At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated Federal
Effort (Testimony, 11/05/97, GAO/T-HEHS-98-38).
GAO discussed its work on federal programs that serve at-risk and
delinquent youth, focusing on: (1) who administers federal programs
serving at-risk and delinquent youth; (2) how much money is spent on
these programs; and (3) what is known about their effectiveness.
GAO noted that: (1) multiple federal departments and agencies spend
billions of dollars funding a wide variety of programs serving at-risk
and delinquent youth; (2) many of the programs are potentially
duplicative, providing services that appear to overlap those of other
federal programs in the same agency or in other agencies, and many
provide multiple services; (3) GAO's work suggests that this system of
multiple federal programs arrayed across several agencies has created
the potential for inefficient service; (4) a major information gap
exists for federal decisionmakers who need to know what these programs
are accomplishing both individually and in combination; (5) the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 can move the agencies
that run these programs toward a more integrated approach to meeting
common goals for helping at-risk and delinquent youth and should bring
with it a greater emphasis on accountability and assessment of
individual program results; and (6) GAO's analysis of some of the
strategic plans required by the Results Act suggests that although the
act may facilitate an integrated approach to program implementation and
management, the strategic plans are not specific enough for GAO to
determine whether an integrated approach is operating with respect to
services for a particular target group, such as at-risk and delinquent
youth.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-HEHS-98-38
TITLE: At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack
Coordinated Federal Effort
DATE: 11/05/97
SUBJECT: Youth
Federal aid programs
Crime prevention
Juvenile delinquency
Interagency relations
Program management
Youth employment programs
Disadvantaged persons
Accountability
******************************************************************
** 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
Before the Subcommittee on Youth Violence, Committee on the
Judiciary, U.S. Senate
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m.
Wednesday, November 5, 1997
AT-RISK AND DELINQUENT YOUTH -
MULTIPLE PROGRAMS LACK COORDINATED
FEDERAL EFFORT
Statement of Cornelia M. Blanchette, Associate Director
Education and Employment Issues
Health, Education, and Human Services Division
GAO/T-HEHS-98-38
GAO/HEHS-98-38T
(104908)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AT-RISK AND DELINQUENT YOUTH:
MULTIPLE PROGRAMS LACK COORDINATED
FEDERAL EFFORT
============================================================ Chapter 0
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on federal programs
that serve at-risk and delinquent youth.
Poverty, unemployment, teen pregnancy, child abuse, violence, and
substance abuse are common among the nation's youth. Many young
people are considered at-risk,\1
and many also have had contact with the juvenile justice system.
Over the years, the Congress has passed legislation creating numerous
federal programs to address the needs of at-risk and delinquent
youth. These programs provide such diverse services as substance
abuse prevention, violence prevention, job training, substance abuse
treatment, and family intervention.\2 They target a wide range of
youth, including abused/neglected youth, drug/alcohol abusers,
delinquents, victims of crime, and runaway and homeless youth. For
many of these programs, youth constitute only a part of the target
population.
My testimony today, which is based on work we have done over several
years, will focus on (1) who administers federal programs serving
at-risk and delinquent youth, (2) how much money is spent on these
programs, and (3) what is known about their effectiveness. (See
Related GAO Products at the end of this statement for a list of our
previous work.)
In summary, multiple federal departments and agencies spend billions
of dollars funding a wide variety of programs serving at-risk and
delinquent youth. Many of the programs are potentially duplicative,
providing services that appear to overlap those of other federal
programs in the same agency or in other agencies, and many provide
multiple services. Our work suggests that this system of multiple
federal programs arrayed across several agencies has created the
potential for inefficient service. In addition, a major information
gap exists for federal decisionmakers who need to know what these
programs are accomplishing both individually and in combination. The
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act) can
move the agencies that run these programs toward a more integrated
approach to meeting common goals for helping at-risk and delinquent
youth and should bring with it a greater emphasis on accountability
and assessment of individual program results. However, our analysis
of some of the strategic plans required by the Results Act suggests
that although the act may facilitate an integrated approach to
program implementation and management, the strategic plans are not
specific enough for us to determine whether an integrated approach is
operating with respect to services for a particular target group,
such as at-risk and delinquent youth.\3
--------------------
\1 The term "at-risk" can have different meanings in different
contexts. We are using the term in a broad sense to refer to youths
who, because of certain characteristics or experiences, are
statistically more likely than other youths to encounter certain
problems, such as legal, social, financial, educational, emotional,
and health.
\2 For our definitions of program services, see app. II.
\3 See Results Act: Comments on Justice's August Draft Strategic
Plan (GAO/T-GGD-97-184), The Results Act: Observations on the
Department of Education's June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan
(GAO/HEHS-97-176R, July 18, 1997), The Results Act: Observations on
the Department of Labor's June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan
(GAO/HEHS-97-172R, July 11, 1997), and The Results Act: Observations
on the Department of Health and Human Services' April 1997 Draft
Strategic Plan (GAO/HEHS-97-173R, July 11, 1997).
MULTIPLE PROGRAMS SERVE AT-RISK
AND DELINQUENT YOUTH
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
In September 1997, we reported that the federal government continues
to fund a wide array of programs dedicated to at-risk and delinquent
youth.\4 More specifically, 15 federal departments and agencies
administered 127 at-risk and delinquent youth programs in fiscal year
1996. The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice,
Labor, and Education administered 98 programs--about 77 percent of
all programs. (See app. I.)
In 1996, 110 of these programs received funding dedicated to youth
totaling more than $4 billion.\5 Fifteen departments and agencies
administered the funded programs, with HHS and Justice administering
the most--50 and 16, respectively. Labor programs, however, received
the most money--$2.2 billion. About 43 percent of the funded
programs received at least $15 million each. (See fig. 1.) Our
September 1997 product presented conservative estimates of the
numbers of programs and agencies and the amounts of federal funds.
We recently have identified other funding our armed services used for
programs to serve at-risk and delinquent youth. For example, last
year the National Guard spent $43 million of its readiness funds on
two youth programs. (See app. I.)
Figure 1: Fiscal Year 1996
Appropriations Used to Serve
At-Risk and Delinquent Youth
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Analysis based on 79 programs that reported a dollar estimate
of the amount of their fiscal year 1996 appropriations used for
youth. Figure does not include programs within the individual armed
services in the Department of Defense.
Many programs, frequently located in different federal departments
and agencies, appear to fund similar services. For example, in 1996,
45 federal programs provided substance abuse prevention, 20 provided
substance abuse treatment, and 57 provided violence prevention. (See
fig. 2.) These programs were located in 13 federal departments and
agencies and received about $2.3 billion.\6 In addition, many
programs providing similar services are administered within the same
department or agency. Justice, for example, had nine programs
providing substance abuse prevention services to youth in 1996. (See
fig. 3.) Furthermore, many individual programs fund multiple
services. We found that about 63 percent of the programs funded four
or more services each in 1996. (See fig. 4.)
Figure 2: Many Programs
Appeared to Fund Similar
Services in Fiscal Year 1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The number of programs does not include programs within the
individual armed services in the Department of Defense.
Figure 3: Thirteen Federal
Departments and Agencies
Administered 66 Funded Violence
and Substance Abuse Prevention
Programs in Fiscal Year 1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Figure does not include programs within the individual armed
services in the Department of Defense.
Figure 4: Many Programs
Authorized to Fund Multiple
Services in Fiscal Year 1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Analysis based on 107 programs that reported providing
services in the categories that we used. Programs do not include
those within the individual armed services in the Department of
Defense.
While these programs address many of the problems that youth face and
therefore could contribute to preventing juvenile crime, not all of
the programs explicitly include juvenile crime prevention among their
objectives. For example, one HHS program--Health Care for the
Homeless--provides substance abuse prevention, but the program
focuses on health issues rather than delinquency or crime prevention.
Furthermore, not all of these programs serve only youth. For
example, HHS' Service Grant Program for Residential Treatment for
Pregnant and Postpartum Women provides youth and adults services to
prevent substance abuse during or after pregnancy.
--------------------
\4 See At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Fiscal Year 1996 Programs
(GAO/HEHS-97-211R, Sept. 2, 1997).
\5 Agency officials said they were unable to determine the precise
amounts of funds going to youth in 31 of the 110 funded programs.
The remaining 17 programs did not receive any funding in 1996.
\6 This does not include programs within the individual armed
services in the Department of Defense. The services--Air Force,
Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, and Navy--administered seven
programs totaling $48.8 million. Of those, four programs provided
substance abuse prevention, and all of them provided violence
prevention services. None of the programs provided substance abuse
treatment.
EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
FEDERAL AT-RISK AND DELINQUENT
YOUTH PROGRAMS UNKNOWN
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
Although the federal government has invested billions of dollars in
these programs, uncertainty exists as to whether this multitude of
federal programs offers the most efficient service delivery and is
achieving the desired results. As we reported in March 1996, the
federal system for providing services to at-risk and delinquent youth
clearly creates the potential for program overlap and duplication of
services.\7 At that time, we identified numerous instances in which
two or more programs could be funding the same service to the same
target group. For example, we found 14 programs targeting juvenile
offenders that might have funded substance abuse intervention in
1995. Our work suggests that efficiencies may be gained by having a
smaller number of consolidated programs for at-risk or delinquent
youth.
While we have not fully examined these multiple programs with respect
to the outcomes achieved as a result of their activities, our
previous work has identified promising approaches for some of the
services they provide. In addition, evaluation research done by
others provides some information about effective program models and
their outcomes. However, not enough information is available on the
results of individual federal programs or groups of programs that
address similar goals.
--------------------
\7 See At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise
Efficiency Questions (GAO/HEHS-96-34, Mar. 6, 1996).
PROMISING PROGRAM MODELS
EXIST
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1
Research on the effectiveness of substance abuse and violence
prevention programs has identified promising approaches in both
areas. Our recent review of the literature on the effectiveness of
substance abuse prevention programs identified two promising
approaches for school-aged youth.\8 The first approach--referred to
as the psychosocial approach--emphasizes improving individuals'
drug-resistance skills and generic problem-solving/decision-making
skills and modifying attitudes and norms that encourage drug use.
The second approach--the comprehensive approach--involves the
coordinated use of multiple societal institutions, such as family,
community, and schools, for delivering prevention programs. Both
approaches have reduced student drug use as well as strengthened
individuals' ability to resist drugs in both short- and longer-term
programs.\9 Although other approaches--such as information
dissemination, affective education, and alternatives to drug
use--have been used in previous programs, they have not shown
consistent effectiveness when used individually. They have been
included, however, in promising comprehensive approaches to
prevention.
In our 1995 report on school safety, we described the characteristics
of promising school-based violence prevention programs.\10 These
characteristics are (1) a comprehensive approach, (2) an early start
and long-term commitment, (3) strong leadership and disciplinary
policies, (4) staff development, (5) parental involvement, (6)
interagency partnerships and community linkages, and (7) a culturally
sensitive and developmentally appropriate approach. For example,
teaching students early about making positive choices and linking
school-based programs to community groups, such as law enforcement or
service agencies, are approaches used in promising programs.
We also have done work that identified common strategies shared by
successful job training projects.\11 We examined six successful
projects and concluded that, although each project may implement the
strategy differently, their common strategy has four key features to
help ensure that participants are successful in obtaining and
maintaining employment. These features are (1) a focus on ensuring
that participants are committed to training and getting a job, (2)
removal of barriers that could limit clients' ability to finish
training and get and keep a job, (3) inclusion of improving
participants' employability skills as part of their training
curriculum, and (4) linkage of occupational skills training with the
local labor market.
--------------------
\8 Drug Control: Observations on Elements of the Federal Drug
Control Strategy (GAO/GGD-97-42, Mar. 14, 1997).
\9 Two programs are among the most notable: the Life Skills Training
Prevention Program, which uses a psychosocial approach, and the
Midwestern Prevention Project (also known as Project Star or I-Star),
which uses a comprehensive approach. The Life Skills Training
Prevention Program showed that 44 percent fewer intervention
participants reported use of three drugs over a specified period of
time, as compared with control group participants. The Midwestern
Prevention Project showed a 20- to 40-percent net reduction in the
use of two drugs by school-aged youths over a 3-year period.
\10 See School Safety: Promising Initiatives for Addressing School
Violence (GAO/HEHS-95-106, Apr. 25, 1995).
\11 See Employment Training: Successful Projects Share Common
Strategy (GAO/HEHS-96-108, May 7, 1996). Most of Labor's and many of
the other agencies' at-risk and delinquent youth programs provide job
training assistance.
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH NEEDED
ON EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM
APPROACHES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2
While our work and that of others have identified promising
approaches, more and better evaluation research is needed on program
effectiveness. For example, regardless of the early positive results
of certain substance abuse prevention approaches, experts suggest
that additional research is needed to better identify and understand
the elements of effective prevention. They say substantiating early
program results through further research and evaluation is important
to advancing promising substance abuse prevention approaches.
Examples of useful initiatives for future research include
determining the combination of approaches that yields the most
significant outcome results and assessing the approaches that work
best for different population groups.
We reached similar conclusions about violence prevention programs.
While the early results of violence prevention programs provided a
useful starting point, a consensus exists that the methodological
rigor of these studies must be improved to determine program
effectiveness. To improve the usefulness of future evaluations,
designing stronger impact or effectiveness studies should be
emphasized. Design issues requiring particular attention include
sampling techniques, longitudinal assessment, random assignment, and
collection of data on impact and outcome measures.
Conducting such evaluations, according to officials we interviewed,
depends on obtaining grants or private funds specifically for that
purpose. Some agencies have begun funding impact evaluations to
study the effectiveness of specific school-based interventions. For
example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National
Institute of Justice, and the National Institute of Mental Health
awarded 26 grants totaling about $28 million for this purpose during
fiscal years 1993 and 1994.
INFORMATION ABOUT RESULTS OF
FEDERAL PROGRAMS GENERALLY
NOT AVAILABLE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.3
From a decision-making standpoint, what is needed--but is often not
available--is information about the overall effectiveness of a
particular program. That is, to what extent are individual programs,
such as the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994
program, achieving the expected results? Information is needed about
such programs because decisions about appropriate funding levels are
made at the program level. In addition, with accurate information
about the results of the federal programs addressing similar goals,
such as job training or preventing substance abuse and violence, more
effective use could be made of those funds. First, inefficiencies in
the use of funds, such as those resulting from overlapping and
duplicative programs, could be reduced through retargeting or
combining programs. Second, policymakers could be more assured that
the activities funded, or the individual program models used, are the
ones most likely to achieve program goals.
The federal job training effort, which affects youth as well as
adults, is a case in point. Not only are employment training
programs part of a fragmented system but, despite spending billions
of dollars a year, many federal agencies operating these programs do
not know if their programs are really helping people find jobs.\12
From our past work, a common theme has emerged: Most agencies lack
very basic information needed to manage their programs. To its
credit, Labor has collected some basic information, including outcome
data, on its major job training programs, such as Job Corps and other
programs funded under the Job Training Partnership Act. It has also
conducted some evaluations to assess the impact of its programs.
However, our reviews have shown that existing performance measures
and studies still do not provide the kind of information that would
instill confidence that funds are being spent to the greatest
advantage of participants.
--------------------
\12 See Department of Labor: Challenges in Ensuring Workforce
Development and Worker Protection (GAO/T-HEHS-97-85, Mar. 6, 1997).
INCREASING EMPHASIS ON
ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROGRAM
RESULTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
Many initiatives have been put forth in the last decade to improve
the performance of government and make agencies more accountable for
their actions and program results. These include the Chief Financial
Officers Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, and the Results Act. Taken
together, these initiatives provide a framework for the Congress and
federal agencies to improve the federal effort to serve at-risk and
delinquent youth.
The Results Act requires agencies to define their missions, establish
long-term strategic goals as well as annual performance goals linked
to the strategic goals, measure their performance, and use
performance measurement information to improve their programs. It
encourages federal agencies to shift the focus from such traditional
concerns as staffing and activity levels to a single, overriding
issue: results. Another benefit, particularly in light of the
multiple agencies and programs involved in the federal effort to
assist at-risk and delinquent youth, is that strategic plans under
the Results Act are expected to reflect coordination with other
federal agencies that are trying to achieve similar strategic goals
or have similar activities or functions.
As we recently reported, a focus on results, as envisioned by the
Results Act, implies that federal programs contributing to the same
or similar results should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals
are consistent and, as appropriate, program efforts are mutually
reinforcing.\13 The current strategic plans submitted under the
Results Act by the Departments of Education, Health and Human
Services, Labor, and Justice--the agencies administering the most
programs for at-risk and delinquent youth--illustrate the
possibilities and limitations of using the act as a tool for
furthering integrated approaches. In general, even the best of these
plans do not give information that the Congress can use to draw
conclusions about whether the coordination and "integrated
approaches" are operating with respect to specific target groups,
such as at-risk and delinquent youth. For example, the Department of
Education organized its plan around broad agency goals. This does
not permit target-group-level analysis of integration approaches.
The Labor, HHS, and Justice plans are even more general in their
statements about coordination and evaluation. For at-risk and
delinquent youth programs, as well as other federal programs, this
shift to a focus on results can help bridge the gap between what is
known about effective program models and the actual activities and
characteristics of individual federal programs. For example, current
research has identified aspects of effective substance abuse
prevention programs and characteristics of promising approaches for
violence prevention programs. This research, however, consists of
one-time efforts, and the extent to which these studies influence
other programs' design and service delivery is uncertain. The
Results Act, on the other hand, provides an incentive for agency and
program personnel to systematically assess their programs and
identify and adapt successful practices of similar programs. The act
also provides an early warning system for identifying goals and
objectives that are not being met so that agency and program staff
can replace ineffective practices with effective ones.
Measuring how well programs are working can present a major
challenge, however, especially when funds are distributed through
block grants, which is the case with some of the at-risk and
delinquent youth programs. Agencies face the challenge of balancing
the flexibility that block grants afford states to set priorities on
the basis of local need with their need to hold states accountable
for achieving federal goals.\14 Performance Partnership Grants (PPG)
may provide a solution. Under PPGs, the states and the federal
government will negotiate an arrangement that identifies specific
objectives and performance measures regarding outcomes and processes.
This appears to be a promising strategy because it gives the states
more control over their funding decisions while encouraging them to
accept greater accountability for results.
--------------------
\13 The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide
Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997).
\14 For more information on ensuring accountability in block grants,
see Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions
(GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept. 1, 1995).
CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
Over time, the Congress has created more than 100 programs and
authorized the investment of billions of federal dollars to help
at-risk and delinquent youth avoid harmful consequences for
themselves and society. Although some of the federally funded
efforts have shown promise, questions still exist about how
efficiently federal funds are being used and the effectiveness of the
services these programs provide. Better information is needed about
the results of programs individually and in combination.
The Results Act could be the vehicle for bringing about an integrated
federal effort to serve at-risk and delinquent youth. However, for
the federal government to take advantage of this opportunity,
agencies must focus their efforts to coordinate with one another at
the target-group level. Without this focus, the Results Act may have
limited impact on the multiple, potentially duplicative programs that
make up the current federal investment in improving the lives of
at-risk and delinquent youth.
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you or members of the
Subcommittee may have.
FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDING FOR
AT-RISK AND DELINQUENT YOUTH,
FISCAL YEAR 1996
=========================================================== Appendix I
Table I.1 provides information on the programs and services provided
by federal departments and agencies. The abbreviations for the types
of services are counseling (C), clearinghouse (CH), capital
improvement (CI), job training assistance (JTA), mentoring (M),
parental and family intervention (PFI), planning and program
development (PPD), research and evaluation (RE), substance abuse
prevention (SAP), substance abuse treatment (SAT), support service
(SS), self-sufficiency skills (SSS), tutoring (T), training and
technical assistance (TTA), and violence prevention (VP). (Violence
prevention includes conflict resolution, crime and violence
intervention, focused activity, and gang intervention.) (See app. II
for definitions of program services.)
Table I.1
Federal Program Funding for At-Risk and
Delinquent Youth, FY 1996
Type of service funded
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of funding
dedicated to youth
Agency and program (millions) C CH CI JTA M PFI PPD RE SAP SAT SS SSS T TTA VP
---------------------------- ---------------------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Appalachian Regional Commission (1 program)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Development Program $0.3 X X X X X X X X X
Subtotal 0.3
Corporation for National and Community Service (6 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriCorps N/A X X X X X X X X
Foster Grandparent Program N/A X X X X
Learn and Serve America-- N/A X X X X X X X X
Higher Education
Learn and Serve America-- N/A X X X X X
School-and Community-Based
Programs
Retired and Senior Volunteer N/A X X X X X X X X X X
Program
Volunteers in Service to 11.4 X X X X X X X X X
America (AmeriCorps*VISTA)
Subtotal 11.4
Department of Agriculture (7 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-H and Youth Development 63.0 X X X X X X
Children, Youth, and 9.0 X X X X X X X X X X X
Families at Risk Initiative-
-Cooperative Extension
System
Commencement 2000 0.1 X X X X X X X
Food Stamp Employment and N/A X X
Training Program
Partnerships Against N/A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Violence Network
Urban Tree House Research \a X
Program
Youth Conservation Corps\b 3.5
Subtotal 75.6
Department of Defense (7 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Air Force -Model 2.4 X X X X X X X X
Communities for Families and
Children
U.S. Army -Model Communities 1.6 X X X X X X X
for Families and Children
Joint U.S. Air Force/Army - 0.3 X X
Model Communities for
Families and Children
U. S. Marine Air Station - 0.2 X
Model Communities for
Families and Children
U.S. National Guard - 39.3 X X X X X X X X X
Challenge Youth Program
U.S. National Guard - 3.4 X X X X X X X X
STARBASE
U.S. Naval Air Stations - 1.6 X X X X X X X X X
Model Communities for
Families and Children
Subtotal 48.8
Department of Education (8 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community-Based 0\c
Organizations
Education for Homeless 25.0 X X X X X X
Children and Youth
Family and Community 0\c
Endeavor Schools Grant
Program
Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 441.0 X X X X X X X X X X
Part A, Subpart 1, State
Grants for Drug and Violence
Prevention
Safe and Drug-Free Schools 25.0 X X X X
and Communities--National
Programs
Talent Search 78.4 X X X
Title I Program for 39.3 X X X X
Neglected and Delinquent
Children
Upward Bound 172.0 X X X X
Subtotal 780.7
Department of Health and Human Services (59 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adolescent Care 2.6 X X X X
Demonstration and Evaluation
Projects Initiative
Adolescent Family Life 15.1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Demonstration Projects and
Research Grants
Center for Substance Abuse 4.3 X X
Prevention--Public
Education/Dissemination
Child Abuse and Neglect 21.0 X X X
State Grants
Child Abuse Discretionary 15.4 X X X
Program
Child Welfare Services 292.0 X X
Children's Justice Grant 0\d X X
Program
Community Economic N/A X
Development
Community Health Centers N/A X X X X X
Community Partnerships N/A X X
(formerly Community
Prevention Coalitions Grant
Program)
Community Schools Youth 0
Services and Supervision
Program
Community Services Block N/A X X X
Grants
Comprehensive Community 0.3 X
Treatment Program
Cooperative Agreements for 1.8 X X
Addiction Treatment and
Recovery Systems in Target
Cities
Demonstration Grant Program 17.2 X X X X
for Residential Treatment
for Women and Their Children
Demonstration Partnership 0\c
Program
Demonstration Programs for 35.7 X X
High Risk Youth
Emergency Community Services 0\c
Homeless Grant Program
Family and Community 3.5 X X X X X X
Violence Prevention Program
Family Preservation and 150.0 X X X X X X X X X
Support Services
Family Support Center and 0\c
Gateway Demonstration
Programs
Family Violence Prevention N/A X X X X X
and Services
Grants for Comprehensive 59.9 X X
Community Mental Health
Services for Children and
Adolescents With Serious
Emotional Disturbances
Health Care for the Homeless N/A X X X
Program
Health Care Services 1.9 X
Demonstration Models for
Youth Infected With HIV
Initiative
Health Services for N/A X X X X X X
Residents of Public Housing
HIV Service Delivery Models 0.8 X
Cooperative Agreement
Initiative
Homeless Demonstrations N/A X
Independent Living Program 70.0 X X X X X X X X
Indian Child and Adolescent 18.0 X X X X X X X
Mental Health Prevention and
Treatment Services
Indian Child Protection and 1.3 X X X X X X X X
Child Abuse Prevention
Demonstration Projects
Indian Health Service-- 32.0 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Alcoholism and Substance
Abuse Program
Indian Health Service 0
Research Grants
Indian Youth Grant Program 0
Injury Prevention and N/A X X
Control Research and State
Grant Projects
Job Opportunities for Low- N/A X X X X X X X
Income Individuals
Maternal and Child Health N/A X X X X X
Block Grant Services Program
Maternal and Child Health 15.6 X X X X X
Block Grant Services
Program--Special Projects of
Regional and National
Significance
Mental Health Block Grant\e N/A
Migrant Health Centers N/A X X X X X X X X X
National Institute of 21.1 X
Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism--Research
Programs
National Institute on Drug 7.1 X
Abuse--Research Programs
National Institute of Mental 7.2 X
Health--Research Programs
National Youth Sports 12.0 X X X
Program
Native American Programs N/A X X X X X
Pregnant and Postpartum 18.8 X
Women and Infants
Demonstration Projects
Projects for Assistance in N/A X X X X X
Transition From Homelessness
Runaway and Homeless Youth 43.7 X X X X X X
Programs--Basic Centers
Service Grant Program for 17.1 X X X X X
Residential Treatment for
Pregnant and Postpartum
Women
Special Projects of National 5.2 X X X
Significance Program
Social Services Block Grant N/A X X X
Starting Early, Starting 0.9 X X X X
Smart
Street Outreach Program to 8.0 X X X X X X X X
Prevent Sexual Abuse and
Exploitation of Runaway,
Homeless, and Street Youth
Substance Abuse Prevention N/A X X
and Treatment Block Grant
Transitional Living Program 14.9 X X
for Homeless Youth
Urban Indian Health Programs 5.8 X X X X X X
Youth Risk Behavior 2.1
Surveillance System\f
Subtotal 922.3
Department of Housing and Urban Development (4 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-H After-School Program/ 3.5 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Demonstration
Youth Apprenticeship N/A\g X X X X X X X X X X
Youth Development Initiative N/A\h X X X X X X X X X X X
Youthbuild 20.0 X X X X X X
Subtotal 23.5
Department of Interior (2 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Child Welfare Act N/A X X X X
(Title II Grants)
Indian Child Welfare N/A X X X
Assistance (Foster Care)
Subtotal N/A
Department of Justice (22 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boot Camps, Part H 0
Children's Justice Act 0\d X X X X
Program Grants for Native
American Indian Tribes
Community Outreach Program 0.2 X X X X X X X
Community Relations Service 2.7 X X
Initiatives
Crime Victim Assistance/ 0\d X X X X X X
Discretionary Grants
Crime Victim Assistance 0\d X X
Formula Grant Program
Crime Victim Compensation 0\d X X
Formula Grant Program
Demand Reduction 0.1 X X X X
Edward Byrne Memorial State 18.2 X X X X X X X
and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs--
Discretionary Grant
Edward Byrne Memorial State 60.8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs--
Formula Grant
Gang-Free Schools and 10.0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Communities--Community-
Based Gang Intervention
Justice Research, 0.6 X X X X X X
Development, and Evaluation
Project Grants
Juvenile Justice and 70.0 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Delinquency Prevention--
Allocation to States (State
Formula Grants), Part B
Juvenile Justice and 4.0 X X X X X X X X
Delinquency Prevention--
Juvenile Mentoring, Part G
Juvenile Justice and 25.0 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Delinquency Prevention
National Programs--
Discretionary Grants, Part C
Juvenile Justice and 10.0 X X X X X
Delinquency Prevention--
State Challenge Activities,
Part E
Missing and Exploited 6.0 X X X X
Children Program (Title IV)
Title II: Part A-- 0.2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Concentration of Federal
Efforts
Title V--Incentive Grants 20.0 X X X X X X X X X X X X
for Local Delinquency
Prevention Programs
Treatment for Juvenile 0
Offenders Who Are Victims of
Child Abuse or Neglect, Part
F
Victims of Child Abuse 12.1 X X X X
Weed and Seed Program Fund 8.7 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Subtotal 248.6
Department of Labor (9 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment and Training 14.1 X X X X X X X X X X
Research and Development
Projects
Job Training for the 0
Homeless Demonstration
Program
Job Training Partnership Act 1,100.0 X X X X X X X
(JTPA)--Job Corps
JTPA Title II-B--Summer 625.0 X X X
Youth Employment and
Training
JTPA Title II-C--Year-Round 126.7 X X X
Youth Program
Migrant and Seasonal N/A X X
Farmworker Programs
Native American Programs N/A X X
School to Work Opportunities 350.0\i X X
Youth Fair Chance 0
Subtotal 2,215.8
Department of Transportation (3 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol Traffic Safety and 5.1 X X X X X X
Drunk Driving Prevention
Incentive Grants
State and Community Highway 15.6 X X X X X X
Safety
Youth Impaired Driving 1.8 X X X X X X
Projects
Subtotal 22.5
Department of the Treasury (1 program)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gang Resistance Education 8.0 X X
and Training Projects
Subtotal 8.0
Environmental Protection Agency (1 program)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Education 2.2 X X
Grants
Subtotal 2.2
National Endowment for the Arts (4 programs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the Arts--Arts 0.3 X X X X X X X X X
Education Initiative
Promotion of the Arts--Arts 2.8 X X X X X X X X X
Education Partnership Grants
(formerly Promotion of the
Arts--Arts in Education--
Arts Corps)
Promotion of the Arts-- 0.8 X X X X X X X X X
Leadership Initiatives
Promotion of the Arts-- 1.8 X X X X X X X
State and Regional Program
Subtotal 5.7
President's Crime Prevention Council (1 program)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ounce of Prevention Grant 1.1 X X X X
Program
Subtotal 1.1
State Justice Institute
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Justice Institute 1.0 X X
Subtotal 1.0
Grand total $4,367.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: N/A = amount not available. Agency officials were unable to
determine the portion of funds spent on youth.
\a This program is funded through the Departments of Agriculture, the
Interior, and the Navy and the Environmental Protection Agency. Only
two of the four agencies responded to our inquiries; therefore, full
fiscal year 1996 funding information was not available.
\b Officials at the Department of Agriculture said that our service
definitions did not fit the objectives of this program. The program
provides conservation of public lands and employment services.
\c The appropriation for this program was rescinded in fiscal year
1996, according to agency officials.
\d No federal dollars are appropriated; funding is provided by the
Department of Justice's Crime Victims Fund, which is financed through
forfeitures.
\e Officials at HHS said that our service definitions did not fit the
objectives of the Mental Health Block Grant. The program provides
mental health services.
\f Officials at HHS said that this program does not provide the
services listed. Instead, it conducts surveys and develops a
database on youth behavior.
\g Officials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
said that this program received a one-time 6-year $10 million
appropriation in fiscal year 1994, and the program began in fiscal
year 1995. The program has not received any additional funding.
\h Officials at HUD said that this program received a one-time 3- to
5-year $5 million appropriation in fiscal year 1994, and the program
began in fiscal year 1995. The program has not received any
additional funding.
\i Officials at the Department of Labor said that this program
received $170 million from the Department of Labor and $180 million
from the Department of Education.
DEFINITIONS OF PROGRAM SERVICES
========================================================== Appendix II
In our review, we focused on 19 types of services or activities that
programs could potentially provide to at-risk or delinquent youth.
We used the following definitions for these service:
Capital improvement. Funding for the purchase of property,
facilities, and equipment used in helping youth.
Clearinghouse. Gathering and disseminating research and other
information on youth.
Conflict resolution. Assisting individuals or groups in learning the
principles of nonviolent solutions to disputes or providing trained
leaders to work with individuals or groups seeking nonviolent
solutions to disputes.
Counseling. Youth counseling services to help resolve problems or
difficulties stemming from emotional problems, home or family
conflicts, and interpersonal relationships.
Crime and violence intervention. Activities to reduce violence and
crime perpetrated by or against youth (except for gang violence).
Focused activity. Activity for preventing juvenile delinquency by
offering positive, alternative ways for youths to spend their time,
such as in recreation and sports.
Gang intervention. Activities to help individuals, groups, or
communities deter youths from joining gangs, encourage them to leave
gangs, or reduce gang violence.
Job training assistance. Activities focusing on helping youths
prepare for or find jobs. Job search assistance includes providing
instructions on job-seeking techniques, preparing a job-search plan,
obtaining labor market information, and increasing motivation and
self-confidence. Job placement assistance includes identifying job
openings in the public or private sector and referring individuals to
employers with such openings. On-the-job training is training
provided to an employee in occupational or other skills essential to
performing a specific job or group of jobs. Such training is
generally used for entry-level employment and skill upgrades.
Mentoring. Using adult role models to assist youth in career or
educational planning and to provide encouragement and motivation.
Parental and family intervention. Improving parenting skills and
communication within families or otherwise promoting positive family
and home life. Included in this category are programs on youth
pregnancy, youth parenting, and child abuse.
Planning and program development. Funding for planning and
development activities related to youth programs.
Research and evaluation. Studies relating to innovative approaches
for planning and implementing youth programs or evaluation of the
effectiveness of such programs.
Self-sufficiency skills. Individual or group training in life skills
(such as caring for a home, reading a bus schedule, and using a
checking account) and remedial or basic skills training in academic
subjects (such as mathematics or English, English as a second
language, and literacy training).
Substance abuse prevention. Services to prevent drug and alcohol
abuse.
Substance abuse treatment. Services to treat drug and alcohol abuse.
Support service. Assistance to individuals in overcoming barriers to
participating in programs for at-risk and delinquent youth. Examples
may include subsidizing the cost of child care or transportation or
providing financial support or reimbursement for medical expenses
incurred by an individual or the individual's family, thereby
facilitating program participation.
Training and technical assistance. Training and technical assistance
to people responsible for program management or service delivery.
This could include information dissemination on youth programs.
Tutoring. Assistance to individuals or groups in mastering academic
subjects, such as reading or mathematics, including help with
homework or school projects.
Violence prevention. Conflict resolution, crime and violence
intervention, focused activity, and gang intervention.
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Fiscal Year 1996 Programs
(GAO/HEHS-97-211R, Sept. 2, 1997).
The Results Act: Observations on the Draft Strategic Plans of
Selected Department of Labor Components (GAO/HEHS-97-188R, July 31,
1997).
National Labor Relations Board: Observation on NLRB's July 8, 1997,
Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/T-HEHS-97-183, July 24, 1997).
The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Education's June
1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/HEHS-97-176R, July 18, 1997).
The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Labor's June 1997
Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/HEHS-97-172R, July 11, 1997).
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention: Multiple Youth Programs
Raise Questions of Efficiency and Effectiveness (GAO/T-HEHS-97-166,
June 24, 1997).
The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide
Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997).
Department of Education: Challenges in Promoting Access and
Excellence in Education (GAO/T-HEHS-97-99, Mar. 20, 1997).
Department of Labor: Challenges in Ensuring Workforce Development
and Worker Protection (GAO/T-HEHS-97-85, Mar. 6, 1997).
Employment Training: Successful Projects Share Common Strategy
(GAO/HEHS-96-108, May 7, 1996).
At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise
Efficiency Questions (GAO/HEHS-96-34, Mar. 6, 1996).
Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA's Objectives Requires Strong
Congressional Role (GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).
School Safety: Promising Initiatives for Addressing School Violence
(GAO/HEHS-95-106, Apr. 25, 1995).
*** End of document. ***