Juvenile Justice: Status of Delinquency Prevention Program and
Description of Local Projects (Letter Report, 08/13/96, GAO/GGD-96-147).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Amendments Act's Title V
incentive grant program for local delinquency prevention, focusing on:
(1) the program's status and what types of projects are being funded;
(2) the number of states and local governments that applied for Title V
funds; (3) the amount of 1994 and 1995 grants that have been awarded as
of December 31, 1995; (4) the sources and amounts of matching funds
committed to local delinquency prevention projects; (5) whether
eligibility requirements have affected Title V participation; and (6)
other types of funding that has supported local delinquency prevention
activities.

GAO found that: (1) as of March 1996, $29.6 of the $33 million in 1994
and 1995 Title V grants had been awarded to 54 jurisdictions and an
additional $1 million was awarded for 6 grants to local jurisdictions
under the Safe Futures Program; (2) of the 51 jurisdictions reviewed, 45
awarded $18.9 million in Title V subgrants to local governments to
support 277 delinquency prevention projects; (3) these subgrantees spent
about $3.6 million of their funds as of December 1995; (4) 44
jurisdictions received $17.2 million in Title V matching funds for 1994
and 1995; (5) 7 jurisdictions did not award subgrants; (6) the 2-year
total funding for the 277 local delinquency prevention projects was
about $36 million; (7) most of these projects addressed delinquency
affecting youth in early or middle adolescence; (8) over 75 percent of
the projects emphasized the prevention of delinquent activity, attempted
to reduce delinquent behavior and recidivism, and addressed multiple
risk factors; (9) most projects used community-based outreach
intervention programs and services as well as some sort of parent
training in conflict resolution and after-school program; (10) local
governments generally reported that act's core requirements were not a
barrier to local government participation in Title V program activities;
(11) while 19 jurisdictions devoted $319 million in funds to support
delinquency prevention activities in 1995, 31 jurisdictions did not know
how much local or private funding was devoted to these activities; and
(12) in 1995, nine other federal agencies reportedly spent $4.3 billion
to support juvenile delinquency prevention, juvenile justice, or
youth-related programs.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-96-147
     TITLE:  Juvenile Justice: Status of Delinquency Prevention Program 
             and Description of Local Projects
      DATE:  08/13/96
   SUBJECT:  Juvenile status offenders
             Juvenile delinquency
             Grants to states
             Grants to local governments
             Discretionary grants
             Crime prevention
             Minors
             Juvenile offender rehabilitation
             Rehabilitation programs
IDENTIFIER:  OJJDP Formula Grant
             OJJDP Safe Futures Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.  Senate, and the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunity, House of
Representatives

August 1996

JUVENILE JUSTICE - STATUS OF
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION PROGRAM AND
DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL PROJECTS

GAO/GGD-96-147

Juvenile Justice

(185008)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AVBP - Alternative to Violent Behavior Program
  CARE - Community Action Resource Empowerment
  CTC - Communities That Care
  OJJDP - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
  PPB - Prevention Policy Board

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261867

August 13, 1996

The Honorable Orrin G.  Hatch, Chairman
The Honorable Joseph R.  Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

The Honorable William F.  Goodling, Chairman
The Honorable William L.  Clay
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunity
House of Representatives

Title V of the reauthorization (P.L.  102-586) of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L.  93-415)
established an incentive grants program for local delinquency
prevention.\1 Title V is designed to provide a dedicated funding
source for delinquency prevention and early intervention programs to
units of general local government.  As stated in Title V, Congress
found that (1) it was more effective in human and fiscal terms to
prevent delinquency than to attempt to control or change it, (2) half
or more of all states were unable to spend any juvenile justice
formula grant funds on delinquency prevention because of other
priorities, and (3) federal incentives were needed to assist states
and local communities in mobilizing delinquency prevention policies
and programs. 

The 1992 reauthorization required us to submit to Congress a study of
the incentive grant program for local juvenile delinquency
prevention.\2 We agreed with your offices to provide information on
the status of the program and a description of the types of projects
for which incentive grant funds are being used.  Specifically, we
agreed to determine (1) which states and how many units of general
local government applied for and received Title V incentive grant
funds; (2) how much fiscal years 1994 and 1995 grant money had been
awarded and how much had been spent as of December 31, 1995; (3) the
sources and amounts of matching funds committed to local delinquency
prevention projects; (4) what Title V funds were used for; (5)
whether eligibility requirements have affected Title V participation;
and (6) what funding, other than Title V, was provided to support
local delinquency prevention activities. 

To meet our objectives, we surveyed the 50 states, District of
Columbia, and 5 U.S.  territories (jurisdictions) to obtain Title
V-related data; discussed the status of program implementation with
the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention\3 (OJJDP) and selected state and local
juvenile justice officials; and visited 6 local juvenile delinquency
prevention projects in 3 states to observe how they were spending
Title V funds.  Wyoming did not respond to our survey questions
because it did not apply for its allocation of Title V funds in 1994
or 1995.  Also, we did not receive responses from the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the U.S.  Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana
Islands.  According to our survey responses, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, and South Carolina had not made
awards of subgrants to units of general local government as of
December 31, 1995. 

We did our work between October 1995 and June 1996 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.  A more detailed
discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology appears in
appendix I.  On June 17, 1996, we provided the Attorney General and
Administrator of OJJDP with a draft of this report for comment.  We
discuss their representatives' comments at the end of this report,
and we incorporated the technical information they provided in this
report as appropriate.  We also provided sections of the draft report
related to the projects we visited to state and project officials for
their review.  We incorporated their comments where appropriate. 


--------------------
\1 42 U.S.C.  5601, 5781. 

\2 42 U.S.C.  5781 note. 

\3 OJJDP is one of five components of the Department of Justice's
Office of Justice Programs. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Title V of the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 authorizes OJJDP to award
incentive grant funds to the states, which in turn are to award
subgrants to units of general local government to support local
juvenile delinquency prevention projects.  Congress appropriated $13
million in fiscal year 1994 and $20 million in fiscal year 1995 for
these purposes. 

Title V grant funds are to serve as stimuli for local governments to
mobilize support from community leaders, develop multiyear prevention
plans, and pool public and private resources in implementing programs
designed to reduce the future incidence of delinquent behavior and
youth crime through adoption of effective strategies that address
risk factors for delinquency.  To be eligible for Title V funds, the
grantees are to provide a 50-percent match of the grant amount,
including in-kind contributions (e.g., lease of office space or
equipment paid by local government or private sources) to fund the
activity. 

OJJDP also administers other programs such as the Title II Formula
Grant Program.  Title II of the 1974 act provides grants-in-aid to
states and local governments to improve juvenile justice systems and
to prevent and control delinquency.  To receive and remain eligible
for funds under Title V, jurisdictions must be in compliance with
Title II formula grant program core requirements.  The four key core
requirements are (1) not detaining status offenders\4 or nonoffenders
(e.g., neglected children) in secure detention or correctional
facilities, (2) not detaining or confining juveniles in any
institution where they have contact with adult detainees, (3) not
detaining or confining juveniles in adult jails or lockups, and (4)
demonstration of efforts to reduce the disproportionate confinement
of minority youth where it exists. 

According to the Department of Justice Delinquency Prevention Program
guidelines, approximately 70 percent of the jurisdictions at one time
or another have devoted 100 percent of available Title II formula
grant funds toward meeting the four core requirements.  As a result,
many jurisdictions have been limited in the amounts of OJJDP Title II
funds that they could devote to delinquency prevention. 

Since the Title V program started, OJJDP has issued two annual
reports to Congress.  Its 1994 report (1) highlighted activities and
accomplishments during the first year of Title V implementation, (2)
described efforts to foster interagency coordination of delinquency
prevention activities, and (3) contained recommendations for future
Title V activities.  The 1995 report (1) described efforts to set the
foundation for the success of Title V by capacity building (e.g.,
providing training and technical assistance) and establishing
coordination and collaboration within Justice, between federal
agencies, and at state and local levels; (2) identified early
indications of success; and (3) provided conclusions on past and
future contributions of Title V. 


--------------------
\4 Status offenders are juveniles who have come in contact with the
juvenile justice system for an offense that would not be a crime if
committed by an adult (e.g., truancy). 


      TITLE V PROGRAM: 
      RISK-FOCUSED STRATEGY FOR
      DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :1.1

According to OJJDP, the Title V Delinquency Prevention Program has
been implemented on the basis of local adoption of "risk-focused
prevention" strategies such as those identified in the social
development prevention model, Communities That Care (CTC), developed
by J.  David Hawkins and Richard F.  Catalano, Jr.  of the University
of Washington in Seattle.  OJJDP guidelines call for jurisdictions
and localities to consider this model, or comparable risk-focused
prevention approaches, by (1) identifying risk factors known to be
associated with delinquent behavior operating within communities, (2)
assessing those protective factors that buffer the effect of the
identified risk factors, and (3) targeting program interventions to
occur at the earliest appropriate stage in a child's development and
within the local community.  The CTC model defines five categories of
risk factors that have been found to be predictive of juvenile
delinquency: 

  -- individual characteristics, such as alienation, rebelliousness,
     and lack of bonding to society;

  -- family influences, such as parental conflict, child abuse, poor
     family management practices, and history of problem behavior
     affecting the family (e.g., substance abuse, criminality, teen
     pregnancy, and dropping out of school);

  -- school experiences, such as early academic failure and lack of
     commitment to school;

  -- peer group influences, such as friends who engage in problem
     behavior (minor criminality, drugs, gangs, and violence); and

  -- community and neighborhood factors, such as economic
     deprivation, high rates of substance abuse and crime, and
     neighborhood disorganization. 

According to the CTC model, protective factors must be introduced to
counter these risk factors.  Protective factors are qualities or
conditions that moderate a juvenile's exposure to risk.  Protective
factors fall into three basic categories:  (1) individual
characteristics, such as a resilient temperament and a positive
social orientation; (2) bonding with prosocial family members,
teachers, adults, and friends; and (3) healthy beliefs and clear
standards for behavior. 

Risk-focused delinquency prevention is intended to provide
communities with a conceptual framework for (1) identifying and
prioritizing risk factors, (2) assessing how current resources are
being used, (3) identifying needed resources, and (4) choosing
specific programs and strategies that directly address risk factors
through the enhancement of protective factors.  According to state
and local officials, this approach requires a commitment by, and
participation of, the entire community in developing and implementing
a comprehensive strategy for preventing delinquency. 


      TITLE V IMPLEMENTATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :1.2

The Title V program is implemented in two phases.  During phase one,
the assessment and planning phase, communities interested in
participating in the Title V Program must form a local prevention
policy board (PPB) and conduct an assessment to identify and
prioritize the risk factors operating within their community.  On the
basis of the risk factor assessment, the applicant community then
must develop a comprehensive 3-year delinquency prevention plan that
outlines specific programs and services to be implemented.  This plan
serves as the substantive basis for the community's application to
the state's juvenile justice advisory group, or its designated
administrative agency, for Title V funding.  The programs and
services to be implemented must be designed to reduce the impact of
identified risk factors on children living in the applicant
community. 

Phase two of the Title V process involves the implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation of the programs and services specified
during phase one, as well as the ongoing coordination of services
within the applicant communities.  (See app.  II for an example that
illustrates this process.)


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

According to OJJDP, of the $33 million appropriated in fiscal years
1994 and 1995 for Title V, it had approved and awarded grants
totaling $29.6 million to 54 jurisdictions and $1 million for 6
grants to local jurisdictions under OJJDP's Safe Futures Program as
of March 29, 1996.  The Safe Futures Program provided fiscal year
1995 funds from nine program areas, including Title V, to fund
comprehensive continuum of care programs in urban, rural, and Native
American jurisdictions. 

Of the 51 jurisdictions that responded to our survey, 45 of them said
that they had awarded $18.9 million in Title V funds in subgrants to
332 units of general local government to support 277 delinquency
prevention projects.  As of December 31, 1995, subgrantees reported
in our survey that they had spent about $3.6 million of their Title V
funds. 

Forty-four jurisdictions reported having pledges of Title V matching
funds for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 totaling $17.2 million in cash
and in-kind contributions from their jurisdictions and local
governments as well as nongovernment sources, such as private,
not-for-profit organizations.  Seven jurisdictions reported not
awarding subgrants.  Federal and matching combined funds committed to
the 277 local delinquency prevention projects for these 2 fiscal
years totaled about $36 million. 

Fifty-eight percent of local delinquency prevention projects reported
focusing on providing services to clients.  Eighty-one percent
reported addressing delinquency problems affecting youth in early
adolescence (ages 12 to 14) and 70 percent reported addressing youth
in middle adolescence (ages 15 and 16).  About three-fourths of the
projects (209) reported emphasizing prevention activities that try to
preclude the occurrence of delinquent behavior in the first place and
to limit or reduce incidences of delinquency.  Seventy-eight percent
of the projects reported addressing multiple sets of risk factors in
three or more problem areas (e.g., community, schools, peers, family,
and individuals).  About 90 percent of the 277 projects said they
employ 2 or more "Promising Approaches" strategies on the basis of
the CTC model, such as parent training in effective techniques of
conflict resolution and after-school programs, and about 74 percent
of the projects use 2 or more other program approaches or
intervention strategies, such as community-based outreach programs
and services to involve and work with parents, families, and
juveniles. 

About one-half of the jurisdictions responding to our survey reported
that availability of Title V funds encouraged local governments to
comply with Title II core requirements.  In addition, about 66
percent of the jurisdictions responded that the Title II core
requirements were not a barrier to local government participation in
Title V program activities.  Thirty percent said that compliance
requirements were a barrier to participation, and the remaining 4
percent said that they did not know. 

Thirty-one jurisdictions reported that they did not know how much of
their jurisdiction, local, or private funding was devoted to
delinquency prevention.  However, 19 jurisdictions reported devoting
$319 million in funds to support delinquency prevention activities in
calendar year 1995.  According to OJJDP data, nine other federal
agencies reported spending $4.3 billion to support juvenile
delinquency prevention, juvenile justice, or youth-related programs
in fiscal year 1995.  However, OJJDP was not able to break out the
amounts spent directly on delinquency prevention. 


   PARTICIPATION IN TITLE V
   PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

According to OJJDP, 49 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and 4 of 6 U.S.  territories applied for and received Title V
incentive grant funds administered by OJJDP.  One state, Wyoming,
opted out of the program.\5 According to the Comptroller, Office of
Justice Programs within Justice, as of March 29, 1996, OJJDP had
awarded $29.6 million in Title V funds to the jurisdictions in fiscal
years 1994 and 1995. 


--------------------
\5 In fiscal year 1994, Connecticut, Guam, U.S.  Virgin Islands, and
Wyoming did not submit applications to OJJDP for Title V funds.  The
sum of their allocation of the appropriation ($257,000) was combined
with fiscal year 1995 Title V funds and made available for
distribution. 


      SUBGRANT AWARDS AND
      EXPENDITURES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Juvenile justice officials responding to our survey reported
receiving 796 applications for subgrants of Title V funds during 1994
and 1995.  As of December 31, 1995, they had awarded subgrants to 332
units of general local government.\6 Table 1 shows the number of
local governments applying for Title V subgrants and the number
receiving subgrant awards in calendar years 1994 and 1995 for
jurisdictions responding to our survey. 



                          Table 1
          
          Number of Local Governments That Applied
          for and Received Subgrant Awards, as of
                     December 31, 1995


Calendar
year        Number of applications      Number     Percent
----------  ----------------------  ----------  ----------
1994                           340         130        38.2
1995                           456         202        44.3
==========================================================
Total                          796         332        41.7
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Wyoming did not apply for its allocation of Title V funds in
1994 or 1995.  The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S.  Virgin
Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands did not respond to
GAO's survey.  According to the survey responses, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, and South Carolina had not
made awards of subgrants to units of general local government as of
December 31, 1995. 

Source:  GAO survey of jurisdictions. 

Some of the juvenile justice officials reported that 286 of the 796
subgrant applications were rejected, denied, or otherwise turned away
in 1994 and 1995, specifically because of a lack of available Title V
funds.\7 Another 178 applications were not approved for other
reasons.\8

During calendar years 1994 and 1995, 45 jurisdictions reported
awarding about $18.9 million of Title V funds to units of general
local government.  This represents 64 percent of the $29.6 million in
Title V funds awarded to jurisdictions for fiscal years 1994 and
1995.  These 332 subgrant awards provide partial support for 277
local juvenile delinquency prevention projects.\9

In addition, OJJDP awarded $1 million for six grants under its Safe
Futures Program.  The Safe Futures Program provided fiscal year 1995
funds from nine program areas, including Title V, to fund
comprehensive continuum of care programs in urban, rural, and Native
American jurisdictions. 

About 77 percent (or 213) of the 277 projects that had received
subgrant awards through December 31, 1995, were in their first year
and 23 percent (or 64) were receiving their second year of Title V
funds.  Juvenile justice officials reported that 197 of the 277 local
prevention projects (about 71 percent) were active and had spent
about $3.6 million (or about 19 percent) of the Title V funds awarded
in subgrants as of December 31, 1995.  (See app.  III for additional
information on the number and dollar amount of Title V subgrant
awards and expenditures, by jurisdiction.)


--------------------
\6 Some units of general local government received two subgrant
awards during the 2-year period. 

\7 As shown in appendix III, jurisdictions reported awarding less
funds ($18.7 million) than were allocated ($31.4 million).  They did
not explain the reason that subgrant applications were turned away
due to a lack of available funds, despite having reported not
allocating all of their funds.  However, some jurisdictions (e.g.,
Arizona and American Samoa) had awarded almost all of their funds. 
Such jurisdictions may have turned away applications because of lack
of funds. 

\8 The respondents did not provide the reasons for not approving the
applications. 

\9 The survey respondents were not asked to provide information on
the reasons for the time between OJJDP award and disbursement to
subgrantees.  However, the officials of the projects we visited said
that the delays in awarding funds to local governments were due to
the significant amount of training and planning required of local
government officials before they could receive Title V subgrant
awards from the state. 


      AMOUNT AND SOURCES OF
      MATCHING FUNDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The responding jurisdictions reported that the $18.9 million in
federal funds awarded to localities were matched by an estimated
$17.2 million in cash and in-kind contributions from jurisdictions,
local governments, and nongovernmental sources; these matching funds
were considerably more than the minimum of 50 percent of the federal
share required by the act.  Figure 1 illustrates the amount and
relative proportion of matching funds reported by type and source. 

   Figure 1:  Percentage of
   Estimated Matching Funds
   Reported, by Type and Source,
   Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO survey of jurisdictions. 

Total funding for 277 local delinquency prevention projects (federal
and matching shares) was $36.2 million over the 2-year period.  (See
app.  IV for additional information on amounts and sources of
matching funds, by jurisdiction.)

Twenty-nine of the 51 responding jurisdictions administering Title V
program activities reported that they retained about $900,000 (3
percent) of the $29.6 million in Title V funds awarded to them by
OJJDP in fiscal years 1994 and 1995.  As shown in figure 2,
jurisdictions reported using these funds for such purposes as
supporting program administration and management of Title V
activities and providing technical assistance and training to local
governments.  (See app.  V for additional information, by
jurisdiction, on uses of Title V funds retained by juvenile justice
agencies.)

   Figure 2:  Reported Uses of
   Title V Funds Retained by
   Juvenile Justice Agencies

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

N=33

Note:  Jurisdictions used the funds for more than one purpose. 

Source:  GAO survey of jurisdictions. 


      DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL
      DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
      PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

According to our survey, respondents provided the following
information regarding the focus of Title V projects.  In addition,
our visits to six local projects also provided perspectives on the
projects. 

  -- About three-fourths (209) of the 277 projects reportedly
     emphasized both primary and secondary prevention\10 in
     addressing multiple sets of risk factors, in 3 or more problem
     areas, such as community, schools, peers, family, and
     individuals. 

  -- About 90 percent (250) of the 277 projects reportedly employed 2
     or more different "Promising Approaches" strategies, advocated
     by the CTC model.  About 74 percent of the projects employed two
     or more other program approaches or intervention strategies and
     88 percent of the projects used two or more program
     methodologies. 

  -- About 58 percent (161) of the 277 projects reportedly focused
     solely on providing services to clients, such as youth or
     parents; and 36 percent (100) aimed at both changing
     organizations, agencies, rules, settings, institutions, or
     established practices, and providing services to clients (see
     fig.  3). 

   Figure 3:  Reported Focus of
   Subgrantee Delinquency
   Projects, Fiscal Years 1994 and
   1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

N=277

Source:  GAO survey of jurisdictions. 

  -- Youth in early to middle adolescence (ages 12 through 16) were
     the primary target group reportedly addressed in over two-thirds
     of Title V projects; over half (54 percent) of the projects were
     reportedly addressed to elementary school age children (ages 5
     through 11). 

  -- Eighty-four percent (231) of the 276 projects\11 for which data
     were available reportedly addressed delinquency problems in the
     general community, such as high rates of residential mobility,
     community social disorganization, low levels of attachment to
     the neighborhood, norms that favored adoption of delinquent or
     criminal values, and extreme economic deprivation. 

  -- About 70 percent (194) of the 276 projects reportedly addressed
     problems in school settings, such as early and persistent
     antisocial behavior, academic failure, and lack of commitment to
     school. 

  -- Sixty-eight percent (187) of the 276 projects reportedly
     addressed problems in the family domain such as poor management
     of interpersonal relationships among family members and others,
     family conflict, history of problem behavior from generation to
     generation, and parental attitudes favoring involvement in
     problem behaviors that can lead to delinquency and possibly a
     career of crime. 

  -- About 45 percent (125) of the 276 projects reportedly addressed
     problems associated with peers and peer groups, such as friends
     who engage in delinquent behavior. 

  -- Sixty-five percent (178) of the 276 projects reportedly
     addressed problems that are exhibited by individuals, such as
     alienation and rebelliousness, development of favorable
     attitudes toward misconduct, and early introduction or
     initiation of behavior problems. 

The objectives of these 276 projects reportedly addressed various
delinquency risk factors in targeting program intervention strategies
and methods.  Four of the 17 juvenile delinquency risk factors we
identified
in our survey were rated as both significant and of high priority to
the community by over one-half of the 276 local juvenile delinquency
projects.  These include (1) family management problems (66 percent
of the projects), (2) availability of drugs (58 percent of the
projects), (3) academic failure (52 percent of the projects), and (4)
friends who engage in problem behaviors (51 percent of the projects). 
Nine additional risk factors were identified as significant and of
high priority by local PPBs in over one-third of local delinquency
prevention projects and include, in descending order of frequency (1)
family conflict, (2) high incidence/ prevalence of violations of
community laws and norms, (3) low neighborhood attachment and high
levels of community disorganization, (4) parental attitudes and
conduct that favor involvement in delinquent
or problem behaviors, (5) early and persistent antisocial behavior,
(6) extreme economic deprivation, (7) alienation and rebelliousness,
(8) attitudes favorable toward or condoning problem behavior, and (9)
a family history of problem behavior. 

Local delinquency prevention projects were reportedly using a wide
variety of program intervention strategies and prevention methods. 
About 90 percent (or 250) of 277 projects reportedly utilized 2 or
more "Promising Approaches" advocated by the CTC model. 

  -- Community mobilization, parent training, and after-school
     programs were the 3 most frequently cited of the 16
     CTC-advocated strategies, closely followed by community/school
     policies, family therapy, school behavior management strategies,
     and mentoring with behavioral management. 

  -- Two-thirds of the 266 projects reportedly employed
     community-based outreach services to involve and work with
     parents, families, and juveniles and stress programs for
     positive youth development that assist at-risk youth. 

  -- About 50 percent of the projects reportedly embraced
     comprehensive programs that meet the needs of youth through the
     collaboration of local youth/family service systems. 

  -- The following methods were used by at least one-third of the
     projects reporting on their local delinquency prevention
     programming--parent training, school-based education, drug and
     alcohol abuse prevention, family and peer counseling, outreach,
     recreation, and services coordination. 

During site visits made to six local delinquency projects in three
states we found that each project addressed itself to an array of
delinquency risk factors, protective factors, and program strategies
designed to prevent juvenile delinquency in their communities.  A
brief description of each of the six projects we visited is provided
in appendix VI. 


--------------------
\10 Primary prevention attempts to preclude the occurrence of
delinquent behavior by focusing on root causes and/or on youth who
have not yet become involved in delinquent behavior or high-risk
activities.  Secondary prevention attempts to limit or reduce
incidences/prevalence by targeting at-risk youth who have had little
or no contact with the juvenile justice system.  Tertiary prevention
attempts to reduce reoccurrence of delinquency (recidivism) by
targeting efforts to break the potential cycle of repeated and
substantial contacts with the juvenile justice system; 68 (or about
25 percent) of 277 local juvenile delinquency prevention projects
reported emphasizing tertiary prevention. 

\11 For some survey questions, 276 responses were provided. 


   EFFECT OF TITLE II ELIGIBILITY
   REQUIREMENTS ON
   TITLE V PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Twenty-six jurisdictions that had awarded subgrants reported that 83
of the 332 subgrantees (about 25 percent) receiving Title V funds
also received $6.1 million in Title II formula grant money in fiscal
years 1994 and 1995.\12

About one-half of the 51 jurisdictions responded that the
availability of federal funds under Title V encouraged localities in
their jurisdictions to comply with the Title II core requirements to
qualify for and receive subgrants under Title V.  About three-fourths
of the 51 jurisdictions indicated Title V incentive grant activities
were supportive to a great or very great extent of the overall goals
of the formula grant programs in their jurisdictions. 

About two-thirds of the 51 jurisdictions reported that the
requirement to comply with Title II core requirements to be eligible
to receive Title V funding was not a barrier to local government
participation in Title V program activities.  Thirty percent said
that compliance requirements were a barrier to participation and the
remaining 4 percent said that they did not know. 

Of the 51 jurisdictions responding to our survey, 7 reported
rejecting, denying, or turning away 23 subgrant applications for
Title V funding in 1994 and 1995 because the units of general local
government applying for the subgrants were not in compliance with
Title II core requirements.  This number (23) represents about 3
percent of the 796 local governments that applied for local
delinquency prevention subgrants under Title V. 


--------------------
\12 Twenty-two jurisdictions reported that no Title V subgrantees in
their jurisdictions received Title II formula grant funds during this
time period.  Two jurisdictions did not answer this question. 


   OTHER FUNDING IN SUPPORT OF
   DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
   ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Officials in 19 jurisdictions reported that $319 million in state
funds were devoted to support delinquency prevention activities in
1995, in addition to that allocated and committed as matching funds
in support of Title V projects.  But the majority of state juvenile
justice officials (31) reported they did not know how much state
money was devoted to support delinquency prevention in their
jurisdictions.  Only a few jurisdictions provided information on
amounts of other money provided in 1995 by local governments,
not-for-profit and charitable organizations, for-profit businesses,
or other nongovernmental organizations which was devoted to support
juvenile delinquency prevention activities.  (See table 2.)



                                Table 2
                
                Reported Other Money Devoted to Support
                   Delinquency Prevention Activities,
                           Calendar Year 1995

                                                             Number of
                                                         jurisdictions
Source                                          Amount       reporting
--------------------------------------  --------------  --------------
Jurisdiction                              $319,042,484              17
Local government                           144,751,190               4
Not-for-profit and charitable               46,130,000               3
 organizations
For-profit/business organizations            6,000,000               2
Other nongovernment                            988,000               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO survey of jurisdictions. 

A summary of preliminary information OJJDP received from nine other
federal agencies indicates that approximately $4.3 billion was spent
to support juvenile delinquency related prevention, juvenile justice,
or youth-related programs and activities in fiscal year 1995.  For
example, the National Institutes of Health reported spending
approximately $54 million (0.6 percent of its $9.1 billion budget for
grants-in-aid) on delinquency prevention activities.  OJJDP pointed
out that, while some agencies provided detailed information regarding
the levels of funds spent directly on youth-related programs and
activities, others were not able to break out the amount of funds
directly spent for such purposes.  For example, the Department of
Labor indicated that it spent $3.5 billion in youth-related programs
(including the Summer Youth Employment Program, School-to-Work
Program, and Job Corps), which would account for approximately 40
percent of Labor's total agency budget in fiscal year 1992. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

On July 10, 1996, we met with Department of Justice officials,
including the Deputy Administrator of OJJDP.  The officials agreed
with the material in the report.  Their comments have been
incorporated where appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General;
Administrator, OJJDP; Director, Office of Management and Budget; and
other interested parties.  Copies also will be made available to
others upon request. 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. 
Should you need additional information or have questions about this
report, please contact me on (202) 512-8777. 

Laurie E.  Ekstrand
Associate Director
Administration of Justice Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

The 1992 reauthorizarion of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.  5781 note) requires us to prepare
and submit to Congress a study of the Title V program.  On the basis
of discussions with your offices we agreed to provide information on
the status of the Title V program, including a description of the
types of projects for which incentive grant funds are being used. 
Specifically, we agreed to determine (1) which states and how many
units of local government applied for and received Title V incentive
grant funds; (2) how much fiscal years 1994 and 1995 grant money had
been awarded and how much had been spent as of December 31, 1995; (3)
the sources and amounts of matching funds committed to local
delinquency prevention projects; (4) what Title V funds were used
for; (5) whether Title II eligibility requirements have affected
Title V participation; and (6) what funding, other than Title V, was
provided to support local delinquency prevention activities. 

To answer these questions, we collected descriptive data and other
information using a structured data collection instrument in a
nationwide survey of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 5
U.S.  territories; discussed the status of program implementation
with OJJDP officials and selected state and local juvenile justice
officials; and conducted site visits with 6 local delinquency
prevention projects in 3 states to observe how some Title V funds are
being used.  We selected the states we visited because they were in
the same geographic region as Washington, D.C., and had relatively
large amounts of Title V funding as compared to other states.  We
selected the specific projects to visit on the basis of discussions
with state and OJJDP officials.  Specifically, we focused on projects
that were (1) active, (2) reported by state officials to be
representative of Title V projects, and (3) diverse in their goals
and objectives. 

In developing the survey, we discussed the questions with state
juvenile justice specialists.  Our survey asked state juvenile
justice specialists to identify the types of local delinquency
prevention projects being supported by subgrant awards.  State
juvenile justice officials used checklists of information categories
that we developed to provide descriptive information for each local
delinquency prevention project supported by a subgrant award in their
state in calendar years 1994 or 1995.  After receiving their
responses, we conducted edit checks of key responses for
completeness.  When necessary, we contacted respondents to resolve
any apparent inconsistencies.  In addition, we compared the total
funding they reported for Title V with that provided by OJJDP to
ensure completeness and consistency of survey responses.  We did not
receive responses from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. 

We did our work between October 1995 and June 1996 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. 


SUMMARY OF TITLE V PROCESS--BLAIR
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
========================================================== Appendix II

Blair County's project is a countywide comprehensive juvenile
delinquency prevention program using the CTC model.  Blair County's
process illustrated how a local community developed a comprehensive
plan and implemented a multifaceted delinquency prevention project as
a collaborative communitywide effort.\1

Blair County officials contacted the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime
and Delinquency to inform state officials of the county's interest in
delinquency prevention.  Blair County officials sent a team led by a
judge and a county commissioner to the OJJDP-sponsored Key Leader
Orientation training session on the Title V Program held in June
1994.  Other team members included a county school superintendent,
the county human services director, and the county's chief juvenile
probation officer. 

The county adopted the risk-focused approach using the CTC model.  In
July 1994, the Board of Blair County's Family Resource Center
accepted responsibility for developing and overseeing what would
become the Title V project--the "Blair County Comprehensive Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention Program." A local PPB was formed to further
develop and steer the program.  The PPB was composed of the staff of
the Family Resource Center and has since expanded to 32 members. 


--------------------
\1 We developed this information from discussions with and
information provided by Blair County officials and Pennsylvania State
Juvenile Justice Specialists.  We did not verify the information
provided. 


FUNDS ALLOCATED, AWARDED, AND
SPENT AND NUMBER OF SUBGRANT
PROJECTS, BY JURISDICTION, AS
REPORTED
========================================================= Appendix III

                                                   Percent               Percent
                                                        of                    of
                                                  allocate              allocate
                                         Title V   d funds     Title V   d funds
                 Allocated    Number       funds   awarded       funds     spent
                funds, FYs        of     awarded   through       spent   through
                  1994 and  subgrant     through    12/31/     through    12/31/
Jurisdiction          1995         s    12/31/95        95    12/31/95        95
--------------  ----------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------  --------
Alabama           $500,000         4    $193,801     38.8%          $0      0.0%
Alaska             175,000         3      75,000      42.9      12,500       7.1
American Samoa      58,000        16      58,000     100.0      55,100      95.0
Arizona            493,000        14     492,001      99.8     139,650      28.3
Arkansas           293,000        12     278,395      95.0      69,203      23.6
California       3,968,000         8   3,765,000      94.9     222,612       5.6
Colorado           431,000         5     161,668      37.5     121,251      28.1
Connecticut        337,000         0           0       0.0           0       0.0
Delaware           175,000         8     142,500      81.4      71,250      40.7
District of        175,000         3      71,250      40.7      30,000      17.1
 Columbia
Florida          1,463,000         6     558,600      38.2           0       0.0
Georgia            818,000        12     331,085      40.5      93,076      11.4
Hawaii             175,000         0           0       0.0           0       0.0
Idaho              175,000         1      15,000       8.6       7,880       4.5
Illinois         1,370,000         0           0       0.0           0       0.0
Indiana            681,000        12     588,424      86.4     309,886      45.5
Iowa               341,000         3     323,950      95.0      81,691      24.0
Kansas             316,000         3     121,400      38.4      79,552      25.2
Kentucky           449,000         3     437,350      97.4      20,413       4.6
Louisiana          555,000         2     166,198      30.0      15,711       2.8
Maine              175,000         4      74,955      42.8      25,000      14.3
Maryland           575,000         4     325,850      56.7      73,805      12.8
Massachusetts      626,000         5     236,550      37.8      32,190       5.1
Michigan         1,124,000         9   1,119,285      99.6      51,000       4.5
Minnesota          567,000        16     549,545      96.9     227,515      40.1
Mississippi        350,000         0           0       0.0           0       0.0
Missouri           608,000         8     551,699      90.7     211,742      34.8
Montana            175,000         8     161,927      92.5      54,560      31.2
Nebraska           204,000         7     108,908      53.4      46,145      22.6
Nevada             175,000         2     166,245      95.0      59,372      33.9
New Hampshire      175,000         3      67,355      38.5      28,171      16.1
New Jersey         877,000         6     353,000      40.3      34,742       4.0
New Mexico         221,000         0           0       0.0           0       0.0
New York         1,927,000         7     739,745      38.4     109,382       5.7
North Carolina    $728,000       4 $     199,994   27.5% $   199,994 2      7.5%
North Dakota       175,000         3      50,000      28.6      26,000      14.9
Ohio             1,321,000        10     455,287      34.5      40,721       3.1
Oklahoma           401,000         4     162,000      40.4      60,000      15.0
Oregon             360,000        11     352,050      97.8      49,107      13.6
Pennsylvania     1,330,000        15   1,263,494      95.0     178,053      13.4
Rhode Island       175,000         6      71,000      40.6      45,500      26.0
South Carolina     425,000         0           0       0.0           0       0.0
South Dakota       175,000         4      75,000      42.9      39,875      22.8
Tennessee          585,000         4     224,200      38.3     210,000      35.9
Texas            2,306,000        33   2,254,388      97.8     223,225       9.7
Utah               307,000         5     124,000      40.4      23,101       7.5
Vermont            175,000         1      75,000      42.9           0       0.0
Virginia           734,000        19     625,243      85.2     156,530      21.3
Washington         641,000         6     257,000      40.1      33,000       5.2
West Virginia      202,000         7     192,000      95.1      44,381      22.0
Wisconsin          621,000         6     252,000      40.6      15,097       2.4
================================================================================
Total           $31,388,00       332  $18,867,34     60.1%  $3,627,983     11.6%
                         0                     2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Allocated funds for Commonweath of Puerto Rico, the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are not
included in this table because they did not respond to our survey. 
Allocated funds for Wyoming are not included because it did not apply
for fiscal year 1994 and 1995 allocations. 

Source:  Justice and GAO survey of jurisdictions. 


REPORTED SOURCES AND ESTIMATED
AMOUNTS OF MATCHING FUNDS, BY
JURISDICTION
========================================================== Appendix IV


                                                 State     Local
             State     Local                  governme  governme
Jurisdic  governme  governme                    nt in-    nt in-   Nongovernment
tion            nt        nt   Nongovernment      kind      kind         in-kind
--------  --------  --------  --------------  --------  --------  --------------
Alabama         $0   $96,900              $0        $0        $0              $0
Alaska           0         0               0         0    35,000           2,500
American         0         0               0         0         0               0
 Samoa
Arizona          0   246,500               0         0         0               0
Arkansas    14,659         0          14,000         0   102,000          23,000
Californ  1,190,40   554,600               0         0   381,166               0
 ia              0
Colorado    10,535         0               0         0    77,016          77,016
Connecti         0         0               0         0         0               0
 cut
Delaware     7,500    31,425               0         0    23,375               0
District         0         0          10,000     7,500         0          20,000
 of
 Columbi
 a
Florida          0   524,161               0         0    64,300               0
Georgia          0    88,979           3,550         0   239,466          63,666
Hawaii           0         0               0         0         0               0
Idaho            0    12,000          13,500         0         0               0
Illinois         0         0               0         0         0               0
Indiana          0   415,607               0         0         0               0
Iowa       161,975         0               0         0         0               0
Kansas           0         0               0   330,000         0               0
Kentucky    11,437   215,000               0         0         0               0
Louisian         0         0               0         0         0          83,463
 a
Maine            0    50,428          11,006         0    14,800           7,920
Maryland         0         0               0         0   317,666               0
Massachu         0    16,500               0         0    58,300         133,000
 setts
Michigan         0   300,185         264,737         0    18,000               0
Minnesot  1,150,00         0               0         0         0               0
 a               0
Mississi         0         0               0         0         0               0
 ppi
Missouri         0    47,000         121,805         0    17,305         213,378
Montana          0    30,605          19,036         0   171,095           3,950
Nebraska         0         0               0         0   148,274               0
Nevada           0         0               0         0    93,735               0
New              0     3,368               0         0    30,000               0
 Hampshi
 re
New              0   123,498          23,350         0    27,702           1,950
 Jersey
New              0         0               0         0         0               0
 Mexico
New York     5,800    97,048          80,150         0   106,460         201,575
North     $113,000        $0              $0        $0   $99,997         $10,000
 Carolina
North            0    64,800               0         0         0               0
 Dakota
Ohio             0   101,673          75,341         0    71,920         167,265
Oklahoma    41,660         0               0    42,000   153,598               0
Oregon           0    47,900          10,000     4,200   116,000         275,700
Pennsylv         0    20,000               0    66,038         0         721,382
 ania
Rhode            0    37,500               0         0         0               0
 Island
South            0         0               0         0         0               0
 Carolina
South            0    10,496          23,000         0    37,407         121,789
 Dakota
Tennesse     6,000    84,302               0         0   137,559               0
 e
Texas            0  2,572,10               0         0  1,998,06               0
                           7                                   9
Utah             0   169,150               0     7,000    54,366               0
Vermont          0         0               0         0    23,480          28,400
Virginia         0    23,110               0    15,381   222,273               0
Washingt         0         0         102,793         0    22,706           3,000
 on
West             0    35,000          38,500         0    63,500               0
 Virginia
Wisconsi         0   124,295           1,705         0         0               0
 n
================================================================================
Total     $2,712,9  $6,144,1        $812,473  $472,119  $4,926,5      $2,158,954
                66        37                                  35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Seven jurisdictions did not report matching funds because they
had not awarded subgrants as of December 31, 1995. 

Source:  GAO survey of jurisdictions. 


REPORTED USES OF TITLE V FUNDS
RETAINED BY JUVENILE JUSTICE
AGENCIES
=========================================================== Appendix V


                                       Technical
              Administrati            assistance    Training
                    on and              to local   for local  Evaluati
Jurisdiction    management  Outreach  government  government        on     Other
------------  ------------  --------  ----------  ----------  --------  --------
Alabama                  x
Alaska
American                 x                     x                     x
 Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas                 x
California               x                     x           x         x
Colorado                 x
Connecticut
Delaware                 x
District of              x
 Columbia
Florida                  x
Georgia                  x                     x           x         x
Hawaii
Idaho                    x
Illinois                 x
Indiana
Iowa                     x                     x           x
Kansas                             x                       x
Kentucky                 x
Louisiana                x                     x                     x
Maine
Maryland                 x
Massachusett             x                                           x
 s
Michigan
Minnesota                x
Mississippi              x
Missouri
Montana                            x           x           x         x
Nebraska                 x                     x           x         x
Nevada                   x                                           x
New                      x                                 x
 Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York                 x
North
 Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon                                         x
Pennsylvania             x
Rhode Island             x                     x           x
South                                          x                     x         x
 Carolina
South Dakota                                                                   x
Tennessee                x                     x           x
Texas                    x                     x           x         x
Utah
Vermont
Virginia                 x                     x           x         x
Washington
West                     x                     x           x
 Virginia
Wisconsin
================================================================================
Total                   28         2          14          12        11         2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Eighteen jurisdictions reported not retaining Title V funds
for their use. 

Source:  GAO survey of jurisdictions. 


DESCRIPTION OF SIX LOCAL
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION PROJECTS
========================================================== Appendix VI

We developed the following descriptions of six projects from visits
to local project sites, interviews with project staff, observations
of project activities, discussions with county and state officials,
and documentation and comments they provided.  We did not verify the
information provided. 


   BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,
   COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE
   DELINQUENCY PREVENTION PROGRAM
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1

Blair County, Pennsylvania, adopted a risk-focused approach based on
the CTC model in designing and implementing a comprehensive program
to address factors that lead or contribute to juvenile delinquency
and crime. 

Risk Factors:  Blair County assigned the highest priority and
significance to the need to deal with (1) extreme economic and social
deprivation, (2) family management problems, (3) family conflict, and
(4) early and persistent antisocial behaviors. 

Resources Assessment:  A resources analysis commissioned by the PPB
identified an array of services and diverse funding streams, but also
identified a lack of existing parenting programs to assist families
in handling conflict and managing family problems that can lead to
delinquency.  The assessment also revealed the need for countywide
community/media mobilization efforts to generate action in all
segments of the community to address serious and increasingly costly
delinquency problems. 

Goals:  The overall goal of the project was to increase family and
community prosocial bonding and improve standards of behavior among
children while reducing risk factors that lead to adolescent problem
behaviors. 

Objectives:  Project objectives were established in each of three
areas of concern--community, family, and school--to address four sets
of risk factors.  To address extreme economic and social deprivation,
the project promoted collaborative programs and activities to
increase opportunities for job readiness, skill development, and
positive social bonding to increase the economic and social stability
of children and families.  This was intended to increase the
likelihood that children and adolescents will find positive
alternatives to engaging in delinquent activities. 

Family management problems and family conflict were addressed through
increasing the availability and accessibility of parenting programs
to improve family members' abilities to practice effective management
techniques, cope with stress, and reduce violent behavior within the
family unit and among individual members.  Problems associated with
early and persistent antisocial behaviors by children were being
addressed through a school-based program of training in conflict
resolution.  This program included the parents and siblings of
at-risk elementary school children in order to reduce the incidence
of adolescent problem behaviors that can lead to delinquency and
crime. 

Intervention Strategy:  Community/media mobilization and parent
training. 

Project Description:  Project activities included (1) organizing
focus groups, with participants such as county agency officials, to
discuss and develop strategies for coordinating county job-readiness
and training programs for children, adolescents, and adults; (2)
conducting media campaigns to heighten awareness of and involvement
in program activities and services; (3) developing and implementing
parenting education programs; (4) identifying and supporting early
education providers in developing positive behaviors among children;
and (5) providing school-based programs of conflict resolution and
prosocial skills training. 

An individual was hired to mobilize the community and the media
through speaking engagements to promote the program.  His activities
included providing community orientations, carrying out a media
campaign that promoted the availability of resources for children and
families, developing a list of all job/readiness training programs,
conducting workshops, and promoting positive community values. 
Incentives and supports for parenting education programs were being
developed, and services were being made available to families
identified as being in need. 

Target Area/Group:  Blair County's program was organized as a
countywide comprehensive juvenile delinquency prevention program
using the CTC model.  Some project activities were targeted at all
age groups, while others concentrated on young parents, elementary
school children, or adolescents. 

Project Period:  April 1995 to March 31, 1997. 



                               Table VI.1
                
                      Blair County, Pennsylvania,
                   Comprehensive Juvenile Delinquency
                       Prevention Program Funding

                                           Fiscal year     Fiscal year
Funding source                                    1994            1995
--------------------------------------  --------------  --------------
Title V                                        $69,992         $69,992
Match                                           39,275          39,275
======================================================================
Total                                         $109,267        $109,267
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Blair County, Pennsylvania. 


   DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,
   COMMUNITIES THAT CARE PROJECT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2

The Dauphin County Human Services Department, serving the Greater
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, metropolitan area, contracted with a
private nonprofit community development organization, the Community
Action Commission, to operate its delinquency prevention project. 
Dauphin County's Title V project adopted the CTC model but was part
of a larger community development effort.  Harrisburg was an
"Enterprise Community," which made it eligible for $3 million in
federal Social Services Block Grant funds to support economic
initiatives. 

Risk Factors:  Four sets of risk factors were determined to be
significant and of highest priority at the onset of this project: 
(1) low neighborhood attachment and community disorganization, (2)
extreme economic and social deprivation, (3) family management
problems, and (4) early and persistent antisocial behavior. 

Resources Assessment:  The resources assessment revealed a gap
reflecting a lack of resources devoted to community organization and
collaborative planning. 

Goals:  Three goals were set:  (1) economic empowerment--to encourage
healthy beliefs by youth regarding their economic futures, (2) family
support--to strengthen internal management capacities of families
with young children, and (3) mobilization against violence--to create
a nonviolent culture among and around youth and their families. 

Objectives:  Dauphin County established 12 objectives for its Title V
project.  Five of the 12 objectives were established to reach the
first goal of economic empowerment targeting youth ages 10 to 17 and
their families.  They were to (1) start 3 neighborhood/family owned
businesses; (2) create 24 new jobs, with one-half of them for youth;
(3) train 100 youth in business development skills; (4) rehabilitate
and occupy 3 vacant commercial properties in the target area; and (5)
lower the number of street arrests on blocks occupied by new
businesses by 50 percent. 

To achieve the goal of family support, another five objectives were
established targeting at-risk families with preschool children, ages
birth to 6 years.  They included (1) starting 2 new family centers,
(2) instituting monthly home visits to provide parenting education
for 200 families, (3) creating 2 new family support networks serving
20 families per network, (4) lowering absenteeism from the family
among these 200 families by 60 percent, and (5) achieving less than
10-percent retention rates for first graders from network-involved
families. 

The last 2 of the 12 objectives were established to achieve the goal
of mobilizing against violence by targeting children ages 6 to 10 and
their families.  They included lowering suspension rates for fighting
in elementary schools by 70 percent and lowering the number of
violent incidents at community and youth centers by 70 percent. 

Intervention Strategy:  The core strategy was aimed at creating
collaborative planning and coordination of specific programs that
address juvenile delinquency risk factors.  The community
collaborative approach was to leverage other programs and resources
to address risk factors operating in target neighborhoods.  Community
mobilization strategies were used to build and support teams of
professionals (education, business, human services, law enforcement);
parents; residents; and youth to counteract effects of the four risk
factors. 

Project Description:  The project was designed to develop and
implement family preservation, violence prevention, and economic
training programs.  It also sought to promote revitalization in three
depressed neighborhoods, strengthen community organization, provide
parenting education through satellite family centers, and promote
conflict resolution through nonviolent means.  This project focused
on changing organizations, agencies, rules, settings, institutions,
and established practices.  The project also delivered services to
clients. 

Economic development initiatives included fostering successful
neighborhood-based family/community-owned businesses and cooperatives
to complement ongoing job training and business development projects. 
Economic development and training components targeted youth as
potential employees or owners of local businesses, promoted
neighborhood economic growth through business development training,
and provided technical assistance to small business owners and
potential owners.  For example, a series of workshops was provided
for business owners and potential owners focusing on (1) identifying
the economy of the neighborhood, including the in-flow and out-flow
of cash and capital; (2) developing marketable business ideas; (3)
developing sound business plans; and (4) marketing business concepts
to obtain start-up capital.  These efforts were envisioned to
increase family and youth economic empowerment and result in two to
three new businesses within a year.  Emphasis was placed on
businesses owned by families in the target area and that included
young people in helping to plan and be employed by them. 

Two new family centers were to be established to develop family
support networks, sponsor collaborative education workshops, and
provide in-home parent education visits.  Ineffective family
management was to be addressed through development of skills,
confidence, support networks, and capacities of at-risk families to
enable them to manage their day-to-day lives.  These efforts were
seen as helping to create protective factors for youth by (1)
stabilizing their home lives; (2) helping parents to promote healthy
beliefs and standards; and (3) establishing bonds with others (e.g.,
parents, prosocial peers, and adults) that reinforce healthy modes of
behavior. 

Another aspect of the project, mobilization against youth violence,
was designed to counteract the risk of early and persistent
antisocial behavior, particularly the growth of violent behavior such
as fighting among children in elementary school.  It aimed to prevent
juvenile delinquency through community organization and youth
education activities that teach and reinforce nonviolent means of
social interaction and conflict resolution.  The project also
included an intensive year-round, violence prevention campaign that
sponsored conflict resolution seminars and organized recreational and
social family nights at youth centers. 

Other program activities included peer mediation, drug and alcohol
abuse prevention, parenting training, the establishment of secondary
(satellite) family centers within focus areas, and special activities
in each neighborhood.  Other available services included family
social services, comprehensive case management, job readiness
training and interviewing techniques, parenting programs on
discipline and drug and alcohol awareness, after-school enrichment
programs, and family and youth advocacy and outreach.  Title V funds
supported a full-time community organizer whose efforts were designed
to lead to more effective use of agency resources directed toward
target neighborhoods and to attract and effectively use additional
funds from public and private sources. 

Target Area:  The target area included Allison Hill, South Allison
Hill, and some South Harrisburg neighborhoods.  A multisite strategy
was employed to ensure that school-age children in the target area
were involved in an intensive, high quality course in violence
prevention before they were 11 years old. 

Project Period:  July 1995 to June 1997. 



                               Table VI.2
                
                     Dauphin County, Pennsylvania,
                 Communities That Care Project Funding

                                           Fiscal year     Fiscal year
Funding source                                    1994            1995
--------------------------------------  --------------  --------------
Title V                                        $64,932         $64,932
Match                                           33,494          33,494
======================================================================
Total                                          $98,426         $98,426
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 


   MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND,
   LEADERSHIP FOR VIOLENCE
   PREVENTION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3

Montgomery County, Maryland, adopted a schools-based juvenile
delinquency prevention program to address the increase in violent
behavior on the part of early adolescent youth in three middle
schools.  This increase in violence was attributed, in part, to the
youths' lack of self-esteem, leadership capabilities, and involvement
with school staff and other students.  Decreased school attendance;
increasing rates of school suspension; and insufficient school,
family, and community resources devoted to the critical period
immediately following school hours led Montgomery County to expand
the community use of schools as a vehicle for mobilizing community
support and involvement in the lives of its young people. 

Risk Factors:  Montgomery County assigned the highest priority and
significance to the need to deal with (1) lack of commitment to
school, (2) early and persistent antisocial behavior, and (3) friends
who engage in problem behavior. 

Resources Assessment:  The target community of Wheaton spent 8 years
focused on identifying ways to reduce crime, violence, and substance
abuse through the Wheaton Neighborhood Network.  This was an
outgrowth of a Community Partnership Grant from the Federal Center
for Substance Abuse Prevention.  County officials, school leaders,
and heads of justice agencies combined their efforts to attack
growing crime and delinquency problems in an area of the county
experiencing a rapid influx of immigrant groups and high turnover
among families moving into and out of neighborhood schools. 
Community-oriented policing initiatives under way in Montgomery
County combined enforcement and service activities in support of
school-based Title V funded activities. 

Goals:  The overall goal of the project was to reduce
disproportionate occurrences of antisocial behavior, violent
behavior, and substance abuse among middle school students. 

Objectives:  Project objectives were established to (1) increase
student and parent participation in school, recreational activities,
and related skill-building activities; (2) increase student academic
success in school; (3) increase positive relationships among youth
and between youth and others in the community; and (4) build networks
of support for youth through involvement of community members in
youth activities such as mentoring programs. 

Intervention Strategy:  The intervention strategy was to provide more
after-school and weekend services for youth and adults; provide
leadership training (including conflict resolution, peer mediation,
anger management, and parent training); and institute a mentoring
program to prevent substance abuse and school disruption and increase
school achievement. 

Project Description:  Montgomery County's Leadership for Violence
Prevention Project provided leadership training, peer mediation, and
a variety of after-school activities to increase student commitment
to school, provide positive role models and experiences in the world
of work, and decrease antisocial and delinquent acts in the school
and the community.  These included a summer prevocational
apprenticeship program with business community partners, residential
leadership training resulting in student-inspired and student-created
action plans for after-school activities, and implementation of
after-school enrichment programming at three middle schools in the
Wheaton area of Silver Spring, Maryland.  After-school programs
initiated at all three schools included interscholastic sports; step
clubs (emphasizing group-based, team planning); teen talk (to
identify and discuss issues important to students); community
services activities; and social skills training through drama and
role playing. 

Target Area/Group:  The target group encompassed 1,000 sixth graders
in 3 middle schools (Parkland, Sligo, and Lee) in the Wheaton area of
southeastern Montgomery County, Maryland. 

Project Period:  July 1995 to June 1997. 



                               Table VI.3
                
                Montgomery County, Maryland, Leadership
                    For Violence Prevention Funding

                                           Fiscal year     Fiscal year
Funding source                                    1994            1995
--------------------------------------  --------------  --------------
Title V                                       $169,675        $169,675
Match                                          107,859         107,859
======================================================================
Total                                         $277,534        $277,534
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Montgomery County, Maryland. 


   CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
   RESTITUTION THROUGH COMMUNITY
   SERVICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:4

The Chesterfield County, Virginia, Restitution Through Community
Service program was intended to reduce recidivism on the part of
youth who come into contact with the juvenile court system. 

Risk Factors:  Chesterfield County identified a pattern of events
warranting the development of delinquency prevention program
activities aimed at young people who have come to the attention of
the juvenile justice system.  Total juvenile violations have
increased 51 percent since 1989.  Felony assaults were up 121 percent
and weapons violations were up 112 percent between 1989 and 1993. 
Other factors included increases in the number of (1) child abuse
cases (e.g., incidents of inadequate parental supervision increased
93 percent from 1990 to 1993); (2) juveniles placed in residential
treatment facilities out of the community; (3) juvenile runaways; (4)
school failures (e.g., reading failures and drop-outs); (5) teen
suicides, pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases; and (6)
youth crime (particularly assault, substance abuse, and weapons
violations) and the number of juvenile cases petitioned to court. 

Resources Assessment:  Chesterfield County focused on the need to
expand the availability of assisted court placement of youthful
offenders at work sites throughout the county to perform community
service as a condition of their probation. 

Goals:  The goal was to intervene in the lives of young people at the
point of their first arrest for delinquent behavior so that they
would not commit delinquent acts in the future. 

Objectives:  The Chesterfield County project emphasized the
establishment of community service locations to increase
participation in restitution and court-ordered community services in
conjunction with Virginia's Comprehensive Services Act.  It also
supported developing diversion and intervention programs; mobilizing
community support for families facing disruptions due to loss and
change; engaging the community in providing positive opportunities
and role models for delinquent youth; and setting constructive
behavioral boundaries for young people on the brink of establishing a
pattern of delinquent behavior. 

Intervention Strategy:  Alternatives to traditional handling of
first-time young offenders through use of intermediate sanctions,
restitution, and community service.  The Title V project aimed to
increase the number of community service sites. 

Project Description:  The thrust of this project was to utilize
community service programs as a form of court-ordered restitution for
offenders charged with less serious crimes in addressing individual
risk characteristics and to develop individual and community
resources.  Activities included establishing community service
agreements with 50 agencies, developing guidelines for use of
community service in lieu of traditional adjudicative dispositions,
training agency service site supervisors in techniques for working
with youth, creating a site service directory listing task
descriptions, identifying characteristics of youth who are more
likely to be positively influenced by the program, and placing youth
with service agencies.  The Title V program had provided service to
95 youth who performed 3,912 hours of community service.  Only 5 of
these 95 youths had committed another crime, and the crimes were
considered minor.  As a result of the program, the number of sites in
which to place the juveniles had increased from 20 at the beginning
of the Title V project to 40 at the time of our visit.  Some
juveniles have obtained jobs as a result of their community service,
while some others have returned to the program as volunteers to
assist in implementing project activities. 

Target Area/Group:  This group comprised 250 adjudicated youth 17
years old and younger who lived in Chesterfield County, a large
suburban county in the Richmond metropolitan area. 

Project Period:  July 1995 to June 1997. 



                               Table VI.4
                
                     Chesterfield County, Virginia,
                 Restitution Through Community Service
                                Funding

Funding source                                        Fiscal year 1995
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Title V                                                        $13,320
Match                                                            7,965
======================================================================
Total                                                          $21,285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Chesterfield County, Virginia. 


   VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA,
   BUILDING A BETTER BAYSIDE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:5

Building a Better Bayside was a school-based program of prevention
activities intended to reduce peer conflict, strengthen family
management, and reduce substance abuse among students and their
families at Bayside High School, Bayside Middle School, and adjacent
neighborhood communities in Virginia Beach, Virginia.  The recent
increase in crime rates, including guns, drugs, and juvenile
gang-related activities, focused local officials' attention on the
need for delinquency prevention programming.  Conflict among youth
from adjacent neighborhoods near the intermediate and high schools in
the Bayside school district led to the schools' selection for both
prevention and law enforcement activities.  Virginia Beach has linked
its efforts in community-oriented policing in support of Title V
delinquency prevention efforts in these same neighborhoods as part of
its multiagency approach to problem-solving planning. 

Risk Factors:  Virginia Beach has experienced a high rate of teen
pregnancy and a dramatic increase in juvenile arrests for serious
offenses, including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
weapons violations, and sex offenses (up 83 percent from 1988 to
1994).  Risk assessments conducted under the direction of the PPB
identified five sets of risk factors to be addressed:  (1) early and
persistent antisocial behavior, (2) lack of commitment to school, (3)
early initiation of problem behavior, (4) friends who engage in
problem behavior, and (5) family management problems. 

Resources Assessment:  The Virginia Beach prevention project drew
upon assessments made by the Juvenile Crime Strategies Task Force,
which was made up of nearly all the human services and public safety
agencies serving the greater Virginia Beach area.  The City Council
established the Youth Services Coordinating Council recommended by
the task force.  Resources available through the school system and
family services agencies were leveraged through the Title V project. 
Eleven agencies were participating in the project at the time of our
visit. 

Goals:  The project's goals were to reduce the incidence of juvenile
crime and delinquency in the target area by changing attitudes and
behavior from violent conflict to those favorable to employing
alternative dispute resolution methods as measured by referrals to
peer mediation and peer mentoring programs and demonstration of
appropriate goal-setting skills. 

Objectives:  Better Bayside's objectives were to:  (1) decrease the
incidence of antisocial behavior (such as fighting, disruptive
behavior in school, and peer disputes) by referral to peer mediation
for conflict resolution; (2) increase acceptance by school faculty
and administration of alternative dispute resolution techniques
intended to result in increased referrals of potential problems to
peer mediation for conflict resolution (e.g., to reduce verbal and
physical fights); (3) increase the number of students using peer
mentors and peer mentoring contacts as resources for information and
support at school to decrease "in-school suspensions"; and (4)
increase use of appropriate goal setting skills by students.  The
objectives are intended to lead to a decrease in court referrals for
antisocial behavior among students exposed to peer mediation and
conflict resolution training. 

Intervention Strategy:  Peer mediation, peer mentoring, and conflict
resolution. 

Project Description:  Building a Better Bayside was an incentive
program with the ultimate aim of reducing peer conflict,
strengthening family management, and reducing substance abuse in the
target area through five prevention activities:  (1) peer mediation
and confrontation skills training; (2) peer mentoring--training
students to be role models for other students; (3) group substance
abuse counseling and training for parents and teenagers; (4) goals
setting--"Going for the Goal" (a 10-part program that teaches how to
set goals); and (5) a CARE\1 Youth Leadership Camp program to promote
volunteerism, community conscientiousness, community responsibility,
and productivity. 

Examples of project activities included a summit on teen pregnancy
involving 122 participants and a Leadership Camp involving over 200
student campers aged 6 to 13 and counselors from Bayside High School. 
The Camp focused on building self-esteem and team-building.  Sixteen
trained teenage mediators were working with other youth and teaching
them ways to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence. 

Target Area/Group:  The target area encompassed Bayside Intermediate
and High Schools and adjoining neighborhoods and involved youth in
early and mid-adolescence and their families. 

Project Period:  April 1995 to March 1997. 



                               Table VI.5
                
                  Virginia Beach, Virginia, Building a
                         Better Bayside Funding

                                           Fiscal year     Fiscal year
Funding source                                    1995            1996
--------------------------------------  --------------  --------------
Title V                                        $12,200         $14,480
Match                                           18,125          18,125
======================================================================
Total                                          $30,325         $32,605
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Virginia Beach, Virginia. 


--------------------
\1 Community Action Resource Empowerment. 


   NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, EFFECTIVE
   PREVENTION PROGRAM
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:6

The Norfolk, Virginia, Effective Prevention Program focused on
elementary school age youth experiencing behavioral difficulties or
school misconduct that made them candidates for suspension.  The
program provided alternatives to traditional 1- or 2-day
out-of-school suspensions to students from Norfolk's public schools. 
Candidates for the program attended either Saturday School, which
emphasized a prevention curriculum, or the Alternatives to Violent
Behavior Program (AVBP) operated by the James Barry Robinson Center,
a nonprofit agency. 

Risk Factors:  Norfolk identified four risk factors toward which
their prevention project was directed:  (1) early and persistent
antisocial behavior, (2) academic failure at the elementary school
level, (3) alienation and rebelliousness, and (4) early initiation of
problem behaviors. 

Resources Assessment:  Eight community organizations (such as the
Norfolk Youth Services Citizen Advisory Board, Norfolk Interagency
Consortium of Services to Youth, and the Human Services Council)
played a role in the development of the Title V project.  These
organizations provided for coordination and integration of prevention
activities directed at deficiencies in protective factors that result
in (1) lack of bonding with positive role models, (2) lack of
involvement in positive leisure activities, (3) lack of bonding
(attachment) to school, and (4) lack of prosocial opportunities and
academic success. 

Goals:  The goal was to reduce the number of out-of-school
suspensions at the elementary school level by 25 percent and increase
safety and security by offering students training on alternatives to
violent behavior to reduce recidivism for the same offense by
Saturday School program participants by 60 percent. 

Objectives:  Norfolk established five objectives for its Title V
project:  (1) reduce the number of suspensions at the elementary
school level; (2) provide students with coping skills to resolve
conflicts in positive ways; (3) increase parental involvement in the
academic and disciplinary life of their children; (4) provide
students with alternatives to violent behavior; and (5) strengthen
the partnership between home and school. 

Intervention Strategy:  Alternatives to out-of-school suspension
included a Saturday School option and provision of transportation to
selected students to attend the AVBP.  At the time of our visit
Norfolk was developing programs and services to meet the needs of
acting-out youth by establishing mentoring programs to provide
positive role models; incorporating conflict resolution,
decision-making, and life skills into existing recreational
programming; targeting tutoring programs at children failing
academically; and expanding recreational opportunities for all youth. 

Project Description:  The Norfolk Effective Prevention Program was
directed at elementary school students who were candidates for
suspension from school.  The program offered two components; the
Saturday School program and AVBP.  Twelve Norfolk schools
participated in the Saturday School program, which was available to
36 elementary schools.  Parents were required to attend a 1-hour
session.  This was to provide the parents with information about
schools and services available in the community and how to access
those services, including where they could get additional help. 
While the parents are in training, the child is participating in a
3-hour session that focuses on the misbehavior that led to the
referral to the Saturday School and assists the child in identifying
ways to eliminate these problems.  The effort grew out of a desire to
increase the use and availability of school resources, e.g., keep the
schools open on nights and weekends to meet community needs.  The
program operated in eight middle schools.  The second component of
the Norfolk Effective Prevention Program provided transportation to
selected students to AVBP, which helped middle school students who
exhibited tendencies toward violent behavior, such as fighting and
hitting.  Students were to be released from school during the school
day and transported to another location where they receive intensive
training on ways to reduce violent and combative behaviors.  The
program commenced operation on April 29, 1995.  By December 1995, 65
students had participated in Norfolk's Effective Prevention Program,
44 of them in the Saturday School program which became available in
September 1995, and the remaining 21 students in the AVBP.  Virginia
state officials informed us that 70 percent of the participants
completed the AVBP. 

Target Area/Group:  Elementary students recommended for suspension
from school due to non-law-related violations who had not become
constant and consistent discipline problems were candidates for the
Saturday program, while students with more serious violations, who
had been issued suspensions and who continued to exhibit aggressive
behavior became candidates for transportation assistance to the AVBP. 
Students were drawn from 36 elementary schools in the city of
Norfolk. 

Project Period:  April 1995 to March 1997. 



                               Table VI.6
                
                Norfolk, Virginia, Effective Prevention
                            Program Funding

                                           Fiscal year     Fiscal year
Funding source                                    1995            1996
--------------------------------------  --------------  --------------
Title V                                        $45,631         $56,658
Match                                           23,641          30,964
======================================================================
Total                                          $69,272         $87,622
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Norfolk, Virginia. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

James M.  Blume, Assistant Director, Administration of
 Justice Issues
Richard B.  Groskin, Evaluator-in-Charge
Stuart M.  Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst
Donald E.  Jack, Evaluator
Pamela V.  Williams, Communications Analyst
Susan C.  Bray, Intern

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ann H.  Finley, Senior Attorney


*** End of document. ***