 
Advisory Group has or will have the sole authority, consistent with 
State law or policy, to approve or recommend approval of Title V 
subgrants to units of general local government, pursuant to the 
provisions of this program guideline.

Local Subgrantee Qualifications

    In order for a unit of general local government to be eligible to 
apply for Title V funds, such unit, or each unit applying in 
combination, must be certified by the State Advisory Group as in 
compliance with Sections 223(a)(12)(A), 223(a)(13), 223(a)(14), and 
233(a)(23) of the JJDP Act. If a State is not currently in full 
compliance with any of the first three of these mandates, i.e. the 
quantifiable mandates, or is in full compliance with de minimis 
exceptions, only those units of general local government which are 
within the de minimis parameters provided in 28 CFR 31.303(f)(6)(i) and 
(f)(6)(iii)(A), based on the locality's most current census data, may 
be deemed in compliance with the mandates of Sections 223(a)(12)(A), 
(13), and (14).
    In order to be in compliance with Section 223(a)(23), the State 
Advisory Group must certify that the unit of general local government 
is cooperating in data gathering and analysis to determine if 
disproportionate minority confinement exists, or if it is known to 
exist within the boundaries or jurisdiction of the unit of general 
local government, the unit has made or is making an adequate effort 
toward addressing, or assisting the State to address, this issue.
    The State Advisory Group will competitively award, or recommend for 
award, Title V grants to units of general local government based on how 
well competing units meet the competitive criteria set forth below 
under Priority Consideration for Funding. State Advisory Groups may not 
arbitrarily exclude an eligible unit of general local government from 
competing for Title V funds.

Application Process--Eligible State Agencies

    All State agencies designated by the chief executive under Section 
299(c) of the Act are eligible to apply for Title V funds. A list of 
these agencies and the allocations of funds to the State for a 
particular fiscal year may be obtained from OJJDP.

Application Requirements for State Agencies

    State agencies must provide evidence of the State Advisory Group's 
authority to approve the award of Title V subgrants or, where a 
separate supervisory board is vested with such authority, to review and 
recommend approval to the board. No Title V subgrants can be made to a 
unit of general local government absent the approval or recommendation 
of the State Advisory Group. Examples of such authority would be an 
executive order, a statute, a formal resolution of the State Advisory 
Group, a formal resolution of the supervisory board which the State 
Advisory Group advises, or a written agreement between the State agency 
and the State Advisory Group.
    The application must also include an assurance that the State 
Advisory Group and the State agency will establish written subgrantee 
eligibility criteria, described above under Local Subgrantee 
Qualifications, and competitive criteria based on the criteria 
described below under Priority Consideration for Funding. The State may 
issue additional criteria, including criteria designed to focus 
delinquency prevention efforts toward those areas of the State 
displaying the greatest need of comprehensive delinquency prevention 
planning and programs.
    Furthermore, the application must provide the following 
administrative assurances:
    1. To report on all subgrant awards, within thirty days of award, 
on the OJJDP form, ``Individual Project Report, Part I: Initial Report 
of Funding'';
    2. To monitor and assure the audit of subgrants for performance, 
outcome and fiscal integrity, including cash and in-kind match, as 
specified in the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs 
Guideline Manual M-7100, ``Financial and Administrative Guide for 
Grants'';
    3. To collect quarterly progress and data reports, and forward 
semi-annual summary reports to OJJDP.
    The application must include a time-task plan providing a 
description of the major tasks which the State will employ to implement 
the Title V program, and the timeframes for completing each of those 
tasks.
    All awards will be conditioned with additional requirements which 
are standard for recipients of Federal grants.
    State agencies which demonstrate a need to do so in their 
applications to OJJDP, may use up to 5% of the State's Title V 
allocation for the costs of administering the Title V subgrants and 
support for State Advisory Group activities related to Title V. A 
budget narrative must explain how the administrative funds will be 
spent, including provision of the required match by the State.

State Application Deadline

    State applications are due to OJJDP not later than 60 days after 
the effective date of this guideline.
    Technical Assistance Role of State Agency and State Advisory Group: 
In their capacities as the primary planning vehicles for juvenile 
justice and delinquency prevention programs within the State, the State 
agency and the State Advisory Group are encouraged to assume a role as 
a technical assistance resource for local subgrantees, as well as 
serving as a resource and information clearinghouse for all prevention 
activities in the State. The data and strategies developed on the local 
level should be incorporated in the State Advisory Group's and State 
agency's statewide, comprehensive planning efforts, as required by 
Section 223 of the Act. To this end, State agencies and State Advisory 
Groups are strongly encouraged to participate in risk-focused 
prevention training and technical assistance made available by OJJDP.

Process for Subgrant Award and Administration

    State agency grantees shall use essentially the same process for 
making Title V subawards as that used for Formula Grant awards, with 
the State Advisory Group establishing applicant eligibility criteria to 
target specific types of communities, if needed, and making or 
recommending the final decision on funding of individual applications. 
This includes the Request for Proposals, competitive review of 
applications, and award of subgrants. Likewise, State agencies will 
monitor Title V subgrants in a similar manner as the Formula Grant 
subgrants, including the collection and reporting of data required by 
this program guideline.
    In considering applications for awards, State Advisory Groups 
should be sensitive to the unique needs of rural areas and Native 
American tribes, including provision of special consideration in the 
competitive process.
    All subgrants should be awarded within 180 days after receipt of 
the award from OJJDP.

Application Process for Units of General Local Government

1. Pre-application Certification of JJDP Act Compliance

    Units of general local government must obtain a certification of 
compliance from the State Advisory Group prior to applying for an award 
of funds.

2. Delinquency Prevention Training

    OJJDP is making training in risk-focused prevention available to 45 
sites across the nation during fiscal year 1994. The only cost 
associated with this training for participants will be transportation 
and lodging, if necessary. Facilities for the training will be provided 
by the States or localities. Training is designed to assist communities 
in preparing the three year plans required for Title V funding. The 
initial training will consist of a one day introduction to the theories 
and strategies of risk-focused prevention planning. Units of general 
local government considering applying for Title V funding are strongly 
urged to take advantage of this training opportunity and send key 
community leaders to the initial training. A subsequent three day 
workshop will be held for planning teams from local Prevention Policy 
Boards to complete a risk and resource assessment. OJJDP has advised 
the State agencies on the process for units of general local government 
to participate in this training.

3. Local Three-Year Delinquency Prevention Plan

    Each unit of general local government's application to the State 
agency must include a three-year plan describing the extent of risk 
factors identified in the community and how these risk factors will be 
addressed. A written explanation of the risk factors and protective 
factors can be obtained from the State agency grantee. The plan must, 
at a minimum, contain the following elements:
    a. The designation or formation of a local Prevention Policy Board 
(PPB) consisting of no fewer than 15 and no more than 21 members from 
the community, representing a balance of public agencies, private 
nonprofit organizations serving children, youth, and families, and 
business and industry. Such agencies and organizations may include 
education, health and mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare, 
employment, parent, family, and youth associations, law enforcement, 
religion, recreation, child protective services, public defenders, 
prosecutors, and private manufacturing and service sectors. The 
applicant should also assure that the PPB, to the extent possible, 
contains one or more members under the age of twenty-one, one or more 
parents or guardians with children who have had contact or are at risk 
of having contact with the juvenile justice system, and an overall 
membership that generally reflects the racial, ethnic, and cultural 
composition of the community's youth population. A specific local 
agency or entity must have responsibility for support of the PPB;
    b. Evidence of commitment of key community leaders to supporting a 
comprehensive, delinquency prevention effort. Key leaders may include 
public and private individuals in key leadership and policy positions 
who are instrumental in effecting policy changes, controlling 
resources, and mobilizing the community;
    c. Definition of the boundaries of the program's neighborhood or 
community;
    d. An assessment of the readiness of the community or neighborhood 
to adopt a comprehensive delinquency prevention strategy;
    e. An assessment of the prevalence of specific, identified 
delinquency risk factors in the community, including the establishment 
of baseline data for the risk factors. The assessment of risk factors 
must result in a list of priority risk factors to be addressed, as 
determined and approved by the PPB;
    f. Identification of available resources and promising approaches, 
including Federal, State, local, and private, and a description of how 
they address identified risk factors, and an assessment of gaps in 
needed resources and a description of how to address them;
    g. A strategy, including goals, objectives, and a timetable, for 
mobilizing the community to assume responsibility for delinquency 
prevention. This should include ways of involving the private nonprofit 
and business sectors in delinquency prevention activities;
    h. A strategy, including goals, objectives, and a timetable, for 
obtaining and coordinating identified resources which will implement 
the promising approaches that address the priority risk factors. This 
strategy must include a plan for the coordination of services for at-
risk youth and their families;
    i. A description of how awarded funds and matching resources will 
be used to accomplish stated goals and objectives by purchasing of 
services and goods and leveraging other resources. This should include 
a budget which lists planned expenditures;
    j. A description of how the PPB will provide general oversight for 
developing the plan, approve the plan prior to submission to the State, 
and make recommendations to the responsible local agency for the 
distribution of funds and evaluation of funded activities;
    k. A plan for collecting data for the measurement of performance 
and outcome of project activities.

Priority Consideration for Funding

    Only local government applicants certified by the State Advisory 
Group as in compliance with the mandates of the Act, that have convened 
a PPB, and have submitted a three year plan will be eligible for 
funding. In considering applications for funding, State Advisory Groups 
will give priority to eligible applicants which:
    a. Provide a thorough assessment of risk factors and resources, 
including the quantified measurement of the risk factors which will 
serve as the baseline for determining project performance and outcome;
    b. Identify key community leaders and members of the PPB, describe 
their roles in the comprehensive delinquency prevention strategy, and 
provide evidence of key community leaders support;
    c. Clearly define the boundaries of the program's neighborhood or 
community;
    d. Provide a realistic assessment, including evidence, of the 
readiness of the community or neighborhood to adopt a comprehensive 
delinquency prevention strategy;
    e. Provide a coherent plan, including realistic goals and 
objectives, to mobilize the community and implement a strategy that 
will address priority risk factors, including innovative ways of 
involving the private nonprofit and business sectors in delinquency 
prevention activities;
    f. Provide specific strategies for service and agency coordination, 
including collocation of services at sites readily accessible to 
children and families in need;
    g. Provide a strategy for or evidence of collaborating with other 
units of local of government and State agencies to develop or enhance a 
statewide subsidy program to local governments that is dedicated to 
early intervention and delinquency prevention;
    h. Provide a budget outlining the planned expenditures of grant 
funds and matching resources, including a budget narrative justifying 
these expenditures;
    i. Provide a sound plan for collecting data for measuring 
performance and outcome;
    j. Provide written statements of commitment from State or local 
public agencies to match in cash or kind, at least 50% of the funds 
awarded.

Local Application Deadline

    The State Advisory Group will determine the application deadline. 
However, all local subgrant awards should be made within 180 days after 
the date that the State agency was awarded Title V funds.

Local Grant Administrative Requirements

    After receipt of the award, local grantees will provide all 
required reports and data to the State agency, describing 
implementation of the program. Technical assistance for program 
implementation will be available upon request through the State agency.

Evaluation

    OJJDP will collect and analyze data collected by each grantee for 
the purpose of developing national summary reports on the performance 
and outcome of the local prevention efforts. This evaluation will 
examine performance in meeting stated objectives as well as the outcome 
of the project's activities. In order for this evaluation to be 
meaningful, it is essential that, to the greatest extent possible, the 
local three year comprehensive delinquency prevention plans contain 
quantified objectives and baseline measurements of the identified risk 
factors.

Allocation of Title V Funds to States

    The Title V Delinquency Prevention Program has a F.Y. 1994 
appropriation of $13 million available for awards to States to support 
programs of units of general local government. Allocations are 
available to States based on the number of juveniles in the State who 
are subject to original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction based 
on State law, with a minimum allocation of $75,000 for States and the 
District of Columbia and $25,000 for Territories and Possessions. A 
list of the allocations for States is available from OJJDP. The 
allocations for States not participating in this program in F.Y. 1994, 
or subsequent years, will be withheld for use in F.Y. 1995, or 
subsequent years, pursuant to the Title V Delinquency Prevention 
Program guidelines issued for that year.

Size of Awards to Units of General Local Government

    The size of the award to each unit of general local government, or 
combination thereof, and the total number of awards will be determined 
by the State Advisory Group, based upon the amount of funds allocated 
to the State and the quality of the local three-year prevention plans.

Duration of Grants and Continuation Funding

    OJJDP will award grants to States for a project period beginning on 
the date of award and ending on September 30, 1996. States will award 
grants to units of general local government in annual increments 
covering not more than 12 months each, with overall project periods of 
12 to 36 months. Subsequent years' funding will be contingent upon 
satisfactory performance and the availability of funds. Future funding 
is dependent upon Congressional action.
    Restrictions on Uses of Funds: Title V funds cannot be used for 
construction, land acquisition, or supplantation of Federal, State, or 
local funds supporting existing programs or activities.

Responses to Public Comments

    Twenty-seven comments to the proposed guideline were received. A 
summary of the comments and OJJDP's responses follow. In many 
instances, the summary comments listed below incorporate specific 
comments from more than one respondent.
    Comment. The guideline appears to focus on risk factors and 
reducing delinquency without providing adequate emphasis to protective 
factors and positive youth outcomes. A prevention approach which is 
protection focused or risk and protection focused seems more in line 
with OJJDP's strategy.
    Response. The structure of the Title V program is based on 
identifying risk factors that can lead to the development of 
delinquency and violence in children and youth, and developing 
strategies to eliminate or ameliorate the risk factors. A key component 
of this strategy is to provide the protective factors which serve to 
buffer children and youth from the damaging effects of risk factors.
    To better express this strategy, the Title V program will be 
referred to as a risk and protection focused strategy.
    Comment. The guideline should refer to children and youth, and 
emphasis should go to youth eleven years and older, since this 
population most often lacks positive alternatives in their communities.
    What age is the program targeting? Would programs for parenting 
skills and early infant bonding be appropriate? The program needs to 
place more emphasis on parental responsibility and skills training.
    Response. The guideline states that ``the program seeks to address 
these (risk) factors at the earliest appropriate stage in each child's 
development.'' The Title V program is structured to accommodate what 
each individual community has identified as the best strategy to reduce 
risk factors and increase protective factors. For some communities this 
may require emphasizing the ages of zero to three, for others it may 
mean eleven years and older, and in others it may require a focus on 
adolescents.
    Comment. The clear thrust of the proposed guideline is toward 
primary prevention. Given the increasing emphasis on primary and 
secondary prevention in funding proposals now before Congress, OJJDP 
should make clear in the final guideline that in communities where the 
greatest need is for tertiary program, those communities are also 
encouraged to apply for these funds.
    Response. OJJDP formulated the Title V program based on a risk and 
protection focused strategy. This decision was based on OJJDP's 
research and demonstration program experience, as well as the 
provisions of Title V. While the risk and protection focused strategy 
stresses secondary prevention, the comprehensive planning process 
employed by communities may also yield tertiary and primary prevention 
programs.
    The three levels of prevention (primary, secondary, and tertiary) 
usually overlap to some degree, especially in a risk and protection 
focused strategy such as that employed in the Title V program. The risk 
and protection focus of the strategy analyzes and addresses the root 
causes of problem behavior and violence which can affect all children 
(primary prevention), including those who have been identified as at-
risk (secondary prevention), and those who have committed offenses and 
have been referred to the juvenile justice system (tertiary 
prevention).
    Section 505(a) under Title V states that grants may be used for 
``delinquency prevention programs and activities for youth who have had 
or are likely to have contact with the juvenile justice system, 
including the provision to children, youth and families of: (1) 
Recreation services; (2) tutoring and remedial education; (3) 
assistance in the development of work skills; (4) child and adolescent 
health and mental health services; (5) alcohol and substance abuse 
prevention services; (6) leadership development activities; and (7) the 
teaching that people are and should be held accountable for their 
actions.'' Information and technical assistance on these and other 
prevention programs and strategies are available from OJJDP.
    Comment. Gender-specific services should be part of every 
community's comprehensive strategy.
    Response. Through the risk and resource assessment, each community 
will have an opportunity to analyze service gaps and address those gaps 
with programs and strategies which have had positive or promising 
results. OJJDP is making technical assistance and training available to 
States and localities who would like to enhance their assessment skills 
in analyzing service gaps.
    Comment. The guideline should list attention deficit disorder and 
lack of support for parents with children with disabilities as risk 
factors.
    Response. The risk factors cited in the training that OJJDP is 
providing for potential Title V applicants includes three school 
related factors: Early and Persistent Antisocial Behavior, Academic 
Failure in Elementary School, and Lack of Commitment to School. 
Learning disabilities can be related to each of these risk factors.
    Comment. A sixth program objective should be added which focuses on 
methodology. This would provide a basis for improving professional 
practice within and among the organizations working with youth.
    Response. Although the guideline does not require a specific 
methodology for planning or programming, it does provide general 
guidance on methodology along the lines of a risk and protection 
focused strategy. The training and technical assistance that is 
available through OJJDP provides a means of improving professional 
practice.
    Comment. Will private non-profit agencies have difficulty in being 
subgranted funds if a local unit of government does not wish to apply 
but does wish to participate?
    Response. Section 505(a) under Title V of the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act) authorizes the Administrator to 
``make grants to a State, to be transmitted through the State Advisory 
Group, to units of general local government * * *'' The only means by 
which private non-profit organizations can receive Title V funds would 
be through service contracts with units of general local government.
    Comment. Are school districts eligible to apply for Title V funds?
    Response. Section 503 of the JJDP Act provides for only units of 
general local government to be the applicants for Title V funds. A 
school district is not a unit of general local government.
    The proposed guideline did not consistently use the term ``unit of 
general local government.'' The final guideline is amended to use this 
term consistently.
    Comment. The guideline appears to grant sole authority to award 
grants to the State Advisory Group. How will the awards be made if 
State statute does not grant the State Advisory Group such authority? 
If the Governor signs the grant, must the State Advisory Group approve 
the award?
    Response. The guideline, under ``State Grantee Qualifications,'' 
has been revised to require the State agency applicant to provide an 
assurance that the State Advisory Group has the sole authority, 
consistent with State law or policy, to approve or recommend the award 
of Title V subgrants.
    Comment. Can private not-for-profit organizations participate in 
public-private partnerships with operational prevention coalitions?
    Response. Under the Title V program, a unit of general local 
government could vest a public-private organization with significant 
responsibility for implementation of the program. However, the local 
government would still be responsible to the State for administering 
any Title V funds.
    Comment. Municipalities with populations in excess of 3 million 
should be eligible to receive grants directly from OJJDP.
    Response. Section 505 of the JJDP Act authorizes the Administrator 
to ``make grants to a State, to be transmitted through the State 
Advisory Group to units of general local government.''
    Comment. The formula for allocating funds to States should be 
amended to include all youth up to 18 years of age, regardless of the 
maximum age of original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction.
    Response. Because a community can only prevent delinquency in a 
juvenile who is subject to a juvenile court's delinquency jurisdiction, 
the most logical and appropriate means for allocating Title V funds is 
to use a formula determined by each State's relative population of 
youth below the age limit for original juvenile court delinquency 
jurisdiction.
    Comment. Regional plans for Title V should be permitted.
    Response. The guideline allows for combinations of units of general 
local government to apply for Title V funds. However, the regional plan 
which is the product by such a regional collaboration must define the 
boundaries of the target neighborhoods or communities.
    Comment. States will be implementing the Title V program using 
varying timetables and strategies. OJJDP should require the States' 
applications to include a time-task plan.
    Response. This requirement has been added Under ``Application 
Requirements for State Agencies,'' in the guideline.
    Comment. Four respondents indicated that the match requirement was 
too onerous for small communities and private nonprofit organizations. 
The respondents recommended that a reduced level of match be allowed.
    Response. Title V requires that ``the unit or State has agreed to 
provide a 50% match of the amount of the grant, including the value of 
in-kind contributions, to fund the activity.'' (Section 505(b)(7)).
    This provision provides some flexibility in the match requirement. 
First, the match, which is 50 cents on the dollar, has to be made for 
every dollar granted to the local level. However, the State can provide 
a portion of the funding through State program dollars. Second, the 
match can be made in cash or in-kind. In-kind match is discussed in a 
separate response.
    It should be noted that the Title V provision does not require a 
match from any agency other than the State or the unit of general local 
government. It is the responsibility of the unit of general local 
government to provide the match, not nonprofit service providers.
    Comment. Two respondents recommended that in certain instances, the 
match requirement should exclude in-kind match and require a cash match 
only.
    Response. Congress intended the in-kind match provision to allow 
flexibility in providing local resources. Although the in-kind match 
provision may require more diligence on the part of the State in 
assuring that the match requirement is met, the State cannot restrict 
the match to cash because this is a benefit provided to local 
recipients by statute.
    Comment. The guideline should require that local applications 
provide formal interagency agreements which promote ``contractual'' 
agreements vs. ``intentional'' agreements.
    Response. The guideline allows for statements of commitment in 
order to give the State flexibility in determining what form those 
statements of commitment should take. Given the timeframes for the 
planning process in the guideline, it may not be possible for a 
locality to obtain formal interagency agreements prior to submission of 
the plan.
    Comment. Can the State Advisory Group limit the availability of 
funds to a specific local government or a specific set of risk factors?
    Response. The State Advisory Group and State agency may issue 
funding guidelines which focus available funds on areas with the 
greatest need. If a State chooses this approach, the award of funds is 
to still be determined through a competitive process that solicits 
proposals from areas which meet criteria established by the State 
Advisory Group. It is possible that these criteria may result in a 
limited number of units of general local government being eligible to 
apply.
    In targeting communities with particular needs for purposes of 
soliciting proposals, the State Advisory Group may include specific 
risk factors in the targeting criteria. However, applicants must still 
analyze the incidence of all risk factors in their local comprehensive 
plans.
    The State Advisory Group and the State agency may not limit the 
competition based solely on criteria which are not related to juvenile 
crime or other indications of need. For example, the State Advisory 
Group may not limit competition to particular communities based solely 
on population size. To do so would result in the arbitrary exclusion of 
communities from competition in the Title V program. The guideline is 
revised under ``Local Subgrantee Qualifications'' to reflect this 
requirement.
    Comment. The timeframes allowed in the guideline for the 
development of local comprehensive plans are too restrictive, 
especially if a locality does not have any available planning 
resources. What happens if a local applicant cannot meet the 180 day 
deadline? OJJDP should allow States to award the first and second year 
of Title V funds through one RFP process after the new Federal fiscal 
year.
    Response. The guideline states that ``all subgrant awards should be 
made within 180 days after receipt of the award from OJJDP.'' OJJDP 
intends this 180 day timeframe to serve as a target date, particularly 
in States where localities are developing their Title V prevention 
plans on a base previously established through other risk-focused 
prevention planning efforts. OJJDP recognizes that some States and 
localities are new to prevention planning, and more time will be 
required to develop comprehensive three year plans. OJJDP is providing 
technical assistance and training to States and localities to enhance 
their ability to implement the Title V program in the most expeditious 
manner possible without sacrificing quality.
    Comment. The guideline suggests that Title V funds should be used 
in conjunction with the JJDP Act Formula Grant funds. The time frame 
for these two planning cycles do not coincide.
    Response. Title V requires three year local plans and the Formula 
Grant requires three year State plans. OJJDP encourages the State 
Advisory Groups and State agencies to develop a mechanism whereby the 
local plans can be integrated in the State plan.
    The proposed guideline, under ``Duration of Grants and Continuation 
Funding'' has been revised to more accurately describe the grant award 
process by providing that ``OJJDP will award grants to States for a 
project period beginning on the date of award and ending on September 
30, 1996. States will award grants to units of general local government 
in annual increments covering not more than 12 months each, with 
overall project periods of 12 to 36 months.''
    Comment. Will Title V funds be available in to States in future 
years?
    Response. OJJDP will make future years' Title V funds available to 
States and localities through the process described in the guideline, 
pending satisfactory performance and availability of funds. OJJDP will 
determine satisfactory performance of State grantees and the States 
will determine satisfactory performance of local grantees.
    Comment. The Title V program should be coordinated with other 
similar Federal programs, such as the Family Preservation Act.
    The guideline should require local applicants to document 
collaboration with other Federal programs.
    Response. OJJDP strongly encourages coordination with other 
Federal, State and local programs. OJJDP is working with the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services to establish mechanisms to 
facilitate coordination with the Family Preservation and Support 
Services provision and other programs which use a community coalition 
planning approach to prevention. In addition, OJJDP will provide 
technical assistance and training to States and localities on accessing 
and collaborating with other Federal programs.
    The guideline indicates that a ``key component of the prevention 
approach is the coordination and use of existing resources.'' The 
guideline encourages applicants to coordinate this effort with other 
Federally funded programs.
    Comment. Who signs the local application? The highest elected local 
official?
    Response. The local application may be signed by any official 
authorized to do so by the applicant unit of general local government.
    Comment. Can a county, and municipalities within a county, both be 
eligible to apply?
    Response. Yes, provided that funding is contingent upon 
coordination of the respective plans.
    Comment. Can Title II, Part B Formula Grant funds be used to help 
localities develop local plans?
    Response. Yes. The use of Formula Grant program funds for the 
development of local delinquency prevention plans is a permissible 
expenditure of these funds.
    Comment. What if a local plan is missing one of the required 
elements?
    Response. The local plan must contain all the required elements 
listed in the guideline before the locality can receive Title V funds.
    Comment. It is not clear whether the funds can be used for service 
delivery or planning.
    Response. Title V funds are used for service delivery.
    Comment. The guideline refers to the ``Communities that Care'' 
model of risk-focused prevention. Can grant recipients employ other 
risk-focused prevention models?
    Response. Yes. Localities may base their three year plan and 
strategy on other delinquency prevention models, provided that they are 
based on a risk and protection focused model that uses: (1) The 
analysis of risk factors which are grounded in sound theory and 
positive research results, and (2) protective factors which have a 
sound theoretical basis and positive or promising research results.
    OJJDP is offering training and TA on risk and protection focused 
prevention which permits States and localities to use any risk and 
protection focused model.
    Comment. We interpret the Title V audit requirements to be 
different than that of an A-128 audit.
    Response. The provisions of OMB Circulars A-128 and A-133 apply to 
Title V funds.
    Comment. The guideline indicates project periods for local grants 
of 12 to 36 months. It may be beneficial to allow for up to a 60 month 
project period to facilitate the measurement of outcomes of the 
projects.
    Response. Title V is designed as a long term program. Based on the 
experience of communities that are implementing prevention programs of 
similar design, we anticipate that three to five years is not an 
unreasonable time to expect a community coalition, such as the Title V 
Prevention Policy Board, to establish itself as a viable organization 
with the influence necessary to help effect system change.
    In the proposed guideline, OJJDP has provided a 12-36 month 
timeframe to provide flexibility for accommodating a wide range of 
community planning and coalition building experience by local Title V 
grant recipients. Some communities may only need a one year period to 
augment on-going risk focused prevention activities. For other 
communities, this may be their first attempt at this type of 
comprehensive prevention planning and programs. In addition, this 
timeframe will facilitate integrating the planning for Title V with 
that of the Formula Grants program.
    In general, the use of Title V funds is intended to provide an 
incentive to plan and implement delinquency prevention programs at the 
local level. States may wish to provide competitive Title II funding 
for local prevention programs following Title V funding, and local 
grantees can seek funds for expansion from a range of State, Federal, 
and foundation sources.
    The guideline requires the collection of performance and outcome 
data. OJJDP encourages States and local grantees to continue collecting 
this data for their prevention programs to measure outcomes beyond the 
period of Title V funding. OJJDP is also planning to continue 
collecting and analyzing data for selected jurisdictions through an on-
going national evaluation of Title V.
    Comment. Funding formulas have favored urban over suburban 
communities. The opportunity for equal programming throughout the State 
would be most desirable or at least a funding formula created that 
allows suburban communities to compete with like communities.
    Response. Under the guideline, States have the discretion to target 
those communities in the State with the greatest need. The judgment the 
State Advisory Group can best determine whether to limit the 
competition for the grants to specific, targeted communities or to 
conduct a statewide competition. Given the limited amount of Title V 
funds available to each State and the local competition requirements, 
distribution of funds based on a population formula would not be 
feasible. The State Advisory Group and State agency could, however, 
conduct competitions among applicants of specific types of geographic 
areas (urban, suburban, rural).
    Comment. The guidelines should specifically prohibit or discourage 
the withdrawal of community funds from agencies to provide the match 
for Title V programs, especially in cases where collaborative efforts 
between agencies and government would serve the same purpose and 
clients.
    Response. The guideline prohibits using Title V funds to supplant 
Federal, State, or local funds supporting existing programs. The 
guideline encourages collaboration of agencies and services. The 
planning process for Title V is designed to produce a more effective, 
efficient and responsive service system for children, youth and 
families. The locality can best determine how to design, coordinate, 
and fund programs to achieve this outcome, provided that the Title V 
funds are not used to replace funds for existing programs.
    Comment. The guideline requires a great deal of local planning 
before localities can become eligible for funding. This provides little 
incentive for many units of general local government to engage in such 
efforts without a strong probability of being funded.
    In order to reduce the burden on the local communities, a process 
for awards should be employed wherein communities first apply to the 
State Advisory Group, and then develop their plans after there is a 
much greater chance of being funded.
    Another option would be for OJJDP to mandate that localities should 
build upon existing plans, where they exist.
    Response. During the initial implementation of the Title V program, 
some localities will have the experience to initiate and develop a 
three year plan in a short timeframe. In order to establish effectively 
operating programs during this first year, State Advisory Groups may 
want to consider giving priority to applicant communities that have the 
capacity to develop strong plans. For instance, a State Advisory Group 
may target communities that already have planning boards involved in 
broad-based prevention planning.
    OJJDP encourages localities to build upon existing prevention plans 
which are based on a risk and protection factor approach.
    Comment. OJJDP should encourage or mandate that whenever possible, 
localities must designate existing coalitions or boards, with 
prevention responsibilities similar to those required by Title V, as 
the Prevention Policy Board.
    It may be difficult to convene a representative Prevention Policy 
Board of not more than 21 members. Can the Prevention Policy Board 
exceed 21 members?
    Response. The guideline requires the local applicants to designate 
or form a Prevention Policy Board. OJJDP encourages the use of existing 
similar boards to meet the Title V requirements. This would facilitate 
coordination of funding sources and collaboration among agencies and 
governments.
    Title V expressly requires that the board membership consist of not 
less than 15 and not more than 21 members. Localities may convene 
boards of more than 21 members for broad-based prevention planning, but 
recommendations and other actions regarding the Title V three year plan 
and funds can only be made by a specified board (or committee of a 
larger board) comprised of 15 to 21 members.
    Comment. Six respondents indicated that specified groups of people 
need to be represented on Prevention Policy Boards including youth, 
families with or parents of children in the system or at risk 
(consumers of prevention services), and members that reflect the 
racial, ethnic and gender composition of the community's youth 
population.
    Response. The additional representation described by these six 
respondents furthers the goal of having representative local boards. 
However, overly prescriptive Board requirements reduce local 
flexibility, particularly in the use of existing planning bodies. 
Therefore, OJJDP has modified the guideline to encourage the inclusion 
of these interests on the Prevention Policy Boards, to the maximum 
extent possible.
    Comment. Youth development organizations should be included in the 
planning process and considered as a primary existing resource for 
prevention services--they have extensive experience in primary 
prevention programs.
    Response. All human services agencies that in any way deal with 
children, youth, and families, including youth development 
organizations, should be involved in the planning process and 
considered as resources to assist in implementation of the local 
prevention plan. Technical assistance to States and localities is 
available through OJJDP to help in identifying and accessing prevention 
resources, including youth development organizations.
    Comment. Can a Prevention Policy Board consisting of a private 
nonprofit organization and a local government apply for grant funds? If 
allowable, must the local government administer the funds?
    Response. Prevention Policy Boards are not eligible to apply for a 
Title V grants from the States. Only units of general local government 
are eligible.
    A private nonprofit organization and a unit of general local 
government could enter into a partnership to implement the Title V 
program, provided that the unit of general local government is the 
applicant and all Federal fund administrative requirements are met.
    Comment. The exact duties of the Prevention Policy Board are not 
clear. The Board should be charged with the development of the local 
prevention plan.
    Response. One purpose of the Board is to provide a vehicle for 
community commitment to and involvement in making the community a 
healthy place for the development of children and youth. Involving the 
Board in the development of the plan is one way of gaining that 
commitment and involvement.
    The guideline has been amended to require a description of how the 
Prevention Policy Board will provide general oversight for developing 
the plan, approve the plan prior to submission to the State, and make 
recommendations to the responsible local agency for the distribution of 
funds and evaluation of funded activities.
    Each Prevention Policy Board is encouraged to develop by-laws in 
concert with the responsible local agency to define its duties and how 
it will operate. Technical assistance is available through OJJDP for 
Board development.
    Comment. The Prevention Policy Board should be charged with the 
mission of producing positive outcomes for youth, not just delinquency 
prevention.
    Response. OJJDP is promoting risk and protection focused 
delinquency prevention as a promising strategy for the Prevention 
Policy Board to use in addressing the complex and varied sources of 
delinquent behavior in children and producing positive outcomes for 
youth.
    Comment. Will OJJDP provide application kits for States?
    Response. A sample State application is available from OJJDP.
    Comment. The training on risk focused prevention is an excellent 
idea. However, given the limited resources available to localities to 
travel to the training, the training should be targeted on the 
localities which have been selected to receive grants. Also, a training 
for trainers would develop in-state capacity to deliver training in a 
more cost-effective manner. The use of teleconference training should 
also be considered.
    Response. The purpose of the training is to introduce key community 
leaders to risk and protection focused prevention, and enhance the 
localities knowledge and skills in prevention planning. Planning must 
occur before grants are awarded.
    OJJDP hopes to provide training for State training teams in fiscal 
year 1995. OJJDP is also examining the use of teleconferencing as a 
vehicle for the more efficient delivery of training.
    Comment. OJJDP should take an aggressive stance on the delivery of 
technical assistance.
    Response. OJJDP is developing a capacity, through its Part B 
technical assistance contract, to provide technical assistance to every 
community which is developing or implementing a delinquency prevention 
plan.
    Comment. What is the role of the State Advisory Groups in 
implementing the Title V program?
    Response. The role of the State Advisory Group is to establish 
program eligibility criteria, establish procedures for submission and 
review of local applications, and approve or recommend approval of 
Title V subgrant awards.
    Comment. OJJDP should provide examples of prevention plans which 
meet the OJJDP requirements.
    Response. OJJDP is making resource material on prevention, 
including sample plans, available through the Juvenile Justice 
Clearinghouse, 1600 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850, Telephone 
(800) 638-8736.
    Comment. If a prevention project serves a specific service 
catchment area within the boundaries of a unit of general local 
government, is the compliance certification limited only to the 
catchment area or the entire area within the boundaries of the unit of 
general local government? Is certification limited to only those 
facilities operated by the local government, exclusive of facilities 
located within the boundaries of the local government but operated by 
other governments?
    Response. In order to be eligible to receive Title V funds, a unit 
of general local government must be certified by the State Advisory 
Group as in compliance with the JJDP Act mandates. The compliance 
certification applies to all facilities operated or contracted by the 
unit of general local government. The certification is not limited to a 
specific catchment area within the boundaries of the unit of general 
local government. Likewise, the certification must also include any 
facilities that the unit of general local government operates, 
contracts for, or uses inside or outside its boundaries. However, the 
certification does not apply to facilities operated or controlled by 
other governmental units within the local governmental boundaries that 
are not used by the local government.
    Comment. Compliance with the Disproportionate Minority Confinement 
mandate is difficult to assess since it is just beginning to unfold in 
many jurisdictions.
    The guidelines need to specify how the State Advisory Group's 
should certify unit of general local government compliance with the 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement where the Phase II Study has yet 
to be completed.
    Response. The inclusion in Title V of the provision requiring local 
compliance with the mandates reflects an intent to use Title V funds as 
an inducement to bring localities into compliance. The State Advisory 
Groups and the State agencies should use this provision to gain the 
cooperation and commitment of units of general local government to 
assess and address disproportionate minority confinement. To certify a 
unit of general local government on disproportionate minority 
confinement compliance, the State Advisory Group must determine that 
the level of cooperation and commitment is satisfactory to support 
efforts to achieve the goals of the disproportionate minority 
confinement provision.
    Comment. The certification of compliance with the mandates should 
occur at the time the subgrantee application is submitted.
    Response. The guideline requires that units of general local 
government must obtain a certification prior to applying for an award 
of funds. This requirement is intended to eliminate a local government 
developing a three year comprehensive plan as the basis for an 
application for a grant which the locality is ineligible to receive.
    Comment. In States where the compliance monitoring data is 
generated by county-wide reporting, the State Advisory Groups should be 
allowed to certify a city's compliance based on the overall compliance 
status of the county.
    Response. Section 505 of the JJDP Act requires that in order for a 
unit of general local government to be eligible to receive a grant of 
Title V funds, the unit must be ``in compliance with the requirements 
of part B of Title II.'' OJJDP has interpreted this to mean that the 
unit of general local government which is seeking eligibility to apply 
for an award of Title V funds must be in compliance with the four 
``mandates'' of part B of Title II. Thus, a city's eligibility must be 
determined by the compliance data relevant to that city.
    Comment. The language under the heading ``Local Subgrantee 
Qualifications'' is unclear. It appears to say that all units of 
general local government must be certified by the State Advisory Group 
to be in compliance with the mandates of the JJDP Act.
    Response. The guideline does not require the State Advisory Group 
to certify all units of general local government, only those that wish 
to apply for Title V funds.
    Comment. Is it up to each State to define ``at-risk?''
    Response. The guideline states that ``the target population is all 
at-risk children in a given community.'' The Title V program is based 
on analyzing and addressing research-based risk factors which are 
identified in target communities. All children and youth who are 
exposed to these identified risk factors are the target population. In 
many cases, this would mean all children and youth in a target 
community would be considered at-risk.
    Comment. Define in-kind match, and identify what type of in-kind 
match is allowed.
    Response. 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. 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. 
For example, the value of the time donated by a recreational counselor 
who is not an employee of the grantee could be counted as in-kind 
match. Likewise, the value of office space or equipment donated by a 
private corporation could also be counted as in-kind match. Note that 
the value of the time of an employee of the grantee who is not being 
compensated by grant funds, but is providing service to the project 
funded by the grant, would be counted as cash match.
John J. Wilson,
Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 94-18650 Filed 7-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P