[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51198-51205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21325]



[[Page 51197]]

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

Part VI





Department of Justice





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



Office of Justice Programs



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



Understanding and Monitoring the ``Whys'' Behind Juvenile Crime Trends; 
Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 22, 2000 / 
Notices  

[[Page 51198]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

[OJP (OJJDP)-1290]


Understanding and Monitoring the ``Whys'' Behind Juvenile Crime 
Trends

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

ACTION: Announcement of discretionary competitive assistance grant.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is 
issuing a solicitation for applications to undertake a definitive study 
of recent trends in juvenile crime and violence in order to better 
understand the factors correlated with these trends, and to be prepared 
to explain future trends in delinquency and youth violence. This 5-year 
research project will explore ways to determine the reasons for changes 
in local juvenile crime trends in the 1990's and to monitor them into 
the next millennium. Federal, State, and local policymakers need to 
have a better sense of what went right in communities where declines 
occurred and what went wrong where there were increases or where rates 
continued at high levels. Therefore, it is necessary to develop methods 
to understand and monitor the reasons for such changes. It is expected 
that the lessons learned from this inquiry will yield a number of tools 
that Federal, State and local policymakers and planners can use to 
anticipate, monitor, and explain future trends and to plan effective 
prevention and intervention strategies.

DATES: Applications must be received no later than 5 p.m. ET on October 
23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All application packages should be mailed or delivered to 
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile 
Justice Resource Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, 
Rockville, MD 20850; 301-519-5535. Faxed or e-mailed applications will 
not be accepted. Interested applicants can obtain the OJJDP Application 
Kit from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. The 
Application Kit is also available at OJJDP's Web site at 
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/grants/about/html#kit. (See ``Format `` and 
``Delivery Instructions'' later in this announcement for instructions 
on required standards and the address to which applications must be 
sent.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Allen-Hagen, Program Manager, 
Research and Program Development Division, Office of Juvenile Justice 
and Delinquency Prevention at 202-307-1308. [This is not a toll-free 
number.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose

    The purpose of this research project is to identify and understand 
the principal reasons behind the trends in juvenile crime and violence. 
As the national rates of youth violence have dropped substantially in 
recent years, a number of theories have been advanced to explain this 
trend. However, the lack of empirical evidence to fully support various 
theories enables proponents of vastly different policy orientations to 
claim victory for the recent declines and continue to assert their 
policy objectives. An important element to recognize in this debate is 
that not all localities have experienced the same trends in juvenile 
violent crime either during the increases in the late 1980's or in the 
subsequent declines beginning in the early 1990's. Further, there is 
considerable variation in local juvenile crime rates across the 
country. Federal, State, and local policymakers need to have a better 
sense of what went right in communities where declines occurred and 
what went wrong where there were increases or where rates continued at 
high levels. Therefore, it is necessary to develop methods to 
understand and monitor the reasons for such changes. It is expected 
that the lessons learned from this inquiry will yield a number of tools 
that Federal, State and local policymakers and planners can use to 
anticipate, monitor, and explain future trends and to plan effective 
prevention and intervention strategies.

Overview

    Pursuant to Section 243 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), the Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is authorized to 
conduct a variety of research, evaluation, and demonstration functions. 
Under this authority, the Office will fund a definitive study of recent 
trends in juvenile crime and violence in order to better understand the 
factors correlated with these trends and be able to explain future 
trends and developments in delinquency and youth violence. This 5-year 
research project will explore ways to determine the reasons for changes 
in juvenile crime trends in the 1990's and into the next millennium. It 
is expected that a research design, based on a thorough review of the 
literature, will be developed and applied in selected jurisdictions. 
The study will focus on local-level juvenile crime trends, exploring a 
wide range of factors, including demographics; economics; public 
policy; Federal, State and local programmatic and community 
initiatives; and spiritual and cultural trends and values as well as 
other potential variables that may help explain the trends. Both 
retrospective and prospective approaches are contemplated for building 
the capacity to better understand the ``whys'' of juvenile crime 
trends.
    This program announcement seeks applications for the first phase 
(12 months) of this effort. OJJDP invites applications from 
organizations that have the capacity to effectively design and carry 
out both the first year and projected future support of the research 
project. Applicants must demonstrate that they understand and have the 
capacity to creatively address the theoretical and analytical 
challenges that this initiative presents in a scientifically defensible 
manner. During this first 12-month phase (fiscal year 2000), the 
research team will conduct a literature review; develop testable 
hypotheses, an appropriate research design, and a feasibility 
assessment of the study; develop a strategy for selecting appropriate 
localities for study; and recruit these localities to participate in 
the research if feasibility is established. Phase 2 (fiscal years 2001, 
2002, and 2003) consists of refining and operationalizing the research 
design; implementing, testing, and refining the model (data collection 
and analysis tools) in the selected jurisdictions; analyzing the data; 
and producing interim reports to communicate the study activities to 
the field. Phase 3 (fiscal year 2004) involves the drafting of a final 
report, including the refinement of data collection and analysis tools 
for community use, revision, and dissemination.

Background

    Evidence from both of the Nation's two primary data sources on 
juvenile crime--the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 
program--presents a similar picture regarding the trends in juvenile 
violent crime over the past two decades. Both sources indicate a fairly 
stable pattern through most of the 1980's, then a sharp increase in 
juvenile violence in the latter part of the decade, lasting until the 
early 1990's, at which point the rates began a steady decline.

[[Page 51199]]

    Based on crime victims' reports to the NCVS and homicides reported 
to the FBI:
     Between 1980 and 1989, the serious violent juvenile crime 
offending rate for the Nation fluctuated between 29 and 40 serious 
violent crimes per 1,000 youth between the ages of 12 and 17. Then came 
a 4-year, 53-percent rise from the 1989 rate of 34 per 1,000 up to a 
high of 52 per 1,000 in 1993. After the 1993 peak, the rates steadily 
declined over the next 5 years, dropping a total of 49 percent, down to 
26.5 per 1,000 in 1998.\2\
     Estimates of the number of homicides known to involve 
juvenile offenders indicate a drop of 35 percent from its peak year in 
1993 to 1998.\3\
     Between 1980 and 1998, the percentage of all serious 
violent crime involving juveniles has ranged from 19 percent in 1982 to 
26 percent in 1993, the peak year for youth violence. In 1998, 22 
percent of all such victimizations involved a juvenile offender.\4\
    Based on the FBI's arrest statistics:\5\
     The arrest data show that in 1998, for the fourth 
consecutive year, total juvenile arrests for Violent Crime Index 
offenses--murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault--
declined.
     The 62-percent increase in the juvenile Violent Crime 
Index arrest rate from 1988 to 1994, the peak year, was largely erased 
by 1998, with that rate just 13 percent above the 1988 level. The rate 
in 1998 was at its lowest level in 10 years and 30 percent below the 
peak year.
     The decrease in the number of Juvenile Violent Crime Index 
arrests between 1994 and 1998 was 19 percent for juveniles, compared 
with 6 percent for adults. The percentage of violent crimes cleared by 
juvenile arrests also continued to decline from a high of 14 percent 
down to 12 percent in 1998.
     In contrast to the substantial fluctuations in juvenile 
violent crime arrest rates between 1980 and 1998, the juvenile arrest 
rate for Property Crime Index offenses--burglary, larceny/theft, motor 
vehicle theft, and arson--changed very little, with a slow decline 
beginning in the mid 1990's resulting in the lowest level since 1980.
    Although national crime statistics present the big picture for the 
country as a whole, it is not the complete picture, as illustrated by 
maps depicting county-level arrest rates.6 OJJDP's Juvenile 
Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report clearly illustrates the 
vast variation in levels of violent crime resulting in a juvenile 
arrest. County-level juvenile arrest rates for Violent Index Crimes 
range from 0 juvenile arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17 to more 
than 500 per 100,000. Local rates were higher than the national average 
(412 per 100,000) in 1997 in 14 percent (more than 400 counties) of the 
3,141 counties, and 62 percent of the counties had rates less than half 
the national average. High juvenile violent crime arrest rates were 
found in counties with large and small populations.7 In 
addition, examining the county-level trends from 1994 to 1997, there is 
also a divergence from the national trends.8 It is the 
variation in the local levels of and trends in juvenile crime and 
violence that is of interest in this study.
    The Council on Crime in America reported that America is now home 
to about 57 million children under age 15, some 20 million of them ages 
4 to 8. The teenage population will top 30 million by the year 2006, 
the highest number since 1975. ``Thus, no one should feel certain that 
recent declines in crime will continue into the next century, and we 
must resist any temptation to ignore or trivialize our nation's present 
and future youth crime dilemmas.'' 9
    This significant turnabout in national juvenile trends offers a 
welcome relief, especially in light of dire predictions regarding a 
coming wave of violence by young superpredators in the coming 
millennium.10 However, the sudden and precipitous change in 
juvenile violence raises many questions that have not yet been answered 
with a strong degree of certitude: Why did this happen? Did it happen 
everywhere? Where didn't it happen and why not? What actions, policies, 
programs, and so forth should be continued to sustain this decline or 
to reverse an increase?
    Numerous reporters, news commentators, politicians, and scholars 
have put forth their explanations of the reasons for the rise and fall 
in crime.11 Many theories have been offered and supported 
with varying degrees of empirical evidence and with varying degrees of 
attention paid specifically to juvenile crime trends as well as to 
local divergence from national trends. A noteworthy effort by scholars 
exploring the causes of the crime drop is a forthcoming volume entitled 
The Crime Drop in America, cosponsored by the Harry Frank Guggenheim 
Foundation and the National Consortium on Violence 
Research.12 This work focuses primarily on the larger 
picture of overall crime, with juvenile violence issues contributing to 
that backdrop.
    There is currently an abundance of plausible yet unintegrated, and 
possibly contradictory, theories about the reasons for the directions 
of recent crime trends. Theories range in their focuses from distal to 
proximal causes of crime and violence and in principal agent(s) or 
phenomena deemed responsible for change. The following is a 
nonexhaustive list of explanations that have been put forth or that 
could be considered as potential areas of inquiry:
    Population-based theories: demographic shifts in the composition of 
the youth population as a result of the echo-baby boom; 13 
legalization and greater use of abortion beginning in the 1970's; 
14 teenage parenting trends; 15 and growing 
numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal.
    Epidemiological and etiological theories: trends in and the impacts 
of child maltreatment and domestic violence; 16 the 
evolution of crack cocaine drug markets and associated violence; 
17 the emergence of youth gangs; 18 proliferation 
of media violence; increased handgun ownership and use; 19 
trends in child poverty; 20 the lack of responsible adults 
(parents, relatives, and mentors) in children's lives; and the decline 
of social capital.21
    Economic theories/policies: local economic prosperity compared with 
the national economy; presence of major Federal economic development 
initiatives (Empowerment Zones/ Empowerment Communities); the 
relationship between wages and involvement in drug sales; and the 
deterrent effects of violence on involvement in the drug 
trade.22
    Crime-focused public policies: changes in policing strategies and 
practices such as community policing, problem-oriented policing, and 
targeting hot spots; 23 legislative erosion of the 
jurisdiction of the juvenile court through mechanisms that facilitate 
the transfer of juveniles to criminal court; 24 drug 
suppression policy; public and/or private collaboratives investing in 
youth violence prevention programs (Federal, State, local, and 
philanthropic foundation initiatives); 25 more punitive 
sentencing policies, 26 including mandatory minimums for 
guns, drugs, ``Three Strikes and You're Out'' policies, and elimination 
of parole; mandatory arrests in cases of domestic violence; 
27 and other public and private investments in crime 
prevention initiatives and justice system programs.
    Social policies: welfare reform, public housing policies, zero 
tolerance policies in schools and public housing for drugs, weapons, 
and violence; public health approaches to violence prevention; 
provision of mental health and substance abuse treatment; and various 
public/private partnerships promoting youth development such as 
America's

[[Page 51200]]

Promise and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.28
    Grassroots movements: local and national movements launched by 
leaders of various faith communities 29 and grassroots 
organizations that voice a call to community and moral responsibility, 
such as the Million Man March, Promise Keepers, the Million Mom March, 
the domestic violence advocacy community, youth-initiated public 
service, and others.
    The challenge to the successful applicant is the task of sifting 
through these competing explanations and determining not only which 
merit further scrutiny in the exploration of juvenile crime and 
violence trends but also where and how to pursue the research 
hypotheses that emerge from this exercise. This latter concern points 
to the importance of selecting appropriate sites to study and 
collecting data relevant to test research hypotheses. It is anticipated 
that the research team will need to select a limited number of local 
sites that reflect different levels and patterns of juvenile crime 
trends to participate in a data collection and analysis effort, based 
on the model proposed by the successful applicant.
    In the past decade, with advances in technology and the use of more 
sophisticated management information systems, numerous localities have 
initiated data-driven crime/delinquency prevention initiatives or 
comprehensive planning initiatives designed specifically to affect 
juvenile crime. These include efforts such as local law enforcement 
crime analysis work,30 initiatives developed with support 
from private organizations and foundations,31 and major 
Federal Government initiatives.32 These efforts offer the 
successful applicant a rich pool of both data and sites to pursue in 
the course of this investigation. Applicants are asked to comment on 
how these new developments may contribute to the execution of this 
study, particularly in the implementation of the study at the local 
level in later years.
    In the program narrative section of the application, 
``Understanding of Problems To Be Addressed,'' applicants must discuss 
the potential importance/significance of this project for the field and 
cogently describe the challenges, both theoretical and practical, that 
will need to be overcome in the execution of the research. Applicants 
must also describe how new developments in technology, such as GIS 
mapping, applied to community-based planning, may benefit the research.

Goal

    The goal of this research program is to develop theoretically 
sound, empirically grounded tools that can be used at the local level 
to adequately explain and monitor trends in juvenile delinquency and 
violence. These assessment tools should be useful for program and 
policy development and evaluation.

Objectives

    The objectives for Phase 1 (the first year) are to:
     Conduct a review of the literature, including an analysis 
of relevant national data, on the reasons for changes in crime trends, 
and develop a conceptual framework to study changes in the level of 
juvenile crime and violence and the factors affecting those changes.
     Develop hypotheses about those changes that can be tested 
at the local level in selected jurisdictions.
     Select and develop appropriate quantitative and 
qualitative methods and measures to study the variations in rates of 
youth crime and violence and their correlates over time and across 
jurisdictions.
     Develop a sampling strategy and select those jurisdictions 
for study, taking into account local trends.
     Report on the feasibility and limitations of the research 
design.
     Complete the research design, including plans for 
retrospective and prospective data collection, as appropriate, in those 
study sites.
    Applicants must discuss their understanding of the overall goal of 
this research program and their vision of the potential utility it may 
have for localities in developing public policy and programs. 
Applicants must describe how the proposed goals and specific objectives 
for this phase of planning the research will either ensure the 
successful completion of the entire project or provide evidence that 
the project is not feasible given a variety of constraints. In 
addition, applicants must also articulate their goals and objectives 
for the remaining years of the study. In the ``Project Design and 
Implementation'' section of their application, applicants must describe 
in general terms how they would accomplish those objectives in 
subsequent years of funding.

Program Strategy

    OJJDP will provide support to a grantee willing to engage in a 
rigorous effort to develop and test explanations for the changes in 
juvenile violence at the local level, as measured by juvenile arrest 
rates for violent crime and other suitable measures of youth violence. 
The focus should be on those communities that have experienced 
increases, decreases, or no change since the mid-1990's and to monitor 
those trends and explanatory variables into the 2000's.
    A cooperative agreement for Phase 1 will be competitively awarded 
for a 1-year project and budget period, with the potential of being 
extended to 5 years to complete Phases 2 and 3, to a qualified research 
organization or organizations with extensive experience in quantitative 
and qualitative studies of communities. It is anticipated that this 
research will require multidisciplinary perspectives, engaging a 
research team of theorists, methodologists, and others with substantive 
knowledge in the following critical areas: demographics, juvenile 
justice system policy, community and correctional sanctions and 
treatment programs, comprehensive community-based initiatives, 
delinquency prevention research and programming, community policing, 
cultural and ethnic minority perspectives, street gangs, gun markets, 
drug trafficking, and substance abuse treatment programs, education and 
social services networks, the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting 
System (NIBRS) data systems and technologically sophisticated crime 
analysis functions, social indicators, survey methods and statistical 
analysis and statistical modeling, and qualitative research methods.
    The tasks of the research are to conduct the literature review, 
develop hypotheses to explain the recent juvenile crime trends, and 
decide the basic approach for the research. The successful applicant 
will be responsible for all aspects of the literature review, research 
design, methodology, sampling plans, a feasibility assessment, 
instrumentation, data analysis, and the development of interim reports 
and other products, final reports, and recommendations, as appropriate.
    The design must reflect a priority for local-level inquiry that 
focuses initially on the trends in county-level juvenile crime data for 
the period 1994-97. Applicants are required to provide a preliminary 
estimate of the number of jurisdictions that would be selected for 
exploratory study and their rationale for that estimate. Consideration 
should be given to local patterns that either reflect or diverge from 
recent national trends in serious and violent juvenile arrest rates; 
the anticipated scope and depth of data collection related to the 
explanatory variables and the manner in which these data will be 
collected; the minimum

[[Page 51201]]

sampling requirements for constructing and testing various models; and 
the anticipated grant funds available for the project. To help explain 
different levels and trends in the sample, it is expected that a 
qualified field research team will be required to conduct surveys, 
interviews, and field observations; analyze local data; and examine the 
deployment of governmental and private resources in those communities. 
It is anticipated that the grantee may also need to explore key State-
level contextual factors such as legal, budgetary, and policy changes 
that may explain trends in youth crime and violence at the local level.
    The research team would use the knowledge gained from the initial 
research to develop methods for monitoring and attempting to explain 
future trends. In order to validate the explanatory models that would 
be derived from the 1994-97 data, the grantee would also need to 
collect and analyze data from subsequent years in the same 
jurisdictions.

Task I: Advisory Board

    The grantee must establish an advisory board for the purpose of 
providing substantive and technical advice to the research team over 
the course of the study. For purposes of the application submission, 
applicants must identify and obtain letters of cooperation and resumes 
from up to four individuals to serve on the advisory board, describing 
how their background and skills complement those of the research team. 
Such commitments by prospective advisory board members are not required 
to be exclusive agreements. If additional members are needed to 
complete the advisory board, the applicant must identify only the types 
of disciplines and the skills and experience that are needed, not the 
names of the individuals. The final composition of the advisory board 
will be approved by OJJDP. While not members of the advisory board, 
designated staff from OJJDP, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the 
National Institute of Justice, and other Federal agencies will be 
invited to serve as Federal agency representatives to the project along 
with others, as OJJDP deems appropriate. The applicant must also 
indicate key points in the process at which the advice of the board 
would be sought and by what means their input will be sought.

Task II: Literature Review

    The applicant must review the relevant literature from the field of 
juvenile justice and any related fields such as criminology, sociology, 
demography, substance abuse, media violence, and so forth. The purpose 
of this review is to identify and evaluate the theoretical basis and 
empirical evidence to develop the study's hypotheses regarding the 
reasons for juvenile crime trends. The applicant may also want to 
consult the literature on cultural change and trends in religious or 
civic involvement that may relate to trends in juvenile crime and 
violence.
    The grantee is expected to provide a report, suitable for 
publication as an OJJDP Bulletin or Research Summary, that synthesizes 
the relevant literature and national statistics and summarizes the 
implications of that review and analysis for the design of the study.

Task III: Preliminary Analysis of Local Trends and Selection of Study 
Sites

    For the purposes of the application, applicants must describe and 
discuss the following: (1) What data they will need in order to 
identify and select jurisdictions for undertaking the exploratory 
study, (2) what methods will be used to collect and analyze the data, 
(3) how those choices would be guided by the literature review, and (4) 
how these choices will inform the testing of study hypotheses.

Task IV: Model Development

    Based on the results of the previous tasks, the grantee will be 
expected to develop a model that is theoretically and empirically 
grounded and potentially useful for policy and program planning at the 
local level. The model will then be tested in a limited number of 
jurisdictions using an appropriate research design and methodology. The 
purpose of the test is to determine whether and how the levels, and 
changes in the levels, of serious juvenile crime and youth violence can 
be adequately monitored and explained by various factors that can be 
routinely measured locally.
    Applicants must describe their understanding of what the model will 
do, what tools are needed to implement and test the model, what 
standards will be used to assess the feasibility and utility of the 
model, and how the planning phase will lay the foundation for 
developing and testing the models. Applicants must describe the methods 
they will use to define a preliminary set of data and local information 
that will be needed to derive the model.

Task V: Feasibility Assessment and Design Revision

    Prior to finalizing the model and study design, the grantee shall 
present to the advisory board and OJJDP their assessment of the 
feasibility, limitations, and potential of the proposed model and the 
study design to produce useful results. Based on the review by the 
advisory board and OJJDP, a decision will be made by OJJDP whether to 
proceed with the study and, if so, the applicant will be requested to 
revise the model as necessary. If the decision is made not to proceed, 
the project will be terminated and the grantee will submit a final 
report.

Task VI: Recruitment of Study Sites

    Upon approval of the model and research design by OJJDP, the 
grantee will produce a summary of the design for the purpose of 
recruitment of study sites to participate in the monitoring of critical 
factors affecting juvenile violence in the locality. The grantee will 
prepare the necessary materials for the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) Clearance of Information Collections and all appropriate privacy 
certificates and conformance to regulations regarding the protection of 
human subjects, as required by the design of the local studies.

Deliverables

    The grantee will produce the following deliverables, as described 
in the tasks outlined above for Phase 1. (All reports listed below must 
be suitable for publication.)
     Empaneling the advisory board, establishing a meeting 
schedule, and convening the advisory board (Task I).
     A report that summarizes the literature and relevant 
national statistical trends (Task II).
     A summary of the preliminary analysis of local trends and 
rationale for selecting study sites (Task III).
     A proposed study design and model (Task IV).
     A feasibility assessment (Task V).
     A report that summarizes the research design (Task VI) for 
purposes of general dissemination and recruitment.
     All necessary documents for OMB review.
     A privacy certificate for OJJDP review, documentation of 
Institutional Review Board approvals, and assurances regarding 
protection of human research subjects (Task VI).
    The application must contain a description of all products that 
will be produced from the project, including, but not necessarily 
limited to, the reports described above. The grantee must also produce 
a final report that provides an overview of the entire project, 
results, lessons learned, and recommendations for additional research, 
development, and

[[Page 51202]]

dissemination. Although the reports must be of a quality that would 
merit publication in a refereed journal, the authors must also address 
the needs of policymakers and practitioners in the field.

Eligibility Requirements and Organizational Capability

    OJJDP invites applications from public or private agencies or 
organizations with a demonstrated capability to carry out the 
requirements of this initiative. Private, for-profit organizations 
serving as the grantee or coapplicant must agree to waive any profit or 
fee.
    The organization must have demonstrated experience in the 
following: conducting literature reviews in the domains of interest to 
this project; designing and conducting studies involving policymakers 
and practitioners in the justice system, preferably in the juvenile 
justice system; managing and analyzing complex data sets; and writing 
reports and presenting research findings to both research and 
nonresearch audiences. Applicants must outline their experience and 
capability in the program narrative section of the application 
regarding organizational capability.
    In the case of joint applications, one applicant must be clearly 
indicated as the primary applicant (for correspondence and award 
purposes) and the other(s) listed as coapplicants. If contractors have 
been identified to be used for specific project tasks, evidence of 
their qualifications and willingness to undertake the specified task(s) 
should be provided.
    To be eligible for consideration, applicants must adhere strictly 
to the guidelines for preparing and submitting applications regarding 
page length, layout, and submission deadlines.

Selection Criteria

    Applications will be evaluated and rated by a peer review panel 
according to the criteria outlined below. In addition, the extent to 
which the project narrative makes clear and logical connections among 
the components listed below will be considered in assessing a project's 
merits. It is further recommended that applications be organized and 
presented in a way that enables application reviewers to evaluate the 
proposal in terms of the selection criteria outlined below.

Understanding of Problems To Be Addressed (20 Points)

    Applicants must include in the program narrative a clear statement 
of their understanding of the problems to be addressed, specifically 
discussing (1) the importance/significance of the issue, the potential 
of this project to contribute to our knowledge about juvenile crime 
trends, and its potential utility to the field; and (2) the 
theoretical, methodological, and practical problems posed by this 
initiative that will need to be overcome in achieving the study goals 
and objectives. The applicant must outline the major research questions 
that will be addressed at critical points over the course of the 
research study, with particular attention to issues that will need to 
be addressed in the feasibility assessment. In addition, the applicant 
must also briefly describe how it sees local communities using the 
results of this research.

Goals and Objectives (10 Points)

    The application must include a clear statement of the goals and 
objectives of this research program addressing the overall goals of the 
research, the planning phase, and the subsequent years of 
implementation. The goals and objectives should reflect the statement 
of the understanding of problems to be addressed and the major research 
questions that have been identified to guide the project. Any 
significant modification of the goals and objectives stated above 
should be clearly justified and the implications of any variation 
carried through in the rest of the proposal. Objectives should consist 
of clearly defined, measurable tasks that will ensure that the 
questions to determine the study's feasibility and utility will be 
answered during the planning stage.

Project Design and Implementation (35 Points)

    The application should provide a detailed description of the first 
12-month phase of the project. Also, it should outline how the balance 
of the work for the remaining phases would proceed should their basic 
assumptions in Phase 1 be substantiated. Design elements should follow 
directly from the project's goals and objectives. Applicants should 
address the requirements of the solicitation, particularly Tasks I 
through VI as described under ``Program Strategy.'' Applicants should 
also describe how the work undertaken and the deliverables related to 
the various tasks fit together and contribute to the overall goals of 
the project. Anticipated plans for data collection strategies and 
analysis should be clearly described. The application should 
demonstrate a clear understanding of the products that will be produced 
and their potential utility for the field.
    The application must include a detailed time/task outline that 
indicates when specific tasks will be initiated and completed. This 
timeline must include, at a minimum, significant milestones in the 
project and product due dates. The timeline should be described in the 
program narrative and should be placed in appendix A of the 
application.

Project Management and Organizational Capability (25 Points)

    Applicants must demonstrate that the organization and project staff 
have the necessary substantive knowledge and expertise, technical 
experience, organizational skills, and management structure to 
accomplish project tasks on time and with a high quality of 
workmanship. Qualifications of proposed personnel must be clearly 
delineated. Applicants must demonstrate the existence of a management 
structure that will support the achievement of the project's goals and 
objectives in an efficient and cost-effective manner. In particular, 
applicants must ensure that the tasks delineated in the project 
timeline (see ``Project Design and Implementation,'' above) are 
adequately staffed and that the qualifications of proposed personnel 
relate to proposed roles and responsibilities. Applicants must evidence 
the ability and commitment to perform an impartial examination of a 
variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives. Resumes for key 
staff members, including any contractors or consultants and advisory 
board members, should be included in appendix B. Applicants must also 
include in appendix B an organizational chart for the project.
    Applicants should also demonstrate the organizational capacity to 
complete the work described in the ``Project Design'' section. The 
applicant should include a description of any similar projects it has 
undertaken previously. Applicants should also demonstrate knowledge and 
experience in juvenile justice and community assessment issues. Any 
letters of cooperation or support should also be included in appendix 
B.

Budget (10 Points)

    Applicants must provide a proposed budget that is complete, 
detailed, reasonable, allowable, and cost effective in relation to the 
activities to be undertaken during the 12-month project and budget 
period. The detailed budget narrative should be included in appendix C 
and must conform to the guidelines in the OJJDP Application Kit. For 
projected Phases 2 through 3, the applicant shall present a preliminary

[[Page 51203]]

budget without a detailed budget narrative. Applications must also 
conform to Federal requirements with respect to travel, equipment, and 
procurement policies.

Award Period

    This project will be funded initially for a 12-month project and 
budget period to complete Phase I of a projected 5-year program. 
Funding for subsequent budget periods will be contingent on the results 
of the feasibility assessment, availability of funds, grantee 
performance, and other criteria established at the time of the award.

Award Amount

    Up to $250,000 is available for the award of one cooperative 
agreement for Phase I for an initial 12-month project and budget 
period. It is anticipated that up to $2 million would be made available 
for the total 5-year program.

Format

    Applicants must submit a program narrative of no more than 50 
pages. The narrative portion of the application must be submitted on 
8\1/2\- by 11-inch paper using a standard 12-point font. The 
application should be double spaced and printed on one side of the 
paper only. Single-spaced (or 1\1/2\-spaced) applications will not be 
accepted. Margins should be at least 1 inch on the top, bottom, and 
sides of each page.
    This page limit does not include the abstract, the table of 
contents, the budget narrative, appendixes, application forms, privacy 
certificate, or required assurances. The narrative should be preceded 
by a one-page project abstract, which must also be submitted on 8\1/2\- 
by 11-inch paper, abstract should not exceed a maximum length of 400 
words. A table of contents is also required. Appendix A should contain 
the project's timeline with dates for initiation and completion of 
critical project tasks. Appendix B should contain resumes for proposed 
project staff, contractors, and advisory board members; an 
organizational chart; and letters of cooperation. Appendix C should 
contain the detailed budget narrative. Appendix D should contain a 
Privacy Certificate.
    Include in appendix E the listing of authors (by section) of this 
proposal and indicate whether this proposal, or portions of it, have 
been submitted to other Federal agencies for funding.
    These requirements are necessary to maintain a fair and uniform set 
of standards among all applicants. If the application fails to conform 
to these standards, it will be rejected without further review.

Privacy and Human Subjects Protection Requirements

    Office of Justice Programs regulations and policy require that all 
grantees receiving funds to conduct research or statistical activities 
that involve collecting data identifiable to a private person submit a 
Privacy Certificate in accordance with the requirements of 28 CFR Part 
22 (specifically 28 CFR section 22.23). If required, please submit the 
Privacy Certificate in appendix D of the application. For details on 
submission requirements, see appendix B: Privacy Certificate Guidelines 
and Statement in the OJJDP Application Kit, www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/grants/2000_app_kit/appenbl.html.
    Applicants are advised that should their plan involve the use of 
human research subjects, their research proposal must be reviewed and 
approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), in accordance with DOJ 
regulations at 28 CFR Part 46, or determined to be exempt from such 
requirements. IRB review is not required prior to the submission of the 
application. However, if an award is made and the project involves 
human research subjects, OJJDP will place a special condition on the 
award requiring that the project be approved by the appropriate IRB 
before Federal funds can be disbursed for activities involving human 
research subjects. Applicants should include plans for IRB review where 
applicable in the project timeline submitted with the proposal.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number

    The CFDA number, required on Standard Form 424, ``Application for 
Federal Assistance,'' is 16.542. Standard Form 424 is included in the 
OJJDP Application Kit, which can be obtained by contacting the Juvenile 
Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or sending an e-mail request to 
[email protected]. The Application Kit is also available online at 
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/grants/about.html#kit.

Coordination of Federal Efforts

    To encourage better coordination among Federal agencies in 
addressing State and local needs, the U.S. Department of Justice is 
requesting applicants to provide information on the following: (1) 
active Federal grant awards supporting this project or related efforts, 
including other awards from the Department of Justice; (2) any pending 
applications for Federal funds for this or related efforts; and (3) 
plans for coordinating any funds described in items (1) and (2) with 
the funding requested in this application. For each Federal award, 
applicants must include the program or project title, the Federal 
granting agency, the amount of the award, and a brief description of 
its purpose.
    The term ``related efforts'' is defined for these purposes as one 
of the following:
     Efforts for the same purpose (i.e., the proposed project 
would supplement, expand, complement, or continue activities funded 
with other Federal grants).
     Another phase or component of the same program or project 
(e.g., to implement a planning effort funded by other Federal monies or 
to provide a substance abuse treatment or educational component within 
an existing juvenile justice project).
     Services of some kind (e.g., technical assistance, 
research, or evaluation) to the program or project described in the 
application.

Delivery Instructions

    All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile 
Justice Resource Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, 
Rockville, MD 20850; 301-519-5535. Faxed or e-mailed applications will 
not be accepted. Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, 
the applicant must clearly write ``Understanding and Monitoring the 
``Whys'' Behind Juvenile Crime Trends.''

Due Date

    Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five 
copies of the application package are received by 5 p.m. ET on October 
23, 2000.

Contact

    For further information, contact Barbara Allen-Hagen, Program 
Manager, Research and Program Development Division, Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 202-307-1308, or send an e-mail 
inquiry to [email protected].

Endnotes

    1. Chaiken, J., January 2000, ``Crunching the numbers: Crime and 
incarceration at the end of the millennium,'' National Institute of 
Justice Journal (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 
of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice), p. 15.
    2. Rand, M., Special analysis of machine-readable data files of 
the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data 1980-1998

[[Page 51204]]

and FBI machine-readable data files of the Supplementary Homicide 
Reports for 1980-1998 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics).
    3. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000, Homicide trends in the 
United States: 1998 Update, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data 
Brief (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) 
(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide).
    4. Rand, Special NCVS analysis.
    5. Snyder, H.N., 1999, Juvenile Arrests 1998 (Washington, DC: 
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), pp. 1, 4, and 6.
    6. Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999, Juvenile Offenders and 
Victims: 1999 National Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention), p.119. See also p. 125 for variation in 
juvenile arrest rates for Part I Property Index Crimes.
    7. Snyder and Sickmund, pp. 119, 125.
    8. See ojjdp.ncjrs.org/grants/html#county for spreadsheets 
containing county-level juvenile arrest rates for violent crimes 
(Part I Violent Index Offenses) and serious property crimes (Part I 
Property, excluding larceny-theft) for 1994-1997. There is also a 
data file of the juvenile population estimates for each county for 
the same years. This data file was created by the National Center 
for Juvenile Justice based on the University of Michigan's 
processing of FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data. For further details 
on the content, definitions, methods, and limitations of the data, 
consult the ``Content'' section of the Easy Access to UCR Arrests: 
1994-1997 software package at ojjdp.ncjrs.org/facts/ezaccess.html#UCR.
    9. Council on Crime in America, 1977, Preventing Crime. Saving 
Children: Monitoring, Mentoring, and Ministering (New York, NY: 
Center for Civic Innovation, Manhattan Institute), pp. 1-3.
    10. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000, 
Challenging the Myths, 1999 National Report Series Bulletin 
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention).
    11. Butterfield, F., ``Decline of violent crime is linked to the 
crack market,'' New York Times, December 28, 1998, p. 1; Fletcher, 
M.A. ``The crime conundrum,'' The Washington Post, January 16, 2000, 
p. F1; Zimring, F.E., 1998, American Youth Violence (New York, NY: 
Oxford University Press); Colvard, K., 1999, ``Crime is Down? Don't 
Confuse Us with the Facts'' (Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation Web 
site: http://hfg.org/html.pages/colvard2.htm); Lattimore, P.K., 
Trudeau, J., Riley, K.J., Leiter, J., and Edwards, S., 1997, 
Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context and Policy 
Implications (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice); Cook, P.J., and 
Laub, J.H., 1998, ``The unprecedented epidemic in youth violence,'' 
in Youth Violence, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, edited 
by M. Tonry and M.H. Moore (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 
Press), 24:27-64.
    12. Blumstein, A., and Wallman, J., eds., Forthcoming, The Crime 
Drop in America (London, England: Cambridge University Press).
    13. Wilson, J.Q., and Petersilia, J., eds., 1995, Crime. (San 
Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press), p. 507; 
DiIulio, J.J., Jr., ``The coming of the super-predators,'' Weekly 
Standard, November 27, 1995, p. 23; and Fox, J.A., 1996, Trends in 
Juvenile Violence: A Report to the United States Attorney General on 
Current and Future Crime Rates of Juvenile Offending (Boston, MA: 
Northeastern University Press).
    14. Donohue, J.J., III, and Levitt, S.D., April 2000, 
``Legalized abortion and crime,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics, 
Stanford Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 1; Stanford Law 
School, Olin Law & Economics Program Paper No. 177. The following is 
a link to an electronic version of the paper: papers.ssrn.com/
paper.taf?ABSTRACT__ID=174508.
    15. Thornberry, T.P., Wei, E.H., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., and Van 
Dyke, J., 2000, Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior, Youth 
Development Series Bulletin (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention).
    16. American Psychological Association, 1996, Violence and the 
Family: Report of the American Psychological Association 
Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (Washington, DC: 
American Psychological Association); and Rennison, C.M., and 
Welchans, S., May 2000, Intimate Partner Violence, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics Special Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics).
    17. Blumstein, A., Forthcoming, ``The recent rise and fall of 
American violence,'' in The Crime Drop in America, edited by A. 
Blumstein and J. Wallman (London, England: Cambridge University 
Press).
    18. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999, 
1997 National Youth Gang Survey, Summary (Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention).
    19. Cook, P.J., ed., ``Kids, guns, and Public Policy,'' Law and 
Contemporary Problems: Duke University School of Law 59 (Winter 
1995) 1; Fagan, J., and Wilkinson, D.L., 1998, ``Guns, youth 
violence and social identity in inner cities,'' in Youth Violence, 
Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, edited by M. Tonry and M.H. 
Moore (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), 105-188; and 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000, Kids 
and Guns, 1999 National Report Series Bulletin (Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention).
    20. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 
2000, America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 
1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office) 
(www.childstats.gov).
    21. DiIulio, J.J., Jr., 1997, ``Preventing Crime, Saving 
Children: Sticking to the Basics,'' Address to the National District 
Attorneys Association, July 14, 1997; Fagan, P., 1995, The Real Root 
Causes of Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family and Community 
Backgrounder No. 1026 (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 
March 17, 1995) (www.heritage.org/library/categories/crimlaw/bg1026.html); Putnam, R.D., 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and 
Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster); and 
Sampson, R.J., Rausenbush, S.W., and Earls, F., 1997, 
``Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective 
efficacy,'' Science 277:918-924.
    22. Grogger, J., Forthcoming, ``An economic model of recent 
trends in violence,'' in The Crime Drop in America, edited by A. 
Blumstein and J. Wallman (London, England: Cambridge University 
Press); Curtis, R., 1998, ``The improbable transformation of inner-
city neighborhoods: Crime, violence, drugs, and youth in the 
1990s,'' Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology: Northwestern 
University School of Law. 88(4):1233; Anderson, E., 1998, ``The 
social ecology of youth violence,'' in Youth Violence, edited by M. 
Tonry and M.H. Moore (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), pp. 
65-104.
    23. Eck, J., and Maguire, E., Forthcoming, ``Have changes in 
policing reduced violent crime? An assessment of the evidence,'' in 
The Crime Drop in America, edited by A. Blumstein and J. Wallman 
(London, England: Cambridge University Press).
    24. Torbet, P., and Syzmanski, L., 1998, State Legislative 
Responses to Violent Juvenile Crime: 1996-97 Update, Bulletin 
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention).
    25. Kennedy, D.M., 1997, Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets 
in Boston. Research Preview (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice).
    26. Sabol, W.J., and Lynch, J.P., 1997, Crime Policy Report: Did 
Getting Tough on Crime Pay? (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute).
    27. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000, 
Challenging the Myths, 1999 National Report Series Bulletin 
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention); 
and Chaiken, pp. 14-15.
    28. America's Promise, 2000, Report to the Nation 
www.americaspromise.org/RTN/rtn.cfm); and The Boys and Girls Club of 
America Official Web site (www.bgca.org).
    29. Trulear, H.D., 2000, Faith-Based Institutions and High-Risk 
Youth: First Report to the Field (Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private 
Ventures).
    30. Block, R.L., and Block, C.R., 1995, ``Space, place, and 
crime: Hot spot areas and hot places of liquor-related crime,'' in 
Crime and Place, Crime Prevention Studies, volume 4, edited by J.E. 
Eck and D. Weisburg (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press).
    31. National Crime Prevention Council, Local Initiatives 
(www.ncpc.org/comm.htm);

[[Page 51205]]

U.S. Department of Justice and National Partnership for Reinventing 
Government, 1999, Providing 21st Century Tools for Safe Communities: 
Mapping out Crime. Report of the Task Force on Crime Mapping and 
Data-Driven Management. Highlights in Crime Mapping and Data-Driven 
Management (www.npr.gov/library/papers/bkgrd/crimemap/section5.html); Kingsley, G.T., 1998, ``Neighborhood Indicators: 
Taking Advantage of the New Potential,'' Working Paper (Chicago, IL: 
American Planning Association) (http://www.urban.org/nnip/publications.html) [Note: The National Neighborhood Indicators 
Partnership with the Urban Institute, National Neighborhood Data 
System (NNDS) is collecting information on the Nation's 100 largest 
metropolitan areas. The purpose of NNDS will be examining inner-city 
neighborhoods to track how they changed throughout the 1990's and 
into the next decade.]; Brown, B., Vandivere, S., and Michelsen, E., 
1999, The Child Indicator: The Child, Youth, and Family Indicators 
Newsletter 1(1) [Note: This first issue of this journal, published 
by Child Trends with funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 
lists resources and developments in local social indicators.] 
(www.childtrends.org/ci); Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1997, City Kids 
Court: Data on the Well-Being of Children in Large Cities 
(Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation); Episcopal Health 
Charities and St. Luke's Episcopal Health System, Community Health 
Information System (www.sph.uth.tmc.edu/chis/default.htm).
    32. The SACSI Program (Strategic Approaches to Community Safety 
Initiative): Coleman, V., Holton, W.C., Olson, K., Robinson, S.C., 
and Stewart, J., 1999 (October), ``Teaming up for community safety: 
Using knowledge and teamwork to reduce crime,'' National Institute 
of Justice Journal (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice) 
(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/jr000241.htm); National Institute of 
Justice, 1999, Solicitation for a Research Partner for the Seattle 
COMPASS (Community Mapping, Analysis and Planning for Safety 
Strategies) Initiative (www.ojp.usdog.gov/nij/fundcompas.html); 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999, 1998 
Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency 
Prevention Programs, Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention); Coolbaugh, K., and Hansel, C.J., 2000, The 
Comprehensive Strategy: Lessons Learned From the Pilot Sites, 
Bulletin (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention); Smith, S.K., Steadman, G.W., Minton, T.D., and 
Townsend, M., 1999, Criminal Victimization and Perceptions of 
Community Safety in 12 Cities, 1998 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department 
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics), NCJ 173940; Dunworth, T., Mills, G., Cordner, G., and 
Greene, J., 1999, National Evaluation of Weed and Seed Cross-Site 
Analysis (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice); U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Bureau of 
the Census, 2000, American Community Survey 1998 CD-ROM; Tauber, C., 
Lane, J., and Stevens, D., 2000, ``Meeting state and community needs 
for social, economic and housing information: The why, what, and how 
of converting program records and summarized survey data to state 
and community information Systems,'' presented at the Jacob France 
Center at the University of Baltimore, Conference on Developing 
Public Policy Applications with Summarized Survey Data and Community 
Administrative Records, June 6-7, 2000; Judson, D.H., and Popoff, 
C., 1998, ``Research use of administrative records'' (unpublished 
monograph available from the authors, e-mail: 
[email protected]); National Institute of Justice, 
1999, 1998 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile 
Arrestees (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice).

    Dated: August 16, 2000.
John J. Wilson,
Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 00-21325 Filed 8-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P