YOUTH OFFENDER

 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

PROCESS EVALUATION

 (Final Report)

April 2002

Ed Miller, Senior Research Associate

Lois MacGillivray, Project Manager

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Sponsored by

The Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration
This publication was prepared by Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc., under Contract Number

U-6824-8-00-80-30, Task Order No. 3. The views expressed in this publication represent those of

the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Labor.
Acknowledgments

We are grateful to project staff and youth who participated in the Youth Offender Demonstration 

Project (YODP). Special recognition is due to the leaders of the 12 projects who participated in 

the process evaluation conducted by Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. These were:

• Sue McKinney, Lydia Rogers, and Henrietta Cook, Bakersfield (CA) Employer's 

Training Resource; 

• Catherine Christian, City of Minneapolis (MN) Employment and Training Program, and 

Malcolm Liggens, The Employment Action Center; 

• Andy Garcia and David Raynor, Denver (CO) Mayor's Office of Workforce 

Development and Denver Area Youth Services; 

• Dan Kaczynski and Stacey Gilbert, University of West Florida, Pensacola; 

• Johnny Bright and Don Frazee, Houston (TX) Works; 

• Kevin Purdy, Project NOVA, Knoxville (TN); 

• Tamara Blau, Ohio Department of Youth Services, and Martin Murphy, Cuyahoga 

County (OH) Department of Justice Affairs; 

• Christine Conforti, Probation Division of Passaic Vicinage (Clifton, NY); 

• Nikita Jackson and Robin Miller Ingram, Philadelphia (PA) Workforce Development 

Corporation; 

• Deborah Dias and Tamara Walker, Richmond (CA) Works; 

• Kerry Knodle, Comprehensive Community Solutions, Rockford (IL); and 

• Benito Juarez, Seattle-King County (WA) Workforce Development Corporation and the 

King County Work Training Program.

The two-year-long process evaluation received continuing support from the U.S. Department of 

Labor/Employment and Training Administration. Especially helpful were Beverly Bachemin, 

Mary Vines, Dan Ryan and David Balducchi. Others who also deserve special recognition 

include Barbara DeVeaux, Armelia Hailey, David Lah, Michelle Lee-Jones, Yolanda Logan, 

Eileen Pederson, Andre Robinson, Nancy Rose, Evan Rosenberg, Gloria Salas-Kos, Allison 

Vitalo, and Greg Weltz. Those within the Department of Justice/Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention who also supported the project were Thomas Murphy and Dean 

Hoffman.
This report builds on the capable efforts of the evaluation team and staff of Research and 

Evaluation Associates. These include Peggy Richmond, original project manager, who designed 

and guided the project, Jennifer Obidah, an evaluation specialist who also serves on the faculty at 

the University of California, Los Angeles, and David Scudder, an evaluation specialist who 

helped design the project and performed site visits early on. 
Preface

Growing consensus among experts holds that youth who come under court supervision have multiple

issues that require comprehensive and coordinated services and strategies to help them prepare for

and attain jobs at wages that will sustain a constructive life path. A comprehensive approach, in

theory, reduces dependency and breaks the pervasive cycle of crime and recidivism often

experienced by youthful offenders and others who are at risk of court involvement. 

Most of these youth live in or will return to their communities early in their lives. Developing

capacity to meet their needs while also directing them along constructive paths is an essential

investment in them and in a community’s social and economic strength. Indeed, research

demonstrates that economic self-sufficiency is a protective factor that helps reduce or prevent

juvenile delinquency in communities (Brown, et. al., 2001). 

A significant effort to identify promising practices that have the potential to help prepare youthful

offenders for employment was the Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP), a 24-month-long

pilot that began in the summer of 1999. The project found the U.S. Department of

Labor/Employment and Training Administration (DOL) collaborating with the Department of

Justice/Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 

To test various approaches and strategies that may work toward this end, DOL contracted with

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc., an applied research firm in Chapel Hill, North Carolina,

and Washington, DC, to conduct an implementation, or process, study of 12 of the 14 projects that

had been selected for the demonstration. At the same time, OJJDP awarded another firm a contract

to evaluate the remaining two projects.

The goal of the evaluation conducted by Research and Evaluation Associates was to document the

implementation process over the demonstration period. The evaluation was to note achievements

and challenges as project staffs attempted to deliver integrated services to the target population. To

the extent possible, the evaluation also was to report the outcomes of the projects’ efforts to

transition youth offenders and youth at risk of becoming court involved to full-time employment at

liveable wages in positions with career potential.

This volume describes, assesses, and summarizes our findings. A major part of the evaluation

focuses on the extent that the projects were effective in building upon existing programs and systems

to serve targeted youth. 

Although the YODP tested a variety of service delivery strategies in a diverse set of communities,

ultimately the demonstration’s purpose was to deduce effective practices that may have universal

application. As part of the effort to do this, the evaluation and technical assistance teams and the

DOL staff identified a set of nine effective organizational attributes shared by the most successfully

implemented demonstration projects. These were incorporated into a public management model,

which offers an approach that has shown to be effective in administering programs targeting youth

offenders and youth at risk of court or gang involvement.
While the project does not prescribe one specific service strategy, it reflects the hypothesis that

organizations that structure their work around the public management model will be better able to

formulate and implement an effective service delivery strategy that responds to a community’s

particular needs. Specifically, the public management model is expected to assist projects to: (a)

assess the needs of their community; (b) identify key stakeholders and partners integral to the

success of the programs; (c) map and access resources within the community; and (d) better

implement an effective integrated service strategy tailored to meet the community’s specific needs.

The public management model will be further developed and refined during future demonstrations.

Although the demonstration project continues with an additional round through December 2003 and

perhaps beyond, the report’s major findings for the initial round have indicated:

C Partnerships between youth offender agencies and workforce development agencies

provide an important connection that can further each agency’s mission.

C The partnerships are likely to continue and the YODP was the instrument for this

breakthrough.

C Youth indicated that the promise of jobs at a decent wage is what drew them to the

local projects and it is what kept them engaged with the projects.

C Use of a crime prevention model that includes employment, training, and placement

services appears critical for these youth.

C The project’s promise and ability to help youth transition to employment was a major

feature that led many probation officers to refer youth to local projects.

C It may take additional time to demonstrate that an investment in education and

training will result in more youth offenders, or youth at risk of criminal involvement,

successfully transitioning to full-time employment.
Executive Summary

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Congress set aside $13.1 million in the Department of Labor's Pilot and Demonstration budget in

the 1998 Program Year for programs to address the needs of youth who were, had been, or were at

risk of coming under juvenile justice supervision. The Department of Labor (DOL) Employment and

Training Administration (ETA) collaborated with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice (DOJ) in announcing solicitation SGA/DAA 98-

015. The solicitation for grant proposals focused on projects designed to get youth at risk of

criminal involvement, youth offenders, and gang members between the ages of 14 and 24 into longterm employment at wage levels that would prevent future dependency and would break the cycle

of crime and juvenile delinquency. 

In June 1999, DOL funded 14 sites for the Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP)

proposed by governmental units, either cities or states. The projects fell into one of three categories:

C Category I - Model Community Projects were set in high-poverty neighborhoods

where comprehensive, community-wide approaches to dealing with youth already

had been established:

(1) Denver, Colorado;

(2) Houston, Texas; 

(3) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

(4) Richmond, California; and

(5) Seattle, Washington.

C Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiatives provided

comprehensive school-to-work education and training within juvenile correctional

facilities as well as follow-up services and job placement when youth left correctional

facilities and returned to their home communities:

(1) Columbus, Ohio;

(2) Indianapolis, Indiana; and

(3) Tallahassee, Florida.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

ii Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

C Category III - Community-wide Coordination Projects worked with local youth

service providers to develop linkages that strengthened the coordination of prevention

and aftercare services for youth in small to medium-size cities with high poverty and

high crime:

(1) Clifton, New Jersey;

(2) Bakersfield, California;

(3) Knoxville, Tennessee;

(4) Minneapolis, Minnesota; 

(5) Pensacola, Florida; and

(6) Rockford, Illinois.

The projects were to operate for 24 months from the time of contract negotiation, generally from

summer 1999 until summer 2001. The first six months were for planning. The remaining 18 months

were for implementation.

In May 1999, Research and Evaluation Associates received a task order from DOL/ETA to provide

a process evaluation of 12 of the 14 projects. Two Category II sites, Tallahassee and Indianapolis,

were to be evaluated under a separate DOJ agreement. 

The goal of the process evaluation was to document the implementation process of the projects,

noting achievements and challenges as project staff attempted to deliver integrated services to the

target population. To the extent possible, the evaluation also was to report the outcomes of the

projects’ efforts to transition youth offenders and youth at risk of becoming involved with the

juvenile and criminal justice systems to full-time employment at livable wages in positions with

career potential.

The social-development strategy assumed by the YODP design was based on understanding the

concepts of risk and protective factors. Common risk factors, such as availability of drugs, lack of

commitment to school, family management problems, and early academic failure, were useful in

predicting behavior problems. Research revealed that the more risk factors present, the greater the

risk of juvenile problem behavior. Protective factors included “healthy beliefs and clear standards

for productive, law-abiding behavior, and bonding with adults who adhere to these beliefs and

standards.” (Steiner, 1994)
Executive Summary

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. iii

Certain questions about the demonstration projects were included with the Scope of Work for the

process evaluation. The evaluation team organized the questions into 10 major questions with

general and category-specific sub-questions. The 10 questions were organized in a systems-flow

model based on the work of Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (1985) that considered: Context, Inputs,

Process, and Products (CIPP). The ordered set of questions became the Field Guide for structuring

three evaluation site visits to each project. For the Final Report, evaluators compared the original

proposals and reports of the three visits to each project site, analyzing the data according to the 10

questions developed for the Field Guide.

Summary findings are reported below for each category of projects. The final section lists the

lessons learned during the demonstration project.

Category I: Model Community Projects

Category I grant awards were given to set up a combination of gang prevention and suppression

projects; alternative sentencing and community service projects for youth offenders; and to support

existing case management and job placement services for youth on probation or returning to the

community from corrections facilities.

Some generalizations can be made about the five Category I Model Community Projects:

C All five cities where the projects operated had alternative sentencing options for youth

in place before the YODP project was funded.

C The projects reported that the YODP funding opportunity fit their vision for the youth

of their cities.

C Gang activity meant different things in different communities, but all projects reported

significant gang activity in target neighborhoods.

C The economies where the projects were established were strong and diversified. There

also was a strong demand for entry-level workers.

C Political support for the projects in all five communities was good. 
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

iv Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Findings for Category I Projects

Planning the Project

Each grantee had a project plan; yet not all plans included all dimensions of the integrated services

demonstration. These included employment and training for youth offenders and youth at risk of

court supervision, gang prevention and suppression, alternative sentencing and community service,

and aftercare for youth returning from incarceration. 

For several projects, the YODP funding opportunity fit into their community’s plan for youth

employment. And, to some extent, all the cities saw the funding as a way to strengthen and

supplement existing programs. Plans evolved considerably during the first two years of

implementation as various aspects of the plans proved unworkable or as situations changed.

Establishment of Effective Linkages and Partnerships

The projects were designed to build onto and expand existing partnerships for serving target youth.

At least some partners in each city had collaborated prior to the YODP. Over the duration of the

projects, those partnerships changed and/or expanded. In several project communities,

implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the award of other youth employment

grants transformed their entire youth employment operation and processes.

Organizational Issues

Grantees varied in how they organized their projects. And, the role of the grantee agency appeared

to make a crucial difference in the implementation process. Some organizations contracted out the

entire operation while others kept service delivery inside the grantee organization. The projects

seemed best served when the operation was handed off to contractors, but the grantee stayed

involved for leadership, facilitation, and guidance.

The relationships that have been most mutually beneficial have been those between courts and

probation officers, on the one hand, and employment and training agencies, on the other.

Developing the trust of the courts and probation departments took time, however, and projects

lacking that experience needed to devise and employ a strategy for winning their confidence.

The value of delivering youth employment services through partnerships was demonstrated in

tangible, measurable ways and also in more subtle exchanges of resources and experience. Partners

in several projects leveraged tangible exchanges that made their partnership mutually beneficial.
Executive Summary

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. v

For other projects, the mutual learning and the ability to benefit from a partner’s special strengths

and experience led to less tangible but important resources to the partnership.

The least-developed relationships were with school districts and employers. The youth involved in

the projects generally had not been successful in school and had been in trouble for behavior

problems. Frequently schools did not want them to return, nor did the youth want to return to

traditional schools. Several projects did, however, develop effective working relationships with

schools during the demonstration period.

In general, employer networks were not used — even when employers had agreed to be part of the

project network — because youth lacked work maturity and essential educational, life and

vocational skills for all except the most low-skill level positions. Each project was asked to use the

Federal Bonding Program, but virtually no Model Communities youth were bonded as part of the

YODP. 

Training, Employment, and Gang Suppression Activities

Training youth offenders and youth in danger of criminal activity with the goal of preparing them

for the workforce was an innovation in the care of youth offenders in all five projects. The intensive

case management the projects offered through the employment training delivery system was also

an innovation in the services they offered them. Probation and court staff remarked that the

demonstration project provided every youth a relationship with at least one additional supportive

adult. Intensive case management and employment training were the principal components of the

YODP aftercare model. 

Services provided project participants, whether called by the same name or not, always included:

 

 • intake and assessment;

C case management;

C support for earning a high school diploma or GED certificate;

C work readiness and soft skills training;

C barriers to work (child care, transportation, tattoo removal);

• subsidized work experience;
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

vi Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

C job-search support;

C job development;

C job-placement support; and

C post-placement follow-up.

While gang activity was part of the projects’ awareness, the gang dimension rarely was an overt

factor in project programming. Gang-reduction activity through the projects stemmed primarily

from diversionary tactics. Youth were kept busy during the normal work week with a combination

of schooling, work readiness classes, subsidized employment, and then unsubsidized employment.

Collateral Services

All projects appeared dismayed by the deep and varied needs of project clients. There were staffing

and budget implications of realizing that maturity, academic standing, work skills and life skills

needed to be developed before youth could hold jobs. Project staff made valiant efforts to obtain

some of these services for project youth. The process of meeting multiple needs demonstrated,

however, the need for a more-systematic collaboration between the projects and the health and

mental health systems. 

Staff Recruitment

None of the projects was without experience in serving youth, which provided an important boost

for the projects. Hiring at the direct-service delivery level was needed, however, and retaining

these new staff members was a problem faced by most projects. Training was reported to be helpful

for the projects, but staff turnover meant that awareness of larger project goals was not always

maintained.

Target Population Recruitment

With the exception of Seattle and Philadelphia, the projects planned to recruit youth for the entire

age range, 14-24, in a single program of services. As the projects evolved, however, staff learned

that the needs of youth varied considerably across those years. Furthermore, and to the surprise of

the projects, a larger number of younger youth were recruited than older youth. Younger youth

needed more support time before they were prepared for formal work settings, and there was a

greater urgency to try to get them into and/or keep them in school. Seattle and Philadelphia had

proposed different strategies for older and for younger youth.
Executive Summary

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. vii

Most youth in the majority of projects were referred by courts or by probation officers. All projects

also recruited youth directly from target neighborhoods.

Technical Assistance

All project teams participated in two conferences sponsored by DOL and hosted by Research and

Evaluation Associates. One conference was in Washington, DC, in September 1999, the other was

in Tampa, Florida, in February 2000. Some sessions of the conferences were for projects from all

three categories, others were held for category-specific projects. These sessions addressed common

issues and questions raised by project staff.

Projects requested and received site-specific assistance to help them improve their operations. All

projects found that organizational cultures impeded efforts for cross-agency partners to work as a

team. Help clarifying roles, responsibilities, and accountability paths was important technical

assistance provided to the staffs of all projects. Conference calls held for each category of projects

generated peer-developed problem-solving among projects as well.

Sustainability

Aspects of each project were likely to continue after grant funding ended. Some partners would

continue to collaborate. And, court-probation and employment training agency partnerships were

likely to continue because they had become mutually beneficial. Court-supported services in every

city would continue and could leverage some services for court-supervised youth in employment and

training programs. The intensive case management provided project youth seemed the least likely

to be maintained after grant funding ended.

Category II: Education and Training for Youth Offender Initiatives

Projects in this category were designed to provide comprehensive school-to-work (STW) education

and training within juvenile correctional facilities. The projects also were designed to provide

aftercare services and job placements for youth leaving the facilities and returning to their

communities. 

Research and Evaluation Associates evaluated only the Ohio project. The two other Category II

projects, Avon Park, Florida, and Indianapolis, Indiana, were evaluated by another firm under a

separate DOJ agreement. 

The Ohio project comprised two youth offender correctional facilities that differed significantly.

Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility (MJCF) is for older youth who have both criminal and

substance abuse problems; the Youth Development Center (YDC) is for younger youth who have

committed less-serious offenses.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

viii Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

The Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) proposed its project to develop strong STW

programs in the two correctional facilities and to support transition of youth back to their

communities with model aftercare service programs. The project’s ultimate goal was to reduce

recidivism.

Findings for the Category II Project

Planning the Project

A significant aspect of project planning was the focus on developing the capacity for Information

Technology (IT) training in the two correctional facilities. The training was to prepare youth for the

kind of employment opportunities that were growing in the Cuyahoga County area. Such a sharply

focused approach to occupational training did not match skills and interests of many youth. The IT

training for many youth, however, provided an introduction to computers and served to improve

their computer literacy. 

Establishment of Effective Linkages and Partnerships

After its proposal was funded, DYS prepared memoranda of understanding with the Cuyahoga

County Department of Justice Affairs (CCDJA) to implement the project and to establish the IT

program at YDC and at the Mohican facility. The Cuyahoga County Division of Treatment Services

(DTS), a part of CCDJA, was to provide aftercare, IT training, and follow-up services to youth

returning to the county after incarceration from YDC. Youth returning from the Mohican facility

were under the supervision of the regional DYS parole officer. These youth received work

readiness, IT training, and placement services from CCDJA contractors.

Staffs of CCDJA and DYS met monthly to exchange information and approaches to youth

development. The partnership led to sharing resources in substance abuse treatment. Staffs also

agreed to use a common risk-management instrument. And, they jointly developed an aftercare

relapse prevention support group for youth from both Mohican and YDC. CCDJA also began

developing an integrated case management planning process modeled on the DYS integrated case

management approach.

Organizational Issues

The school at YDC, the Harry Eastman School, operated under the Cleveland Public Schools and

used its mandated curriculum and standards. The YODP funded Eastman’s STW Information

Technology (IT) program. The school at Mohican was a registered charter school under the auspices

of DYS, but it was not accredited by the state. The IT program at the facility was designed to operate

in three classes a day, each one and one-half hours long.
Executive Summary

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. ix

The major innovation proposed by the Ohio project was implementation of a STW approach to

learning, rather than the addition of the IT classes. While teachers and administrators reported they

were pleased with the computers and the addition of a technology instructor, these new classes

served as augmentations of traditional school approaches more than a reorganization of the

curriculum to accommodate a STW design. The institutions were not accountable to CCDJA, which

remained virtually powerless to insist that the correctional facilities rethink their curriculum.

The dismantling of the STW system in Cleveland and the lack of STW in East Cleveland essentially

defeated implementation of the core component of the Category II model — a STW curriculum that

would be supported when the youth returned to their home school districts. 

Aftercare

The Division of Treatment Services of CCDJA provided eight assessment specialists (case

managers), two job developers, two family therapists, and one anger management-probation

specialist for youth returning from YDC. The agency had one additional staff person serving as a

transition specialist at the YDC facility. None of these was supported directly with demonstration

grant funds. 

The assessment specialists met assigned youth one or two times a week at school. In addition, the

specialists took turns visiting the Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries (LMM) and Youth

Opportunities Unlimited (YOU) program sites on days activities were scheduled. Youth were

observed, therefore, by a case manager three or four days a week; and assessment specialists knew

the youth in the program. Youth received work readiness training in their first month and then staff

hoped the youth would find a job and start work. LMM offered job placement services for older

youth and two job developers at CCDJA offered job placement services for younger youth. (The job

developers at CCDJA were also the IT instructors.)

Youth leaving the Mohican facility were returned to the care of the youth development specialist

and job developer at the regional DYS office. Sixty days before a youth’s release, the case manager

in Cleveland and the Mohican staff developed a unified case plan. Work readiness, job placement,

and follow-up services were provided youth by the CCDJA program of services through communitybased organizations.

Organizational innovations were primarily in the aftercare services offered by Cuyahoga County.

This made the Ohio project function more like a Category I project than a Category II project.

Collateral Services

Youth received work clothing as needed as well as bus tokens for trips to program events. Youth

received substance abuse interventions, but there did not appear to be relationships with providers
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

x Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

of other services, such as mental health, tattoo removal, etc, which the youth might need. Through

a grant procured by the head of the Division of Treatment Services, youth were beginning to receive

personal counseling.

Staff Recruitment

The project manager’s background was in criminal justice. The two correctional facilities each hired

an IT instructor. Each teacher had worked at her respective school before the YODP grant was

awarded. These were the only staff hired through the demonstration grant. CCDJA hired additional

assessment specialists, job developers/IT instructors, and personal counselors with grant funds it

obtained after the demonstration grant award.

Target Population Recruitment

Youth were recruited into the project by virtue of their assignment to a residential facility. There

were concerns about the pattern of service delivery occasioned by incarceration and release

practices. Youth arrived on a rolling basis at the correctional facilities and were released into the

community on a rolling basis — depending on behavior, grades, and other factors. As a result,

teachers did not know how long a youth would remain in their classes. Similarly, aftercare classes

and services also received youth on a rolling basis and staff did not know how long they would have

them in their care. The effect, despite efforts to design a curriculum either at the residential facility

or in the community, was that there was no provision for youth to complete training once their

probation ended.

Technical Assistance

The Ohio project staff attended the September 1999 and the February 2000 technical assistance

conferences sponsored by DOL. Two conference calls with all Category II site leaders were held

in 2000. Another was held in early 2001. These calls allowed DOL, OJJDP, and site leaders to

share what their experiences and to address challenges in a collegial setting. 

Project leaders also received semi-weekly telephone or e-mail inquiries from the technical

assistance team. Based on issues that surfaced during these telephone conferences, a special

Category II workshop was scheduled for March 2001 in Lakeland, Florida. The workshop also

included a visit to the Avon Park Youth Academy, another Category II project site, and to the offices

of STREETSmart, the organization responsible for the aftercare component.

Three technical assistance site visits were made to the Ohio project, and a three-day training session

was held in May 2001. Evaluations of workshops were positive.
Executive Summary

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. xi

Sustainability

Elements of the Ohio project will continue after project funding ends. The two residential facilities

will continue to operate and IT classes will continue to be taught because of the funding provided

to initiate them. The aftercare portion of the program was being amplified and sustained through

a combination of WIA and foundation grant funds.

Category III: Community-wide Coordination Projects

Category III grants were awarded to focus on high poverty and high crime areas in medium-sized

cities. The design was for grantees to work with youth service providers to develop linkages that

strengthened the coordination of prevention and recovery services for youth offenders. Grantees

were tasked to consider ways to:

C build upon existing employment and training, recreation, conflict resolution, and other

youth crime and gang prevention programs;

C establish alternative sentencing and community service options for youth offenders,

especially those who have been gang members; and 

C establish or continue gang suppression activities.

Findings for Category III Projects

Planning the Project

Planning for the projects was adequate in that grantees designed their projects to accomplish the

goals specified by DOL. All projects included both public and private agencies and organizations

as collaborating or supporting partners, although the level of involvement of the partners varied

among the projects. 

Establishment of Effective Linkages and Partnerships

With only minor exceptions, the six projects followed the original project designs they outlined in

their grant applications. All attempted to establish linkages in support of goals and to build upon

existing systems, which included both core and collateral services provided youth. Some existing

systems, however, were more developed than others and, as a result, were able to progress more

quickly toward meeting their objectives and goals. Several projects, especially those that were not

well established, had difficulties recruiting both partners and clients.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

xii Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Organizational Issues

The six projects generally had strong, clear, and consistent leadership from a central organization,

even though some projects had difficulty building momentum and then sustaining it. It appeared,

however, that success depended less upon the nature of leadership than the particularities of place

and circumstance. One critical factor, for example, was whether the organization running the project

was well established in the community. 

Project facilities generally were adequate and situated near their target areas. The Pensacola facility,

however, was an exception. Its location appeared to have caused some difficulties recruiting clients.

The project, however, took steps to solve this problem by establishing a partnership with a charter

school in a neighborhood targeted by the project.

Training, Employment, Gang Suppression Activities

Successful models for building competencies to prepare youthful offenders and those at risk of court

involvement for life, worthwhile work, and transition into careers are those that have the proper

mixture of several key elements. These elements include community-wide collaboration;

employment and training programs; alternative sentencing and community service programs; and

anti-gang initiatives. Evaluators found that the six projects made important strides toward creating

significant and effective amalgams of these components. Evaluators found, however, that those

projects that emphasized job placement, or delivery of services, at the expense of the more important

task of building and enhancing partnerships generally were less successful than those that attempted

to balance these efforts. 

Evaluators found that all projects faced barriers as they attempted to provide employment and

training programs to clients. Many youth needed remedial writing and mathematics training to make

them more employable. This was compounded by the fact that many project clients rejected formal

schooling and, apparently, sometimes were not interested in finding work. 

The six projects served as alternative sentencing or community service programs in varying degrees.

Also, the projects generally had difficulties establishing gang suppression activities in support of

the projects. Two important reasons for this was the reluctance of youth to identify themselves as

gang members and strong anti-gang efforts in some cities that drove gang activity underground.

 

Collateral Services

In the case of Category III projects, collateral services were those services for clients other than softskills, pre-employment, basic, vocational, and educational training. These services included tattoo

removal, help in finding adequate work clothes, and counseling for personal and family problems.

In general, the six projects were not prepared to provide collateral services and chose instead to refer

clients who needed them to other more-specialized agencies.
Executive Summary

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. xiii

Staff Recruitment

In general, staff members of all six projects were knowledgeable, energetic, and enthusiastic about

their work. Grantees used YODP funds to add staff, usually one or two positions, to existing

organizational structures. 

Recruitment processes often were affected by local labor market conditions. In some instances, the

low unemployment rate made it difficult to hire highly qualified personnel for the projects. 

Evaluators found that older, experienced staff members working with well-established organizations

that dealt with youth appeared to have less turnover and to be more effective in dealing with clients.

Project coordinators at all six projects were seasoned and experienced. Staff turnover appeared to

be a distraction for several projects. 

Target Population Recruitment

Each project targeted clients differently and received them from a variety of sources. The juvenile

justice system served as a primary provider of clients in Bakersfield, Clifton, Minneapolis, and

Pensacola. Both Knoxville and Rockford focused on recruiting youth who were at risk of court

involvement. 

Three of the projects dealt primarily with younger youth. These were Bakersfield, Pensacola, and

Minneapolis. This focus often meant that the projects had to compete with other youth-oriented

programs for clients. Probation officers, who had power over clients, often weighed the advantages

of assigning youth to the YODP instead of to other programs that provided similar services. 

Technical Assistance

Research and Evaluation Associates initially was authorized to conduct an initial visit to Category

III projects. Subsequently authorization was given for an additional technical assistance site visit

to each project. The projects also received technical assistance during two conferences that were

held in Washington, DC, and Tampa, Florida. The technical assistance team also held scheduled

semi-weekly telephone conversations with projects. Additional help was provided via telephone and

e-mail when projects requested it. In addition, the technical assistance team collaborated with the

National Youth Employment Coalition (NYEC) to arrange for specialized technical assistance that

was delivered by NYEC consultants. Consultants facilitated on-site sessions for Bakersfield,

Clifton, Knoxville, and Rockford.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

xiv Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Sustainability

The possibility that projects would be unable to obtain funds to continue their operations after

YODP grant funding ended created anxiety among several staffs. By June 2001, DOL had

announced that it would provide additional funds to four of the six Category III projects so that they

could continue for another year. Sites selected were Bakersfield, Knoxville, Minneapolis, and

Rockford. In addition, those sites that were not refunded were offered no-cost extensions. Although

it was not funded for a second grant, Pensacola requested and received a one-year no-cost extension

to continue operations through the summer of 2002. In the end, sustaining the project after grant

funding ended posed a significant problem only for Clifton, which had used all of its funds and did

not request a no-cost extension. By summer 2001, the project had not found additional funding

sources. 

Lessons Learned

The demonstration projects were still evolving when the final report was written. Only when the

projects have ended and their long-term outcomes have been examined will it be possible to state

more explicitly and confidently what lessons actually were learned from the demonstration project.

The process evaluation, nonetheless, identified several factors that appear to have contributed to the

success of the projects. The factors identified were based upon an organizational model of public

management developed by Research and Evaluation Associates and the DOL staff during the

demonstration project. In general, the evaluation found that well-managed and organized projects

are those that:

C have well-conceived plans; 

C establish partnerships with the juvenile justice system;

C collect and maintain data;

C develop community support/network;

C have active grantee involvement;

C connect the workforce development and juvenile justice systems;

C leverage resources through collaboration and partnerships;

C have in place a continuous improvement system; and 

C share leadership and information with stakeholders.
Executive Summary

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. xv

In addition, the evaluation found that contextual factors outside a project’s control or sphere of

influence tended to either hamper or help a project’s staff as it attempted to implement the project.

These factors included the presence or absence of supportive communities and the strength of local

economies.

In summary, the evaluation concluded that the YODP served as a learning experience for all those

who were involved in it — stakeholders, sponsors, evaluators, technical assistance providers, and

others who supported the effort. 

For the Departments of Labor and Justice, the demonstration project provided valuable experience

working as collaborative partners. The sharing of information and responsibilities helped the

departments identify gaps in theories and approaches that are used to address problems facing

youthful offenders and those who are at risk of court involvement. This will be especially valuable

for future demonstration projects in which the Departments of Labor, Justice, and Health and Human

Services collaborate.

For the 12 grantees that participated in the process evaluation, an important lesson was that technical

assistance is critical in helping them succeed. It appeared that over the course of the demonstration

the projects, which initially were reluctant to ask for help, became more comfortable working with

the technical assistance team. The projects learned how the team could assist them in identifying

problem areas and strengthening their efforts to reach their objectives and goals. The lessons

learned about the role and capabilities of technical assistance will be especially valuable for projects

selected for future demonstrations.

Finally, for the evaluation and technical assistance teams, the demonstration project provided

valuable insights and information as well as new tools to use during future demonstrations. More

specifically, teams will be able to further refine the public management model they used to identify

characteristics of well-managed and operated demonstration projects. This should aid the teams in

their efforts to evaluate and provide technical assistance to projects that focus on youthful offenders

and youth who are at risk of court involvement. 

Closing

This evaluation report provides an assessment of the implementation process undertaken by each

project and, to the extent possible, it reflects how effective the projects were in building upon

existing programs and systems to serve targeted youth. Although the demonstration project

continues with an additional group of projects through December 2003 — and perhaps beyond —

the report’s major findings for the initial group of YODP grantees have indicated:

C Partnerships between youth offender agencies and workforce development agencies provide

an important connection that can further each agency’s mission;
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

xvi Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

C The partnerships are likely to continue and the YODP was the instrument for this

breakthrough;

C Youth indicated that the promise of jobs at a decent wage is what drew them to the local

projects and it is what kept them engaged with the projects;

C Use of a crime prevention model that includes employment, training, and placement services

appears critical for these youth;

C The project’s promise and ability to help youth transition to employment was a major feature

that led many probation officers to refer youth to local projects; and

C It may take additional time to demonstrate that an investment in education and training will

result in more youth offenders, or youth at risk of criminal involvement, successfully

transitioning to full-time employment.
Table of Contents

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. xvii

Table of Contents

Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................1

Background ............................................................1

Theoretical Basis for the Youth Offender Demonstration Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Methodology ...........................................................5

Limitations of the Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

II. CATEGORY I - MODEL COMMUNITY PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Section Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Planning for the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Establishing Effective Linkages and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Organizational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Training, Employment, Gang Suppression Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Collateral Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Staff Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Target Population Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

III. CATEGORY II - EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR YOUTH 

OFFENDERS INITIATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Section Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Planning for the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Establishing Effective Linkages and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Organizational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Training and Employment Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

xviii Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents

Section Page

Collateral Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Staff Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Target Population Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

IV. FINDINGS, CATEGORY III - COMMUNITY-WIDE COORDINATION 

PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Section Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Planning for the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Establishment of Effective Linkages and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Organizational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Training, Employment, Gang Suppression Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Collateral Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Staff Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Target Population Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

V. LESSONS LEARNED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

 Public Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

 1. Well-conceived Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

 2. Established Links with the Juvenile Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

 3. Collection and Maintenance of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

 4. Developed Community Support/Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

 5. Grantee Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

 6. Connection to Workforce Development and Juvenile Justice Systems . . . . 85

 7. Leveraging Resources Through Collaboration and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . 88

 8. Continuous Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

 9. Shared Leadership and Information sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

 Contextual Aspects of the Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

 Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Table of Contents

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. xix

Table of Contents

Section Page

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

APPENDIX A - Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B - Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

APPENDIX C - Field Research Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

APPENDIX D- Category I Final Report Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

APPENDIX E - Category III Final Report Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

xx Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.
List of Tables

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. xxi

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Evaluation Visit Schedule to Category I Youth Offender Demonstration

Project Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Evaluation Visit Schedule to Category II Youth Offender Demonstration

Project Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Evaluation Visit Schedule to Category III Youth Offender Demonstration

Project Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4. Category I Youth Offender Demonstration Sites and Local Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Funded Partners in the Category I Youth Offender Demonstration Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Collaborators in the Category I Youth Offender Demonstration Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

7. Work Readiness Services and Providers in the Youth Offender Category I Sites . . . . . . . . 17

8. Work Development and Placement Process for Youth Offender Category I Sites . . . . . . . . 18

9. Reported Status of Clients on June 30, 2001, Category I Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

10. Sources of Youth Clients in the Model Communities Youth Offender 

Demonstration Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

11. Technical Assistance Provided to Category I Model Communities Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

12. Status of Clients, Ohio Category II Project, June 30, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

13. Planning for YODP Grants, Category III Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

14. Service Providers in Category III Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

15. Status of Clients, Category III Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

16. Demographics of YODP Participants, Category III Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

17. On-Site Technical Assistance Provided to Category III Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

18. Public Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

xxii Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.
Section I - Introduction

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 1

Section I

INTRODUCTION

Background

Congress set aside $13.1 million in the Department of Labor's Pilot and Demonstration budget in

the 1998 Program Year for programs to address the needs of youth who were, had been, or were at

risk of coming under court supervision. The Department of Labor (DOL) Employment and Training

Administration (ETA) collaborated with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP) in the Department of Justice (DOJ) in announcing SGA/DAA 98-015. (See Appendix A.)

The solicitation for grant proposals focused on projects designed to get youth at risk of criminal

involvement, youth offenders, and gang members between the ages of 14 and 24 into long-term

employment at wage levels that would prevent future dependency and would break the cycle of

crime and juvenile delinquency. 

In June 1999 DOL made awards to 14 Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) grantees in

three categories: 

C Category I - Model Community Projects were set in high-poverty neighborhoods

where comprehensive, community-wide approaches to dealing with youth had been

established:

(1) Denver, Colorado;

(2) Houston, Texas;

(3) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

(4) Richmond, California; and

(5) Seattle, Washington.

C Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiatives were awarded

to states to provide comprehensive school-to-work (STW) education and training within

juvenile correctional facilities as well as aftercare services and job placement when

youth left correctional facilities and returned to their home communities:

(1) Columbus, Ohio;
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

2 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

(2) Indianapolis, Indiana; and

(3) Tallahassee, Florida.

C Category III - Community-wide Coordination Projects worked with local youth

service providers to develop linkages that strengthened the coordination of prevention

and aftercare services for youth offenders in small to medium-sized cities with high rates

of poverty and crime:

(1) Bakersfield, California;

(2) Clifton, New Jersey;

(3) Knoxville, Tennessee;

(4) Minneapolis, Minnesota;

(5) Pensacola, Florida; and

(6) Rockford, Illinois.

The projects were to operate for 24 months from the time of contract negotiation, generally from

summer 1999, until summer 2001. The first six months were for planning, and the remaining 18

months were for implementation. In April 1999, DOL awarded a contract to Research and

Evaluation Associates to provide technical assistance (TA) to the fourteen YODP projects. The TA

experts assisted the projects through conferences, conference calls, and project- or category-specific

technical assistance.

In June 1999, DOL awarded a task order to Research and Evaluation Associates to conduct a process

evaluation of 12 of the 14 demonstration projects. In November 1999, OJJDP entered into a

cooperative agreement with the National Center for Crime and Delinquency to evaluate the

remaining two Category II projects in Avon Park, Florida, and Indianapolis, Indiana.

The goal of the evaluation conducted by Research and Evaluation Associates was to document the

process of implementation of the projects, noting achievements and challenges as project staff

attempted to deliver integrated services to the target population. To the extent possible, the

evaluation also was to report the outcomes of the projects’ efforts to transition youth offenders and

youth at risk of becoming involved with the juvenile and criminal justice systems to full-time

employment at livable wages in positions with career potential.
Section I - Introduction

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 3

Theoretical Basis for the Youth Offender Demonstration Project

The social development strategy assumed by the design of the YODP was based on understanding

the concepts of risk and protective factors. James Howell (1995) noted that risk factors existed in

multiple domains (community, family, school, individual/peer) and that common risk factors, such

as availability of drugs, lack of commitment to school, family management problems, and early

academic failure, were useful in predicting diverse behavior problems. Research revealed that the

more risk factors present, the greater the risk of juvenile problem behavior. Further, risk factors were

shown to have consistent effects regardless of race and culture.

Protective factors helped buffer exposure to risks. Protective factors identified included “healthy

beliefs and clear standards for productive, law-abiding behavior, and bonding with adults who

adhered to these beliefs and standards” (Bazemore and Umbreit, 1994). Researchers (Benson,

Galbraith, Espeland, 1995) analyzed the survey results of more than 270,000 young people in 600

communities across the United States and found that the difference between troubled teens and those

leading healthy, productive, and positive lives was strongly affected by the presence of

“developmental assets.” The more developmental assets the young people had (such as family

support, self-esteem, and hope), the less likely they were to use alcohol and other drugs, and exhibit

other problem behaviors.

Delinquency prevention and intervention strategies in reducing juvenile crime showed positive

benefits when they were based on theory-driven prevention practices. When they had knowledge

about the risk factors that confronted youth, communities could develop and implement effective

prevention and intervention programs to strengthen community institutions and buffer children from

the effects of the identified risk factors (Howell, Krisberg, Jones, 1995; Mendel, 2000). 

Promising approaches in delinquency prevention, intervention, and treatment resulted in

development of key principles and a comprehensive strategy for preventing and reducing adolescent

problem behavior. These included:

C strengthening families in their role of providing guidance and discipline, and instilling

sound values as their children's first and primary teachers; 

• supporting core social institutions, including schools, churches, and other communityorganizations, to alleviate risk factors and help children develop to their maximum

potential; and 

C promoting prevention strategies that reduced the impact of risk factors and enhanced the

influence of protective factors in the lives of youth at great risk of delinquency.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

4 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

The emerging professional consensus was that communities needed comprehensive strategies or

models to combat youth crime, reduce recidivism and gang involvement, and help youth secure

employment at livable wage levels. The YODP provided communities with a theory-driven,

research-based prevention framework. It also provided for local control of program planning and

implementation. Project grantees also were assured that they would receive the tools, training, and

technical assistance needed to bring community members together to build on that framework. This

assistance and grant funding would enable communities to design and implement comprehensive

programming for the targeted population. 

The following issue areas were important components of the demonstration model and provided the

framework for planning and developing programming for youth.

C Community-wide Collaboration. The YODP was to change ways of thinking about youth

program planning. Representatives from a variety of community sectors, including

workforce development boards, courts, schools, police, healthcare, human services, and

community organizations had worked together and learned first-hand how prevention and

intervention efforts could be implemented successfully. The approach for the YODP was

to develop the coordination that would drive a better application of resources and reduce

unnecessary duplication of effort that often occurs within human services.

C Employment and Training. Schools and communities were to view the school dropout

problem from both prevention and intervention perspectives. From the prevention

perspective, projects recognized that youth without a high school diploma or a general

equivalency diploma (GED) were hard-pressed to find employment that led to higher wages.

Helping youth remain in school or encouraging their return through alternative schools or

GED-preparation activities became an important delinquency prevention and employment

preparation objective. Providing school-to-work (STW) opportunities to incarcerated youth

was an important intervention objective. Within the community, moreover, connecting

target youth to work readiness, subsidized employment, job placement assistance, and other

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) opportunities would constitute the major innovation of

the YODP. 

C Alternative Sentencing and Community Service. A justice system based on the balanced

approach differed from traditional systems in that competency development, accountability,

and community protection objectives provided clear outcomes directed at the offender, the

victim, and the community. All three components were to receive balanced attention and

gain tangible benefits from their interaction with the justice system. Bazemore and

Umbreit's Balanced and Restorative Justice model (1994) stressed that offenders should

leave the justice system capable of being productive and responsible citizens; that victims

and communities should have their losses restored, and should be empowered as active

participants in the juvenile justice process; and that the justice system must protect society
Section I - Introduction

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 5

by providing a range of intervention alternatives (mostly community-based) geared to the

varying risks presented by offenders.

C Gang Initiatives. The underlying assumption of the Spergel model (1990) was that gang

problems were largely a response to community social disorganization, where key social

institutions such as schools, family, police, and businesses were unable to address the

problem collaboratively. The key idea of the model was to have organizations and

representatives of local communities join forces to engage and control the behavior of

young gang members, and encourage them to participate in legitimate societal activities.

C Aftercare for Youth Returning from Detention. Altschuler (1998) and other researchers

theorized that if juvenile offenders received intensive intervention while they were

incarcerated, during their transition back to the community, and when they were under

community supervision, they would benefit in areas such as family and peer relations,

education, employment, substance abuse, mental health, and recidivism. The Intensive

Aftercare Program (IAP) model stressed collaboration among the juvenile justice system,

probation and parole, and community-based service providers to address specific needs of

youth offenders.

Methodology

DOL included certain evaluation questions about the demonstration projects in its Scope of Work

for the process evaluation. (See Appendix B for the Scope of Work.) Some questions applied to the

entire set of demonstration projects while others were specific to one category of projects. (See

Appendix C for the full set of evaluation questions.) The evaluation team organized the questions

according to a systems-flow model based on the work of Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (1985) that

included these elements: Context, Inputs, Process, and Products (CIPP). Questions were organized

into 10 categories with general and category-specific sub-questions. The 10 major evaluation

questions specified by DOL were:

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services function and what was the level of involvement

and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services?
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

6 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as program

participants?

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were they?

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

8. What types of training, employment, and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were the

intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

The ordered set of questions was formulated into a Field Guide for structuring evaluation visits to

the projects. Because the number and roles of partners differed, depending on the site, the Field

Guide shaped the direction of interviews, regardless of how a given project partnership was

organized.

Evaluators made three visits to each of the 12 projects, using the consistent approach developed

through the Field Guide. The first site visits tested the Field Guide and evaluators gathered baseline

data. The second round of evaluation visits occurred during fall 2000 when the demonstrations

would have had about 10 months of operating experience. Evaluators made the concluding third set

of evaluation visits in spring 2001 close to the time the grant funding was scheduled to end. (See

Tables 1-3 for the evaluation visit schedules.)
Section I - Introduction

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 7

Table 1. Evaluation Visit Schedule to Category I Demonstration Projects

Denver, CO Houston, TX Philadelphia, PA Richmond, CA Seattle, WA

December 1-2, 

1999

February 15-16, 

 2000

February 24-25, 

 2000

March 16-17, 

2000

February 14-15,

 2000

October 3-4,

2000

September 26-27,

 2000

October 10-11, 

 2000

October 5-6, 

2000

October 17-18, 

 2000

May 24-25, 

2001

June 13-14,

 2001

May 31-June1, 

2001

May 17-18, 

2001

May 22-23, 

2001

Table 2. Evaluation Visit Schedule to Category II Demonstration Project

Columbus, OH

May 8-9, 2000

 October 16-18, 2000

May 14-16, 2001

 

Table 3. Evaluation Visit Schedule to Category III Youth Offender Demonstration Projects

Bakersfield,

CA

Clifton,

 NJ

Knoxville, 

TN

Minneapolis, 

MN

Pensacola,

 FL

Rockford, 

IL

January 13-14,

2000

January 10-11,

 2000

 November 22-23, 

1999

January 18-19,

 2000

January 18-19,

 2000

January 5-6,

2000

October 5-6, 

2000

September 26-27,

2000

October 2-3,

 2000

October 10-11,

 2000

September 25-26,

2000

September 19-20,

2000

June 11-12, 2001 May 8-9, 

2001

April 10-11, 

2001

May 14-15, 

2001

May 24-25,

2001

June 21-22, 

2001

During evaluation visits, evaluators interviewed key staff of project partners who provided

academic, vocational or work readiness educational training, personal support, community service

opportunities, gang suppression services, or court supervision. Evaluators attended, when possible,

project advisory board meetings. They also observed training sessions and talked to project clients.

In addition, evaluators collected information about each project, conducted records reviews to

determine the kinds and duration of services clients received, and met with management information
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

8 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

system (MIS) staff to obtain project data. Evaluators prepared site visit reports organized according

to the 10 evaluation questions.

Evaluators prepared an Interim Report after the second set of evaluation visits. This Final Report

is based on the cumulative experience of the demonstrations by the time of the third visits. For both

the Interim and Final Reports, evaluators compared the original proposals, evaluation visit reports,

and the DOL design for the category of the project. (The reports of each Category I project are

included in Appendix D. The reports of each Category III project are included in Appendix E. The

report for the one Category II site is embedded in the narrative of this report.)

Limitations of the Evaluation

There were several important limitations of the evaluation. These involved the nature of a process

evaluation, which in this case was to track the implementation and progress of the projects over a

24-month period, as well as those that are inherent in the conduct of demonstration projects. 

Because evaluators spent only a total of six days on site with each project, they were limited in what

information they could collect through observations. Client training, for example, often was not

being conducted on days when evaluators visited sites. As a result, evaluators could not always

assess the quality of training clients received. Without additional participant observation, moreover,

evaluators were unable to judge whether the projects met the needs of clients, including whether

they helped them adequately prepare for and find jobs.

Also, because of on-site time limitations, evaluators were unable to judge for themselves either the

quality or the effectiveness of the components of the projects that were being implemented. This

meant, for example, that they had difficulty determining whether project components were built on

best practice models for work readiness and vocational training curricula. Project colleagues and

partners, nonetheless, reported that they believed the components were helpful and effective. 

The lack of a uniform reporting system, including specified data collection requirements for the

projects, especially made it difficult for evaluators to determine the quantity of services received and

client participation in them. As a result, evaluators also could not adequately determine outcomes

produced by the projects, such as whether the projects had helped reduce crime rates in their

communities. Except for conclusions based on anecdotal reports, evaluators could not fully

determine the value of the partnerships that were created or expanded during the course of the

projects.

Despite these limitations, however, evaluators using the qualitative methods inherent in a process

evaluation were able to determine with a large degree of certainty whether the components of the

projects were being implemented adequately as specified in implementation plans and whether the

projects were progressing satisfactorily toward meeting their written goals and objectives.
Section I - Introduction

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 9

Organization of Report

Four major sections follow this introduction to the Final Report. Section II of the report analyzes

the efforts of Category I demonstration projects; Section III the efforts of the one Category II project

in Ohio; and Section IV the efforts of Category III projects. 

Section V, Lessons Learned, reflects efforts by the evaluation and technical assistance teams and

the DOL staff to identify characteristics that were universal to projects that successfully

implemented an integrated services model. The nine characteristics that were identified became the

basis for a still-evolving public management model that appears to provide an effective approach

to administering programs targeting youth offenders and those at risk of court involvement. 

While the model advances a public management approach, it does not prescribe one specific service

strategy. It is our hypothesis, nonetheless, that organizations which structure their work around the

model will be better able to formulate and implement an effective service delivery strategy that

responds to their community’s unique needs. In doing this, projects also will be able to help youth

transition into full-time employment at livable wages and into jobs with career potential. Finally,

Section V concludes with a summary and closing that identifies several key findings that resulted

from the YODP.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

10 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 11

Section II

CATEGORY I - MODEL COMMUNITY PROJECTS

The solicitation for the Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) grants described the

Category I, Model Community Projects, as grants for “comprehensive, community-wide

approaches to dealing with youth which have already been established.” Grant awards were given

to the projects to:

(1) set up a combination of gang prevention and suppression projects; 

(2) set up alternative sentencing and community service projects for youth offenders; 

(3) support existing case management and job placement services for youth on probation or

returning to the community from correction facilities; and 

(4) serve as models for other high-poverty, high-crime communities in the country. 

The Category I model committed the communities to demonstrating the effectiveness of a

comprehensive, integrated approach to preventing youth involvement with the justice system and

to intervening with youth who had been court-involved to prevent their relapse and to provide for

them a secure and constructive future. (See Appendix D for reports on individual Model

Communities Projects.)

Table 4 lists the names that the five Model Community YODP teams dubbed their projects. Denver

did not give a distinct name to its program, but Denver’s case managers were called youth coaches,

and the program was explained to clients in youth development terms. Philadelphia changed the

name of its project midway through the demonstration period from “Learn and Earn” to “Youth

Connect.”

Table 4. Category I Youth Offender Demonstration Sites and Local Names

Denver Houston Philadelphia Richmond, CA Seattle

Youth Offender

 Demonstration 

Project

U-Turn Learn and Earn;

then

Youth Connect

Youth Economic

Employment

Service

(YEES)

 New Start

It is important to note that all five Category I projects received some form of continuation. Three

projects — Denver, Richmond, and Seattle — received funding from the U.S. Department of Labor
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

12 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

(DOL) on July 1, 2001, for an additional year of operation. The other two sites — Houston and

Philadelphia — received no-cost time extensions for an additional year. The analysis that follows

recognizes that all five Category I projects were on-going rather than finished demonstrations.

Section Organization

The remainder of this section discusses and compares the Model Communities Projects under the

following headings: 

C Planning the Project,

C Establishing Effective Linkages and Partnerships,

C Organizational Issues,

C Training, Employment and Gang Suppression Activities,

C Collateral Services,

C Staff Recruitment,

C Target Population Recruitment,

C Technical Assistance, and 

C Sustainability.

FINDINGS 

Planning the Project

Each Category I grantee had a project plan, yet not all plans included all dimensions of the

integrated services model. These included: employment and training for youth offenders and youth

at risk of court supervision, gang prevention and suppression, alternative sentencing and community

service, and aftercare for youth returning from incarceration. Philadelphia’s plan, for example, was

directed primarily at reducing the rate of high school dropouts and Houston’s lacked the community

service aspect. In addition, both Houston’s and Denver’s plans lacked a gang intervention element.

Projects, however, incorporated missing elements as the projects evolved.
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 13

The amount of community involvement in planning differed among projects. In both Denver and

Houston, the lead agency facilitated development of the proposal with the intended partners rather

than writing the proposal themselves, as was their usual practice. A staff member of the School

District of Philadelphia (SDP) wrote the Philadelphia proposal, and arranged for it to be submitted

by the then-Private Industry Council. In Seattle, the planner at the local workforce development

agency prepared the proposal with input and review from partners. In Richmond two veteran

partners, Youth Services Bureau (YSB) and Opportunity West (OW) wrote the proposal and

negotiated with the City of Richmond to be grant recipient. Youth and parents were not part of these

generally inter-organizational planning groups.

For several projects, YODP funding fit their community’s plan for youth employment. And, to some

extent, all the cities saw the funding as a way to strengthen and supplement existing programs. 

Before YODP grants were awarded, Denver had a Kulick grant that was bringing employment and

training services to some neighborhoods along the Platte River where poverty and crime rates were

high and high school graduation rates were low. YODP allowed Denver to include youth

employment services in more area neighborhoods. Houston also had Kulick grant funds for several

troubled neighborhoods that abutted the prosperous downtown, and YODP added funding for several

more of these neighborhoods.

The School District of Philadelphia wanted to offer alternative forms of schooling in all 22 of its

comprehensive high schools for youth who were struggling in school or who had already dropped

out. The demonstration grant allowed four target high schools to offer Transitional Opportunities

Promoting Success (TOPS) for youth at risk of dropping out and the Twilight program for older

youth, many of whom already had dropped out. 

Richmond had received a Safe Futures grant to target gang activity, but most needy African

American youth in the city lived in neighborhoods not included in its services. Seattle had a Safe

Futures grant that was operating successfully in West Seattle, but its coverage did not extend to the

White Center region and the area around the Towns of Burien and Tukwila. For both Richmond and

Seattle, the YODP grants allowed them to offer services to youth who were not served by their Safe

Futures programs.

The plans evolved considerably during the first two years of the YODP implementation process, as

various aspects proved unworkable or as situations changed. Denver, Richmond, and Seattle

gradually added increased educational opportunities as project staff realized that YODP youth were

seriously hampered in their job search by their lack of educational achievement and/or credentials.

All three projects initially offered tutoring, but began to provide GED preparation and alternative

school enrollment opportunities.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

14 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

The Philadelphia Workforce Development Council (PWDC) moved responsibility for employment

training and job placement from the schools to an organization with youth employment experience

at the end of the first year. The PWDC then absorbed responsibility itself when the new organization

failed to implement the plan. In Houston, part of the plan had been to provide school-to-work

opportunities at Gulf Coast Trades (GCT), a correctional facility; but the Harris County Court

reduced the number of youth being sent to non-state-run residential facilities. Lacking enrollment

of target neighborhood youth, GCT was redesigning the STW component during summer 2001 to

develop it in the facilities operated by the Texas Youth Commission.

The advisory committees were constituted chiefly of the partnerships representatives. In some cases,

they also included representatives of non-funded collaborators. Cities were expected to involve

youth and parents in the projects, but neither planning groups nor advisory councils had done that

by summer 2001. Denver and Seattle had included families in their activities, however; and other

communities were forming Youth Councils as part of the transition to the structures required by the

Workforce Investment Act (WIA). These councils required the inclusion of youth and families.

Houston organized a collaboration of all youth employment service providers, the Partnership for

At-Risk Youth Strategies (PAYS). The advisory committee of all the PAYS agency representatives

planned to include youth and parents.

Establishing Effective Linkages and Partnerships

Model Communities projects were designed to build onto and expand existing partnerships for

serving target youth. The projects were to have four main components: employment and training

services, alternative sentencing and community service opportunities, intensive aftercare for youth

returning from correctional facilities, and gang prevention and suppression activities. 

At least some partners in each city had collaborated before the YODP grants. Over the duration of

the projects, those partnerships changed and/or expanded. A profile of funded project partners is

reported in Table 5 (page 15); the list of non-funded partners is reported in Table 6 (page 16).

Delivery of work readiness services is described in Table 7 (page 17), and indicates the extent of

collaboration among partners. All projects had a formal intake and assessment process, and all

provided intensive case management services to youth who were enrolled. All projects emphasized

the need to get a high school certificate, either a diploma or a GED. If youth were able to return

to school, that became their main task as project participants. If they needed to work, preparation

for a diploma or GED was organized around their work schedules.
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 15

Table 5. Funded Partners in the Category I Youth Offender Demonstration Sites

Partners’ 

Role

Denver Houston Philadelphia Richmond,

 CA

Seattle

Grant

Management

Organization

Mayor’s Office

of Workforce 

Development 

(MOWD )

Houston 

Works USA

(HW)

Philadelphia 

Workforce 

Development

Corporation 

(PWDC)

Richmond

Office of

Employment 

and Training 

(Richmond

Works)

Seattle-King 

County 

Workforce 

Development

Corporation 

 (WDC)

Project

Management

Denver Area 

Youth 

Services 

(DAYS)

HW PWDC Richmond 

Works

KC Work 

Training 

Program

(WTP)

Case

Management

DAYS

Educational 

Training 

Corporation 

(ETC),

Gulf Coast 

Trades (GCT)

Family Court 

(FC), 

PWDC

YSB,

YouthWorks,

Neighborhood

House (NH)

Safe Futures 

(SF),

King County 

Superior

Court 

(KCSC)

Service 

Delivery

Organizations

DAYS,

Denver Works 

(DW),

Community 

College of 

Denver (CCD)

ETC,

GCT

School District

of

Philadelphia,

Aspira,

Philadelphia 

Anti-violence 

Anti-gang 

Network 

(PAAN)

YouthWorks,

YSB,

Opportunity 

West (OW), 

YouthBuild

Safe Futures,

Pacific 

Associates,

KCSC,

Metro YMCA, 

Southwest

Family

Services 
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

16 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. Table 6. Collaborators in the Category I Youth Offender Demonstration Projects Collaborators Denver Houston Philadelphia Richmond, CA Seattle Fee for Service Community College of Houston, Texas Engineering Extension (TEEX), PAYS Network (Special Needs Referrals) Sierra Adult School, Contra Costa Community College Opportunity Skyways, South Seattle Community College, YouthBuild Supporting (Unfunded) Collaborators Denver Juvenile Court, Denver County Probation Dept., Denver Gang Coalition, Denver School District, Youth Opportunities, Families Harris County Courts, Police, and Probation Departments, Texas Youth Commission, Houston Independent School District, Youth Opportunities, Mayor’s Anti-gang Office (MAGO) One-Stop centers Family Court, Probation Department, School District of Philadelphia CC County Courts, West Contra Costa School District, Safe Futures Department of Juvenile Justice, White Center, Chamber of Commerce, Highline School District, Families
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 17

Table 7. Work Readiness Services in Youth Offender Category I Sites 

Service Denver Houston Philadelphia Richmond, CA Seattle

Intake and

Assessment

DAYS ETC or GCT PWDC YSB,

YouthWorks

KCSC,

Safe Futures,

Pacific

Associates

Case

Management

DAYS ETC or GCT Superior

Court,

PWDC

YSB,

NH,

YouthWorks

KCSC,

Safe Futures,

Pacific

Associates

Diploma or

GED Help

DAYS 

Community 

College of

Denver

ETC or GCT

TOPS,

Twilight 

Adult School 

YSB,

LEAP,

YouthBuild,

Sierra Adult 

School

Southwest

Family

Services,

Highline

School 

District

Soft and Life

Skills Training DW ETC or GCT

PWDC,

Aspira YouthWorks

Metro

YMCA, 

Pacific

Associates

Barrier

Removal

DAYS Referrals Superior

Court,

PWDC 

YouthWorks

KCSC,

Safe Futures,

Pacific

Associates

Vocational

Education

Community 

College of

Denver,

OJT

HW,

Community 

College of 

Houston,

Texas

Engineering

Extension

OJT YouthBuild,

OJT

South Seattle

Community 

College, 

Opportunity 

Skyways,

YouthBuild

Substance

Abuse/

Personal

Counseling

DAYS

 

 Referrals Referrals Referrals

KCSC,

Safe Futures,

Pacific

Associates

Table 8 (page 18) reports the partners responsible for job search, placement and follow-up for

Category I projects. Some projects used public works jobs for subsidized employment (Richmond);

others paid part of the wage and hoped that the employer would pick up the full wage after a youth

proved her/his worth (Seattle, Philadelphia). Denver provided subsidized employment for all project

participants; the work crew experience occurred early in the youth’s participation and was used to
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

18 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

assess maturity, skills, and to build a sense of team work. All projects provided follow-up services

after placement, checking with both youth and employer.

Table 8. Work Development and Placement Process for Youth Offender Category I Projects

Service Denver Houston Philadelphia Richmond, CA Seattle

Subsidized

Work

Experience

DAYS ETC/GCT Aspira YouthWorks

Safe Futures,

KCSC

Job

Development

 DAYS ETC/GCT PWDC YouthWorks Pacific

Associates

Job Search

Support

DAYS ETC/GCT PWDC YouthWorks Pacific

Associates

Job Placement DAYS ETC/GCT PWDC YouthWorks Pacific

Associates

Follow-up DAYS ETC/GCT PWDC YSB, NH,

YouthWorks

KCSC,

Safe Futures,

Pacific

Associates 

All five cities had alternative sentencing options for youth in place before their YODP was funded.

In some communities, an alternative sentence may have meant returning to school as a condition of

probation (Philadelphia), community service and restitution (Denver, Richmond, Seattle), or be

specified by the court (Houston). 

Alternative sentencing involved some form of community service activity in several projects.

Denver courts had referred youth to community service activity through the Denver Area Youth

Services (DAYS) partner for more than 25 years before the demonstration project. DAYS devised

a six-week work crew experience that youth could complete during the work week or in an

equivalent number of weekend sessions. In Richmond, community service involved a curriculum

on community needs and problems from which each cohort of assigned youth had to choose a

common project. Such projects might be reducing litter, keeping dogs on leashes, or removing

graffiti. This program was designed by Opportunity West, one of the YODP partners in Richmond.

Safe Futures, a partner in Seattle, devised art projects in the community to cover graffiti. Murals

were painted on store walls, panels were placed over graffiti in bus shelters, and public trash barrels

were painted in whimsical designs. By summer 2001, Philadelphia was planning to engage youth

in community service through a new partner, Aspira. And, Houston was planning to offer

community service opportunities through a partner, ETC, that once had such a program for youth

assigned to community service.
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 19

Intensive case management was an innovation in the employment and training model. All partners

were adding case workers to meet the requirement to assist and follow-up on the youth participants.

Intensive case management had been a part of the supervision model generally used by the juvenile

justice system. Using it under the auspices of employment and training was a new approach that

served to bond youth with caring adults.

Becoming aware of the gang involvement of the youth was also an innovation for the employment

and training partners. While they knew that youth were involved with gangs, it was new for the

partners to include the local anti-gang units and for them to learn gang colors and tags (graffiti).

Organizational Issues

Three organizational issues affected implementation of Category I projects. These involved the role

of the lead organization, partnerships with the juvenile justice system, and leveraging resources.

Each of these is now discussed.

Lead Organization

Organization of the project varied among grantees and the role of the grantee agency seemed to

make a crucial difference in the implementation process. In Philadelphia and Seattle, the projects

operated under the local workforce development council. In Denver, the project operated under the

Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development (MOWD); in Richmond, the project operated under the

Richmond Office of Employment and Training (Richmond Works); and in Houston, the project was

operated by HoustonWorks (HW), which was linked to the Houston-Galveston Area Council

(Workforce Investment Board). 

In Seattle and Denver, the grantee contracted out day-to-day management to community-based

and/or local government organizations. The project managers saw their roles as coaches and

facilitators, assisting the contractor-project staff to work together in providing services. They met

regularly with the staff to assist the partners to become true collaborators: sharing common vision,

common terms, common definitions and reporting categories. 

In Philadelphia and Richmond, the workforce development corporation and the employment training

office respectively submitted an application prepared by others. As organizational problems arose,

the grantees realized that they had to take a leadership role to move the projects forward.

Eventually, both brought a substantial part of the service delivery activity itself into their

organizations.

In Houston, the project remained with the grantee, but its implementation was delayed as the entire

youth employment unit was reorganized to take advantage of the new WIA funding and the award

of a large Youth Opportunity (YO) grant. Denver, too, received a new YO grant and the entire

office of youth programs underwent restructuring. The operation of the YODP grant activity,
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

20 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

however, was protected from these disruptions by being under a contract to an outside agency and

by having a grant manager who was not responsible for the internal reorganization.

Partnering with the Juvenile Justice System

The relationships that have been most mutually beneficial have been those between courts and

probation officers, on the one hand, and employment and training agencies, on the other. The courts

and probation officers reported that the employment and training program gave them a new set of

constructive alternatives, especially for youth who had not succeeded in school or, for some reason,

could not return to school. For employment and training agencies, probation officers gave them

leverage with some youth, keeping them engaged long enough to see results of their efforts: earning

a diploma, passing one or more of the GED tests, getting a driver’s license, getting and keeping a

job.

Developing a partnership between the employment and training agencies and the juvenile justice

system, however, required time to develop the trust of courts and probation departments. Denver’s

main contractor, DAYS, had relationships for 27 years with components of the juvenile justice

system as a contractor providing community service experiences to youth assigned alternative

sentences. The Youth Services Bureau (YSB) in Richmond had had a similar, long-term relationship

with the courts as a provider of aftercare services for youth offenders and constructive activities for

youth in danger of criminal involvement. When RichmondWorks brought the case management

function in-house, the new case managers faced the task of developing such relationships, and the

probation department still recommended certain difficult youth to YSB for case management

because of its depth of experience.

A strong relationship between the School District of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Family Court

did not exist prior to the YODP. Court staff reported that most youth assigned to school as part of

their probation or parole failed to return to school. Philadelphia’s project hired a former probation

officer as project coordinator, and she made contact with the probation officers individually and

through group presentations to introduce the project. Over time, probation officers began to make

referrals to the program. 

A similar effort was required in Houston where HoustonWorks had no previous connections to the

juvenile justice system. The subcontractors did have experience with court-appointed youth, but it

had still taken presentations to probation officers and a mandate from the Texas Youth Commission

leadership to develop referrals. 

In Seattle, two King County Superior Court aftercare workers were located in the same office as the

rest of the YODP team. Probation officers were in and out of the facility and reported that they

realized that referrals to the project meant that the youth would be monitored more hours of every

day than they could possibly offer.
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 21

Leveraging Resources

The value of delivering youth employment services through partnerships was demonstrated in

tangible, measurable ways and also in more subtle exchanges of resources and experience. Partners

in several projects leveraged tangible exchanges that made their partnership mutually beneficial. In

Houston, the Texas Youth Commission was willing to pay residential expenses of project youth at

Gulf Coast Trades while the YODP grant paid for their aftercare and job placement. The King

County Superior Court was willing to locate several case workers in the same building as the rest

of the YODP team in White Center. The portion of rent the court paid made it possible for project

staff to occupy the entire second floor of the building and to maintain a continuing presence to

targeted youth. In Philadelphia, court-supervised youth were able to receive anger management and

other mental health services through the Family Court while the court was reassured that the youth

would receive the education assigned them through the project.

When Denver and Houston received large Youth Opportunity (YO) grants, the funds were used to

expand services to YODP youth. In Denver, youth were sorted into either YO, YODP, or WIA

eligibility categories, depending on their program eligibility and the youth’s service needs. Where

eligibility overlapped, YODP youth could receive certain services, such as drug counseling, under

YO funding. In Houston, youth who were eligible for both YODP and Kulick funding were coenrolled, and their individual service plans reflected that they received services from more than one

grant. In Denver, as well, all the YO training was open to YODP staff, and YODP staff provided

some of the training based on their almost-two years of experience. YODP staff received training

in the youth coaching model and participated in presentations by police, probation officers, and

officers from the Denver Anti-gang Coalition along with the YO grant staff.

Some valuable exchanges were not measurable in dollars. The Seattle YODP partners’ staff shared

common space , which provided benefits: Safe Futures’ Cambodian-American staff taught the

others on the staff how to interact with Asian youth and their families; the King County Superior

Court case workers taught the other staff about the intricacies of court processes; and Pacific

Associates taught the others more about youth employment, job placement, and employer follow-up.

In Richmond, case workers from all the partners met every other Thursday to review the individual

clients’ cases. This provided an opportunity for more experienced case workers to share their

expertise and for everyone to learn from dealing with difficult and complex cases.

Unique strengths complemented those of the central partners. The Denver Workforce Initiative, a

program of the Piton Foundation in Denver, developed paper and pencil assessments and

accompanying training programs for entry-level workers and their supervisors. “Learning to Work

it Out” and “Managing to Work it Out” were work readiness tools for both inexperienced workers

and for front-line managers who would be supervising them. The Denver Work Initiative trained

the YODP staff in the use of the Learning to Work it Out instrument and in their “circles-of-support”

approach to helping entry-level and dislocated workers succeed in their new jobs.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

22 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

The Houston Kulick grant gave one YODP partner good experience in working with the youth in

a YODP target neighborhood; Educational Training Corporation (ETC) staff already knew the

youth, the culture of the neighborhood, and the gang pressures the youth experienced. In

Philadelphia, Aspira had decades of experience working with low- income Hispanic families and

the Philadelphia Anti-Violence Anti-Gang Network (PAAN) had comparable experience working

with African American youth. In collaboration, they provided work readiness, anger management,

and subsidized youth employment to YODP participants assigned to Aspira. In Houston, the

Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office (MAGO) offered the project resources to become aware of gang

involvements and supported outreach workers who helped recruit youth into the YODP.

The most underdeveloped relationships for all the projects were between the project and the local

school districts and with the employers. Officials in many projects reported that most project youth

had not succeeded in school, either through truancy, learning difficulties, lack of motivation, or lack

of aptitude for study. Officials also said that many project youth had been expelled from school for

behavioral reasons, so schools were not interested in their return, and that many youth had decided

not to return to a traditional school setting. 

Initially the project designs, except Philadelphia’s, understated how important it was for youth to

complete a high school education or its equivalent for finding a job. As they came to realize the

crucial importance of both the skills and the credential, the projects began to offer GED preparation

classes themselves. 

The schools were initially not responsive to inquiries, but during the project’s second year the

Denver Public Schools located two special education teachers and a counselor in the Youth OneStop center building to prepare project clients for GED examinations. In Richmond, the project

continued to provide participants with vouchers to the Sierra Adult School to prepare more intensely

for GED exams. The district, in turn, referred youth to the project whom teachers feared would drop

out of school without more encouragement. 

Seattle began offering tutoring for the GED, and then Southwest Family Services, a communitybased organization, provided a certified teacher for GED classes during the day. Using grant funds,

the Highline School District initiated an alternative charter school in 2001, located on the first floor

of the same building as the project, for all youth in the district who were two or more years behind

their age-appropriate grade level. The district admitted several project youth in this charter school.

Highline School District also agreed to offer high school credit, through their school-to-work

program, for the work readiness training project youth received from Pacific Associates. 

Philadelphia centered the project initially on the schools. But one reason the arrangement proved

unworkable was that the schools lacked linkages with the employment training and job placement

expertise within the community or with the juvenile justice system.
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 23

Several projects envisioned developing a network of employers who would be prepared to hire youth

who received work readiness preparation under the grant. Denver developed such a network early

in the project, and then found that the youth lacked skills for the jobs that were open. More

generally, the projects found that the youth were not prepared to hold a position, lacking either the

support systems, such as child care and stable transportation, or the personal maturity and skills to

meet work expectations. The approach the projects subsequently took was to assist youth in finding

entry level jobs in which they expressed some interest. The hope was that youth would remain

engaged with project activities long enough to qualify for better paying and more career-oriented

employment.

Each project was asked to use the Federal Bonding Program, an incentive program for employers

that assists ex-offenders and other high-risk job applicants secure employment through the use of

fidelity bonding. The bond provides the employer with insurance to cover any dishonest act by an

employee. Virtually no youth were bonded as part of the YODP, however. There were tensions on

both sides of the effort; project staff feared that urging employers to bond the youth would

emphasize their criminal background; employers said they did not want to deal with federal

paperwork. 

A limit to the value of leveraging resources might be the loss of the Model Communities model in

the process. Category I projects focused on neighborhoods in large cities that were characterized

as high in poverty and in crime and delinquency. Several projects lost the neighborhood focus and

others had overlapping programs. 

Philadelphia’s project focused initially on the youth in three high schools in North Philadelphia and

one in West Philadelphia. As the project evolved, youth from all over the city were being referred

to Youth Connect and were able to attend any of the 22 comprehensive high schools in the district.

It was difficult to assess how much this changed current practice. Philadelphia youth were able to

choose magnet schools anywhere in the city that matched their interests. The school district

distributed evenly the rest of the youth population among the traditional high schools, so youth

attending the four target schools may not have been from the neighborhood. 

Richmond initially focused on youth in North Richmond. The project accepted youth from all over

the city who were referred to the project by the court or probation department, however.

Both Denver and Seattle received YO funding for the youth in all their enterprise communities.

YODP youth who were eligible for additional services under YO grants could receive them. It may

not ever be possible to sort out the effects on the youth from one or more of these programs.

Training, Employment and Gang Suppression Activities

The Model Communities demonstration brought together intervention components not usually

connected. Training youth offenders and youth in danger of criminal activity with the goal of
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

24 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

preparing them for the workforce was an innovation in the care of youth offenders in all five

projects. The intensive case management the projects offered through the employment training

delivery system was also an innovation in the services offered to youth offenders and youth at risk

of criminal involvement. Probation and court staff remarked that the YODP provided every youth

a relationship with at least one additional supportive adult. Intensive case management and

employment training were the principal components of the YODP aftercare model. 

Most projects provided direct services to youth through employment and training, intensive,

intensive aftercare, and community service opportunities. Sites generally offered a similar set of

core employment and training services, even if they were labeled differently, delivered by different

mechanisms, or delivered with different degrees of internal coherence. Services provided project

participants included:

 C intake and assessment;

C case management;

C support for earning a high school diploma or GED certificate;

C work readiness and soft skills training;

C barriers-to-work removal (child care, transportation, tattoo removal);

C subsidized work experience;

C job-search support;

C job development;

C job-placement support; and

C post-placement follow-up.

Although the target neighborhoods were economically depressed, and all were in local enterprise

communities, a major benefit for the projects was that the economies of the cities where the five

Category I projects operated were strong and diversified during the demonstration period. At some

point in visiting each project, someone would say, “Getting jobs is not the problem; keeping them

is.” 

Reporting on YODP outcomes became dependent on the existence and quality of the data collection

systems each project had or put into place for the project. The YODP grant required that projects

develop a project-specific data reporting system. Model Communities cities were, at the same time,
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 25

in the process of switching their information reporting systems from the Job Training Partnership

Act ( JTPA) format to the WIA reporting format. Seattle adapted the JTPA reporting mechanism

to provide data on the YODP project. Other projects depended on various partners to produce

reports based on whatever information system format the agency was using at the beginning of the

project. This approach provided several reports, all formatted differently and with no basis for

knowing which youth in one agency report also were represented in another agency report. 

During the first year of operation, Denver’s MOWD revised its information reporting system to

prepare a report that reflected the input of its partners. In Richmond, the only data came from the

YSB records during the first year, but the WIA system was in place by summer 2001. In

Philadelphia, schools kept their own records, but reports did not separate YODP youth from others

in the district; nor did anyone keep consistent project-specific data until the project coordinator was

hired. PWDC itself was shifting to its WIA-based information reporting system, called Advocit,

but it was not operational by summer of 2001. Houston was also switching to a new information

reporting system and, when it was ready during late spring 2001, it had not provided for a separate

reporting category for youth in YODP activities. 

During the first project year, DOL requested a quarterly report of key data elements as a nudge to

the sites to collect comparable data. Project managers began to collect data on their own to respond

to these requests. Table 9 provides the June 30, 2001 data as reported by projects. 

Table 9. Reported Status of Clients on June 30, 2001, Category I Projects

Outcomes Denver Houston Richmond,

CA

Philadelphia Seattle

Enrollment Goal 300 500 200 320 166 

Total Enrollment 312 130 212 530 200

Employed 318* 88 131 36 113

Joined the Military 1 1 0 0 NR

In School 184 48 200 479 128

Work Readiness 121 67 138 184 85

Entered College 10 7 1 7 13

Incarcerated 28 3 25 16 12

Referred for Services 67 13 45 47 81

Follow-up Services 312 41 NR 244 NR

* Several youth had moved to a second or third job.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

26 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Studying large variations across projects in Table 9, it is possible to see that projects may have had

common data names, but did not always have common definitions. Recruitment in Philadelphia

involved completing a short application form whereas other projects did not consider a youth

enrolled until the file for the youth included all the needed court and school documents, parental

releases, social security cards, etc. Consequently, 286 youth who filled out the short application

form in Philadelphia declined services when they understood the program better. Richmond

reported no youth receiving follow-up services because YSB did not consider a youth “finished” at

any time during the grant funding, and the youth the city enrolled had not been enrolled long enough

to reach that stage.

The “employed” category included both subsidized and unsubsidized jobs. Denver's six-week work

crew experience meant that all enrolled youth had subsidized employment. Seattle’s graffiti

abatement project also qualified as subsidized employment. Neither Philadelphia nor Houston were

set up to offer comparable group experiences. Richmond had a strong privately funded summer

youth employment program and the city provided subsidized employment in its various departments.

Unsubsidized employment numbers, were they reported separately, would be considerably smaller

for all the projects, reflecting the difficulties youth faced, the numbers still in school during the day,

and the younger age groups from which youth were recruited or referred.

Neither Job Corps nor military options had been chosen by many Category I participants by summer

2001, partly reflecting the age of most project youth. Job Corps often required youth to leave home,

which also had been a barrier. Staff reported that the Job Corps also required youth to be off

probation or parole six months before they would be considered. Under current recruitment policies,

staff reported that the military rejected youth who had criminal histories. It also proved difficult for

youth to join if they held a GED certificate instead of a high school diploma.

Gang activity meant different things in different communities. In Philadelphia gang activity

generally was not territorial as much as related to drug-crime activity. Denver experienced an inmigration of large well-established, multi-generational gangs from the west coast, in particular, with

some local territorial youth gangs as well. Houston police estimated that about 90 percent of youth

violence was related to gang activity. Houston had monolingual Spanish-speaking immigrant gangs,

as well as gangs of American youth. 

The section of Seattle targeted for the project had experienced marked increases in gang-related

crime and violence. Some of it was traced to drug activity, but car theft was a big part of the youth

crime in the area. Gangs in the White Center area of Seattle were predominately Asian, but Hispanic

gangs also were developing as Latino families moved into an adjacent area. Youth seemed to mature

out of the gangs in West Seattle, so gangs formed and reformed as youth aged. In Richmond,

authorities had been addressing Asian and Hispanic youth gang activity in the southern part of the

city through a Safe Futures grant. The project there was to extend the effort to other parts of the

city, particularly to where African-American youth gangs operated.
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 27

While gang activity was part of the projects’ awareness, the gang dimension was rarely overt in

project programming. Gang-reduction activity through the projects stemmed primarily from

diversionary tactics. Youth were kept busy during the normal work week with a combination of

schooling, work readiness classes, subsidized employment, and then unsubsidized employment. 

 

Facilities were chosen to be gang-neutral in most projects. Philadelphia realized during the first

project year that three target high schools were in an active gang area, and court-assigned youth

from elsewhere refused to attend. Philadelphia moved many project activities to the gang-neutral

downtown office of the local workforce development council, and opened the project to other

schools within the city. In Houston and Denver, project staff met with the city/county gangreduction advisory committees.

Youth themselves were unlikely to divulge their gang affiliation. After a trusting relationship

developed, youth might inform their case managers of their gang membership or affiliation. When

Denver developed a formal GED preparation program at its youth One-Stop center, a gang reduction

curriculum was inserted into the program as an enrichment activity. Having youth all day for classes

at the center alerted the staff to the gang involvement of project participants. The Seattle project

shared a “community mobilizer” with another youth project, and this person knew the gang-involved

youth in the neighborhood. Participant recruitment in Seattle targeted leaders of these gangs,

knowing that other youth might enroll if their leaders enrolled. One aspect of Seattle’s work

readiness/leadership development training through the Metropolitan YMCA was incorporation of

the “Street Soldiers” method of reducing violence in speech and activity.

Keeping youth engaged was an issue for every project. Staff of projects were developing incentives

and awards for youth who were meeting the goals of their learning plans. Others provided gift

certificates to families who attended events planned by and for youth. Richmond also provided

incentives for good attendance with weekend leadership retreats, field trips, and tickets to

professional ball games. Those youth who seemed most easily engaged were those in projects

where group activities were more important than individual activities. Youth appeared to enjoy the

Denver work crews and the Seattle graffiti-abatement projects.

Collateral Services

All projects appeared dismayed by the deep and varied needs of project clients. There were staffing

and budget implications of realizing that maturity, academic standing, work and life skills needed

to be developed before youth could hold jobs. Several staff remarked to evaluators that “these are

the kids nobody wants.” Services for anger management, mental health or personal counseling were

beyond the project scope and, as mentioned earlier in the report, projects were resourceful in

obtaining some of these supplementary services.

Projects provided some of these services in various ways. In Philadelphia, for example, the Family

Court referred youth internally for services. Denver obtained grant funding for a substance abuse
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

28 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

counselor who worked out of the youth One-Stop center, which was funded by a combination of

funds from the YODP and a YO grant. Initially, Richmond had a certified substance abuse

counselor as a case manager. When he left, the project referred youth to a counselor who had agreed

to accept project participants under a fee-for-services arrangement. Seattle adapted an anger

management curriculum for use in its GED program. And, Houston referred youth to counselors

under a fee-for-services arrangement.

The process of meeting multiple needs demonstrated, however, the need for a more systematic

collaboration between the projects and the health and mental health systems. Some services were

obtained by special pleading, asking clinics or doctors to assist with tattoo removal and other

services. Some relationships were established with personal and substance abuse counseling service

providers who agreed to work on a fee-for-service arrangement. These arrangements were, however,

for standardized service packages that included, for example, a specified number of visits to a

counselor or a specified number of weeks in a day drug treatment program. When standard treatment

was inadequate to meet the needs of youth, case managers often were frustrated by the realization

that the youth were, for example, still using drugs and had little chance for holding a job.

Staff Recruitment

All projects had experience serving youth, and that good experience was an important boost for the

projects. All of the organizations also developed ways of assessing and shaping their own

operations during the project period. Hiring at the direct-service delivery level was needed,

however, and was a problem for most projects. Training was reported to be helpful for the projects,

but with staff turnover, awareness of the larger goals of the project was not always maintained.

Denver's Kulick grant had given MOWD the opportunity to develop a process for empowerment of

local organizations and development of good collaboration among them. This model was used for

the YODP as well. Seattle's WDC had managed other demonstration grants, and it understood their

nature and that it was expected to sustain efforts after grant funding ended. Richmond, the smallest

city in the group, nonetheless, had a city manager who served on the State WIA board. As a result,

the city was especially aware of and became involved in the transfer from the old to the WIA process

for employment and training. The city had, moreover, a good history of summer jobs programs and

youth employability skills training. Philadelphia's PWDC also had extensive experience with

welfare-to-work, and it built its services to youth upon that experience.

Directors of youth employment programs in Denver and Houston and supervisors of the project in

the Philadelphia, Richmond, and Seattle workforce development councils were all veteran leaders

in employment and training. Denver’s project manager, who was hired specifically for the YODP,

had years of juvenile justice management experience. His counterpart in Seattle was a career case

manager with King County before being promoted to a supervisor for the YODP. The WDC

leadership shared with the new staff its vision for youth employment for all areas of their

communities and how the YODP fit into that vision.
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 29

Hiring front-line staff for an 18-month-long project led to rapid turnover, which threatened the

learning process of the YODP partnerships. Richmond had a complete turnover in front-line staff

over the project’s course. Apparently, many staff began looking for stable employment almost as

soon as they were hired. Denver also lost all but one of its original front-line staff. In Seattle,

however, the front-line staff were still in place in summer 2001. The WDC staff believed that the

county plan to maintain relationships with youth after the grant convinced front-line workers that

some additional funding would be found to continue the program. Philadelphia’s front-line staff had

also changed markedly. The changes, however, had more to do with reorganization than with hiring

and retention. In Philadelphia, moreover, it took a year to hire the probation officer who was

responsible for connecting and following adjudicated youth. In Seattle, the King County Superior

Court transferred veteran case workers to the project. The director of the Community Services

Program of the King County Superior Court said it would take most of the project, if they had hired

through the court.

Project orientation, conferences, and technical assistance trained the original project staff on the

elements of the Model Communities integrated services model and provided experts to assist in their

development on-site. With rapid turnover, however, the learning did not always transfer to new

staff. It was the community-based staff who were most likely to either quit their job or move to

another position during the project. They were typically young, college graduates or had completed

some college. Several were testing the work for its career potential. Several of those interviewed

had backgrounds similar to the youth with whom they worked. They also had a vision and

enthusiasm for helping youth like their own contemporaries who did not progress out of poverty

stricken neighborhoods, as they had done. In one project, replacement hires were all much more

experienced case managers.

Organizational Learning

Leading partners of Category I sites varied in the expertise they brought to the partnership and in

their views of how leadership should be developed among partners. Denver and Houston's leading

partners had experience with youth offenders; Richmond with youth development and community

service activities; Philadelphia with the schools; and Seattle with employment and training and

youth development. A major outcome of the partnership experience was the cross-agency training

and the development of shared leadership. The Seattle experience, described earlier, fostered

learning among team members and then learning by the partnering agencies. The project model may

be replicated elsewhere in the area, if the county-appointed research team can demonstrate its

effectiveness in reducing delinquency. Denver taught a youth-coaching approach to service

providers in its youth employment network, including YODP partners. Houston’s PAYS was an

evolving effort to develop a network of youth employment service providers who would develop

a common vision and approach to youth employment and training, city-wide. 

This cross-agency learning was more limited in Richmond. While case managers shared information

that strengthened their work, partner agencies themselves were unable to resolve the fact that several

partners were not living up to their contracts. Initially, there was no mechanism in place for
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

30 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

resolving the issues until the City of Richmond intervened. Rather than empowering the remaining

partners, however, the city employment and training office believed that it needed to absorb many

project responsibilities. In Philadelphia, too, there was little initial effort to build an open

partnership among component partners, and the inability of some partners to accomplish their

responsibilities became apparent only after repeated failures to meet deadlines for project reports.

The PWDC also responded by absorbing many of the project’s functions and responsibilities. 

Target Population Recruitment

With the exception of Seattle and Philadelphia, the projects planned to recruit youth within the full

14-to-24 age range for a single program of services. As the projects evolved, however, staff learned

that the needs of youth varied, depending upon their ages. Furthermore, and to their surprise, the

projects were able to recruit more younger than older youth. The projects found that younger youth

needed more support time before they were prepared for formal work settings, and that there was

a greater urgency to get them into and/or keep them in school.

Philadelphia and Seattle had planned different strategies for older youth: Philadelphia planned to

enroll them in special classes, called Twilight classes, that met in the late afternoon; Seattle had

planned for the older youth to be served by Pacific Associates, whose main focus was to get them

into jobs and “wrap” other services around their work schedules. As its project evolved, Philadelphia

also attempted to assist youth find work that would wrap around their school schedules. Table 10

reports on the age and background characteristics of Category I recruits.

Table 10. Sources of Youth Clients in the Model Communities Youth Offender Projects

Characteristics Denver Houston Philadelphia Richmond,

CA

Seattle

Numbers 312 130 530 212 159

Referrals 185 court; 

127 recruited

 Almost all 

 recruited

179 court;

351 recruited

191 court

21 recruited

106 court

53 Recruited

Background

Diverse, mostly

Hispanic

Diverse, mostly

Hispanic

Diverse, mostly

AfricanAmerican

Diverse; mostly

AfricanAmerican

Diverse, mostly

Asian

Age Majority less 

than 18 

22-24 YODP 

only

14-23; most 

17-19

14-23; most 

16-17

122 less than 

18

Table 10 also demonstrates that the sites differed in the proportions of their youth clients referred

to the projects from courts and probation officers. In both Denver and Houston, there had been a

concerted effort to recruit youth from the target neighborhoods as well. Houston's ETC reported that

youth walked into the projects because they heard that the program would help them find work.

Denver, too, reported that youth were self-enrolling because they had heard that DAYS would help
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 31

them get a job. Denver also had made a concerted effort to make presentations at all high schools

in the target neighborhoods. In Seattle, as described earlier, gang leaders were identified by the

community mobilizer and recruited into the project, and other youth followed.

Technical Assistance

All Category I project teams participated in two YODP conferences sponsored by DOL and hosted

by Research and Evaluation Associates. One conference was in Washington, DC, in September

1999; the other was in Tampa, Florida, in February 2000. Some conference sessions were for all

categories of projects; others were for category-specific projects. The sessions addressed common

issues and questions raised by YODP project staff.

Table 11. Technical Assistance Provided to Category I Model Communities Projects

Denver Houston Philadelphia Richmond, CA Seattle

Needs assessment 

8/1999

Needs assessment 

8/1999

Needs assessment 

8/1999

Needs assessment 

8/1999

 Needs assessment 

8/1999

Performance

measurement 

1/2000

Recruiting,

processing and

serving clients 

4/2000 

Implementation 

needs assessment

5/2000

Implementation 

needs assessment

3/2000

 Bi-level case 

management

12/1999

Gang initiatives 

and aftercare 

3/2000 

Implementation 

needs assessment

6/2000

Programming and 

program

implementation

7/2000

Substance abuse

treatment and

resources

6/2000

Client enrollment 

and processing

3/2000

Programming for

14-15 year olds,

reemphasis on

school completion

8/2000

telephone

Gang initiatives

training with goals

and objectives;

juvenile justice

research findings

9/2000

Plan to serve

eligible youth and

design of a client

database

11/2000

Roles and

responsibilities

among partners

9/2000

Developing career

opportunities

(planned but

postponed)

Anti-gang activity

through the MetroGang Coalition and

DAYS programs

8/2000

Clarifying roles,

strengthening

program

components

2/2001

Implementation of

new program

design; review

performance

3/2001

Clarifying roles,

strengthening

program

components

2/2001

Projects requested or were offered assistance to improve their operations. (See Table 11for TA

activities.) Several sessions found that organizational cultures impeded efforts for cross-agency

partners to work as a team. Assistance on clarifying roles, responsibilities, and accountability paths

was important to the projects in Denver, Houston, Richmond, and Philadelphia. Seattle dealt with
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

32 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

these same issues through the intervention of the WDC planner who facilitated the staff meetings.

Seattle requested help with bi-level case management and managing services across multiple

agencies.

As mentioned earlier, several projects lacked one or another component of the integrated services

model. Denver and Houston received several technical assistance visits to help them understand and

develop programs for anti-gang initiatives. Philadelphia received assistance in understanding the

limitations of the solely school-based approach and in helping to plan for a more community-based

program. Richmond requested assistance in drug abuse intervention and treatment resources. 

Sustainability

There was good political support in all the Model Communities cities for the YODP; yet the

prospects for sustaining project activity after grant funding ended varied among them. All projects

reported that the mayors, city managers, and other government leaders were pleased to have youth

employment as a focus, especially finding jobs for the harder-to-help group of youth offenders.

For Seattle, project support had roots in the King County Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan

(March 2000). King County leadership decided that it was not in the best interests of the youth or

the county to build an additional youth residential facility. The YODP model for working with

youth offenders appeared promising to them as an alternative. The county staff has been assigned

the task of designing an outcomes evaluation process that they believe will demonstrate that the

integrated services model would be more effective in helping project youth turn their lives around

and be far less expensive to the county.

Staff at Philadelphia’s Family Court reported their dismay at the number of youth under court

supervision; 5,000 youth were under supervision yearly with an additional 2,500 returned to the

court for protection or through bench warrants. They judged that fewer than 10% of the youth

graduated from high school after returning from incarceration, and 90% of the youth returned to

court were unemployed. YODP appeared to the court staff to provide a path for these youth by

engaging them in academic activity, diploma or GED, and in assisting them to find and keep a job.

Once the project coordinator had been hired, 80% of the youth assigned to return to school were

actually doing so.

Denver and Houston planners had a vision that all youth in low-income neighborhoods would have

access to case management support for finishing their educations and assistance in finding a job at

liveable wages. They had procured grants to bring these visions into reality and had reorganized

their youth employment infrastructure to provide youth with these services over the coming three

or four years. Seeing this combination of grant funds and the new WIA youth funding as a window

of opportunity, they were building youth One-Stop centers that would continue after grant funds

ended. Staff trained under the grants to work with youth and youth offenders, in particular, were

to staff these centers. It was too soon, however, to assess how successful these efforts would prove

to be.
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 33

Aspects of every project were likely to continue after grant funding ended. Some partners would

continue to collaborate, for example, and it was likely that the court-probation and employment

training agency partnerships, which were mutually beneficial, would continue. More specifically,

court-supported services in every city would continue and allow leveraging of some services for

court-supervised youth in employment and training programs. The following is a synopsis,

community by community, of the sustainability status of Category I projects in spring 2001:

C Denver received DOL funding for an additional year of operation under the

demonstration. The partnership was expected to continue after the demonstration period.

The new MOWD executive director reported that youth programs were a model for the

adult programs, and he intended to realign the rest of MOWD to foster collaborations

similar to those generated by the new YO, WIA-youth programs, and the YODP. He

was committed to ensuring that youth offenders had access to all youth services. Partners

reported they have been able to leverage funding by using each other’s services, rather

than duplicating them. The one service that would be unlikely to continue without

special funding was intensive case management, which had proved so important with the

target population.

C Houston received a no-cost time extension for an additional year of operation under

DOL funding. Houston also had received a new YO grant, and four youth One-Stop

centers were envisioned as part of that grant. The youth offender staff expected to be

assigned to these centers after the YODP grant, so that experienced staff would be

available to serve youth offenders in each target neighborhood. Once more, intensive

case management was unlikely to continue because case loads at centers would prevent

it. The partnership of service providers had been expanded into PAYS, which included

providers for employment training, education, mental health, substance abuse, and other

services that youth might need. In the future, services would be provided on a fee-forservice basis, rather than through contracts that provided for a wide range of services.

Under PAYS, youth would receive vouchers for elements of their individual service

plans, and they were free to take those vouchers to any provider in the PAYS network.

C Philadelphia’s project remained in a developmental phase in summer 2001, and it had

received a no-cost time extension for an additional year of operation under DOL funding.

The PWDC had been working to develop networks of services within the city to which

youth could be referred. And, the PWDC was developing experience in the area of youth

employment. PWDC’s leadership reported that additional grants would be needed to

maintain the intensive case management the YODP provided. The project staff had

assembled an advisory committee. The committee included judges and lawyers from

Family Court and staff from the School District of Philadelphia and other youth-serving

community-based organizations who intended to find funding to keep in place a program

of services to the court-supervised youth. 
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

34 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

C Richmond received an additional year of funding from DOL. Staff reported that, after

the demonstration, all of its youth would be able to go to One-Stop centers being

designed around the community for employment and training assistance.

RichmondWorks staff believed that it had all the skills necessary to serve this population

without supplementary services. Community-based organizations reported that the target

population needed special care and support, and they planned to provide such care and

support using whatever funds they could find. The intensive case management that

youth received through the YODP grant was not likely to continue. Richmond reported

that it, too, would shift to a fee-for-service arrangement for youth services. Youth would

receive vouchers for services that were part of their individual plans and take them to

any service provider on a list approved by the city.

C Seattle’s project also received funding from DOL to operate an additional year. King

County planned to continue providing services to the White Center community near

Seattle, and members of the partnership planned to continue working with each other.

The County Community Service Division and the King County Superior Court had

begun a study of the effectiveness of the YODP as a step in recommending similar

programs in other parts of the county where school drop-out and youth crime rates were

high. 

SUMMARY

The Category I projects evolved over the demonstration period to incorporate all elements of the

model specified by DOL in the original project design. In the process of implementing the models,

the projects also evolved in their understanding of the needs of project youth and the requirements

of operating effective youth employment services in their communities.

During the course of the process evaluation of Category I projects, evaluators also noted:

C The use of grants and vouchers increased services for YODP beyond expectations.

C The deep needs of the youth and the large number of younger youth enrolled in the project

combined to reduce the number who were placed into full-time and unsubsidized

employment by the end of the demonstration period. 

C To a large extent, most jobs that the youth obtained were entry-level service positions, which

raised the concern that they were not moving to career-oriented positions or earning livable

wages. It will be several years, however, before it will be possible to report whether these

jobs served as an interim arrangement while the youth finished school and/or received other

needed services as they progressed toward joining the workforce.

C All five Category I projects will continue for at least another year, and several of the projects

were making more fundamental changes in their youth employment services organizations
Section II - Category I - Model Community Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 35

to continue offering services after that. The intensive case management element, however,

was the most likely aspect of the projects to be discontinued after the demonstration period.

C The project’s fundamental innovation — that of bringing the juvenile justice and youth

employment training services into collaboration — proved to be valuable for all Category

I projects. It appeared that every project would maintain this partnership after grant funding

ended.

C Youth interviewed during the course of the demonstration reported how important it was for

them to get good jobs and that it was this potential promise that served as a major motivation

for them to participate in the demonstration.

C In general, youth in all Category I projects were moving through the process of gaining an

education, working on personal and life issues, and preparing for work. To gain insight into

the long-term value of the demonstration model, it will be important for the Model

Communities project staff to monitor the ability of project participants to acquire full-time,

unsubsidized employment.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

36 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.
Section III - Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 37

Section III

CATEGORY II - EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS

INITIATIVE

Category II projects — those in the Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative — were

asked to meet two key requirements. According to the Solicitation for Grant Announcement (SGA)

issued by the Department of Labor (DOL), these projects were to:

C provide comprehensive school-to-work (STW) education and training within the juvenile

correctional facilities and

C provide follow-up services and job placement services as youth left these facilities and

returned to the community.

In addition, the DOL specified that “comprehensive services developed under this project will serve

as a model for other juvenile corrections facilities across the country.”

Ohio was the only Category II project examined in the process evaluation conducted by Research

and Evaluation Associates. As stated earlier, Category II projects in Indianapolis, Indiana, and

Tallahassee, Florida, were evaluated separately by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

While the grant was awarded to the Ohio Department of Youth Services, the project was

administered by the Cuyahoga County Department of Justice Affairs. The Ohio project consisted

of two youth offender residential correctional facilities: one run by the Ohio Department of Youth

Services (DYS) in Loudonville and the other run by Cuyahoga County in Hudson.

Although the two YODP project sites differed significantly, this section of the report, when possible,

discusses the two facilities as one project. When necessary, however, the facilities are discussed

separately.

Section Organization

Evaluators made three visits to the Ohio project to assess the grantee’s ability to address

requirements under the demonstration grant. Findings in this section consider nine areas of interest

based upon the visits:

C Planning the Project;

C Establishment of Effective Linkages and Partnerships;
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

38 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

C Organizational Issues;

C Training, Employment, Gang Suppression Activities;

C Collateral Services;

C Staff Recruitment;

C Target Population Recruitment;

C Technical Assistance; and 

C Sustainability.

FINDINGS

Planning the Project

The proposal for Ohio’s YODP was submitted by the state DYS with the intention of developing

strong STW systems in two residential correctional facilities. The grantee also proposed to support

transition of youth back into their communities with model aftercare service programs. Cuyahoga

County youth comprised the target population. Responsibility for implementing the grant was

assigned to the Cuyahoga County Department of Justice Affairs/Division of Treatment Services

(CCDJA/DTS). The project’s ultimate goal was to reduce recidivism among youth offenders within

the county. 

The grant proposal was written after an internal review of how youth transition from correctional

facilities back into the community demonstrated there was a disconnection between institutional

training and employability. According to the DYS proposal:

there are “inadequate links between the existing institution curriculum and the

curriculum in community schools; few students are prepared to find employment in

emerging technologies and occupations; there is little access to work-based learning;

and these students do not typically participate in remediation services or pursue a

coherent pathway. Many do not stay in school, and if they do, they are behind in

skills, grade level placement and credits. If employment is pursued upon return to

the community, they typically do not have core abilities to succeed in any but

minimum wage positions with little in the way of career prospects. In essence, they

do not have much hope or vision for the future.”
Section III - Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 39

The target population within the two facilities consisted primarily of youth offenders from Cleveland

and East Cleveland. While the overall poverty rate in Cleveland was reported to be 22%, the

poverty rate of households in the neighborhoods from which the incarcerated youth came was more

than 50%. In addition, the high school dropout rate in the Cleveland and East Cleveland

communities was reported to be 58% and 50%, respectively. 

Youth offenders typically came from poor, single-headed households without a member gainfully

employed, had substance abuse problems, and had failing records at school. The youth were

characterized as lacking involvement in sports, church, or other constructive outlets. While African

American youth comprised 32% of the combined population of the two targeted cities, they

accounted for 61% of delinquency filings and 72 % of youth serving in secure detention.

During the demonstration period, Cleveland’s economy was returning to robustness after years of

losing manufacturing jobs to other parts of the United States and to companies offshore. The new

economy was a mixture of the old industries and newer high technology-based industries. There

were ample jobs for youth, but in general the youth were not prepared for them. 

Project planning focused on developing the capacity for Information Technology (IT) training in

the two correctional facilities to prepare the youth for the kind of employment opportunities that

were growing in the Cuyahoga County area. Although this sharply focused approach to

occupational training did not match skills and interests of many youth, the IT training provided an

introduction to computers and computer literacy for many youth.

At the time the project was being planned, Cuyahoga County was in the process of implementing

a plan to redesign its approach to juvenile justice called “Comprehensive Strategy for Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (September 2000).” The county plan was part of and partially

funded through the state “Reclaim Ohio” planning effort. Some recommendations from the planning

process would affect the youth offender population and the plan called for a multi-agency and

community effort to provide:

C a better risk and personal needs assessment before court-assigned sanctions;

C a graduated sanctions process that reduced the number of youth assigned to secure

detention and reduced over-crowding at the YDC;

C alternative home placements for youth whose home situations placed them at risk of

court involvement; and

C a special concern to understand and reduce the disproportionality of minority youth

under court supervision and in confinement.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

40 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

For the longer term, the plan called for a thoughtful delinquency prevention program with special

provisions for youth 0-5 years old, 6-13 years old, and 14-18 years old. The delinquency prevention

plan called for efforts to strengthen the family, support core social institutions, provide for quick

intervention when delinquent behavior occurred, and to identify and control the small group of

serious, violent, and chronic offenders.

Planning was primarily inter-institutional and involved DYS, the Juvenile Court, public schools,

technical centers, faith-based service providers, and the Greater Cleveland Growth Association (the

equivalent of the Chamber of Commerce). An advisory board consisted of representatives of each

of these groups, with the DYS director as one co-chair and the director of CCDJA as the other. The

state set a goal for the project of reducing youth offender recidivism by 40%. It should be noted

that no youth or family representatives served on this committee.

The initial plan had been to work with the Indian River School and the Cuyahoga County Youth

Development Center (YDC). After funding was received, the Indian River School was dropped in

favor of the Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility (MJCF) because Mohican had the space for a

computer center.

Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facilities: Mohican is a state-run, all-male, high-security facility

for youth offenders with substance abuse problems or who had committed a serious crime or a series

of lesser offenses repeatedly. The institution is three hours driving time from Cleveland and situated

in the town of Masillion, Ohio. At the time of the demonstration, 80% of youth serving in the

facility were members of minority groups, 91% had substance abuse problems, and 90 % had been

suspended from school at least once.

The facility includes four living units, each with about 40 beds in a dormitory and two isolation

units. There also is a gym and a recreation room. Most of the corridors are dimly lit and

unattractive, but the classrooms are brightly lit and full of resource materials. The institution has

a strong management information system.

Youth Development Center Facilities: The YDC is a county-run co-educational facility for youth

offenders 12-18 years of age. YDC youth are mostly convicted of minor offenses, mostly male, and

mostly members of minority groups. The center is about one hour’s driving time north of Cleveland

in the town of Hudson, Ohio, in Summit County. The facility operates under the auspices of the

Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners through the Department of Justice Affairs (DJA). At the

time of the demonstration, youth serving at the facility had been directly referred by the Cuyahoga

Juvenile Court. Sentences were open-ended, with discretion left to the DJA. The usual sentence

was for six months.

The on-site school, Harry Eastman, operates as part of the Cleveland City Schools. At the time of

the demonstration, it had a full complement of teachers for traditional, special education, and
Section III - Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 41

vocational education classes. Its computer lab had 22 computers; the room was bright and full of

resources.

Establishing Effective Linkages and Partnerships

The original partnership plan included DYS, Cuyahoga DJA, the Ohio STW office and Region 8

STW office, Youth Visions, Inc., and the local office of the Education Development Center (EDC)

headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. By the time the proposal was funded, the Region 8 STW

office was disbanding for funding reasons and its representative on the proposed advisory committee

had withdrawn from the project.

Responsibility for the Cleveland School District was moved from the School Board to the Mayor’s

Office, and the STW curriculum in the Cleveland Schools was dismantled. The school district was

divided into six with the sixth district comprised of alternative schools. In East Cleveland, Shaw

Alternative School, established in fall 2000, planned to begin an Information Technology STW

curriculum. By spring 2001, it still had not been implemented.

When the proposal was funded, DYS prepared memoranda of understanding with CCDJA to

implement the project and to establish the IT program at YDC and at the Mohican facility. DTS was

to provide aftercare, IT training, and follow-up services to youth returning to the county from

incarceration at YDC. 

Youth returning to the community from Mohican were supervised by the regional DYS parole

officer. Youth received work readiness, IT training, and placement services provided through

CCDJA contractors. When youth completed their parole under state supervision, they were referred

to CCDJA contractors for case management. 

The project staff and DYS met monthly to exchange information and approaches to youth

development. The partnership led to sharing resources in substance abuse treatment. They agreed

to use a common risk-management instrument, the Youth Offender-Level of Service Inventory (YOLSI). They also developed a common aftercare relapse prevention support group for youth from

both Mohican and YDC based on the Therapeutic Community Model. And, the project staff began

developing an integrated case management planning process modeled on the DYS integrated case

management approach.

The partnership evolved as the full range of youth needs became more apparent. DYS received

Tobacco Trust Fund money to provide extra services to youth offenders. CCDJA wrote a series of

grants that provided new partners and about $1 million in additional funds and in-kind services for

YODP clients. Grants came from:

C the 21st Century Fund,
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

42 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

• Juvenile Justice Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JJAIBG),

C Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF),

C Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and

C the Byrne Law Enforcement Fund.

With partial DYS funding and $450, 000 in other grant funds, CCDJA contracted with Lutheran

Metropolitan Ministry Association (LMM) for work readiness, life skills training, pre-employment,

job development, and case management services at various organizations in Cleveland. It also

contracted with Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU) for work readiness, life skills training, IT

training and case management at the East Cleveland Community Center and at its west county site.

Both LMM and YOU were mandated to collaborate with the county or state probation officers and

other staff at DTS for coordinating case management, education, and substance abuse treatment.

Some grant funds were used to pay all subsidized employment stipends. Byrne Law Enforcement

funds supported two job developers at CCDJA (who were also the IT instructors for youth under age

16) .

HUD funds were used to provide alcohol and drug treatment services through Catholic Charities and

support for the Alternatives to Street Crime program. Juvenile Justice Accountability Incentive

Block Grant (JJAIBG) funds were allocated to the Bridge School (an alternative school) IT program

at Mt. Sinai Ministries and to Fellowship Ecumenical Ministries (FEM). The FEM was a coalition

of Black Baptist churches that had a “one church-one child” adoption program.

The Cuyahoga County Children’s Comprehensive Services (CCS) agency received a contract to

deliver intensive family weekends every other weekend at YDC. CCDJA provided in-kind support,

and CCS obtained vans to bring the families to YDC where family groups and the incarcerated

family member received emotional therapy for negative family behavior patterns, communication,

and substance abuse issues.

A proposal had been prepared by CCDJA, with letters of support from the DYS leadership, to the

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to obtain funds for substance abuse treatment service alternatives

that would include both intensive out-patient and short-term residential care. There was a special

need for additional short- term residential care for those who had not succeeded during intensive

day-treatment. Without such an alternative, and to get additional treatment, youth had to violate

their probation and be returned to six months of confinement.
Section III - Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 43

CCDJA also applied for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds, again with DYS letters of support,

for additional services. The plan for expanding the partnership depended on the successful outcome

of these pending grants. The hope was to add Sylvan Schools, Goodwill Industries, Vocational

Guidance Service and Cuyahoga Community College to the partnership to increase opportunities

for education, work experience, and subsidized employment.

Organizational Issues

Education

The STW curriculum began in February 2000 at the Mohican facility and in mid-April 2000 at the

YDC. The first youth released from the facilities to the community for aftercare services occurred

in June 2000. EDC received a contract to prepare STW curriculum materials for the two schools

and gave an orientation to STW approaches to education. 

The Harry Eastman School at YDC operated under the Cleveland Public Schools, using its mandated

curriculum and standards. The YODP funded Eastman’s STW IT program. The Cleveland Board

of Education provided the wiring, and the grant provided computers and a “smart board” ( a large

white screen connected to a computer for displaying information and graphics and for writing as on

a chalk board). The teacher’s salary came from the YODP grant.

The school at Mohican was a registered charter school under the auspices of DYS, but it was not

accredited by the state. Mohican’s IT program was designed to operate in three classes a day, each

lasting one and one-half hours. Courses were coordinated with substance abuse treatment sessions,

GED preparation, and interventions designed to change the behavior of youth and help them reorient

their lives after release. The IT teacher’s salary came from the YODP grant. Youth were unable to

earn credits toward high school graduation because the school was not accredited.

The major innovation proposed by the grantee was implementation of a STW model, more so than

the addition of IT classes. While teachers and administrators reported they were pleased with the

computers and the addition of a technology instructor, these new classes served more to augment

traditional school approaches, rather than to represent a reorganization of the curriculum to

accommodate a STW design.

Because there were no direct accountability paths linking the two institutions to CCDJA, the agency

was virtually powerless to insist that the correctional facilities rethink their curriculum. The

dismantling of the STW office in Cleveland and the lack of STW in East Cleveland essentially

defeated implementation of the core of the Category II model — a STW curriculum that was to be

supported when the youth returned to their home school districts.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

44 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Moreover, the relationship between the project and the Cleveland Schools was not well-developed

and had implications for youth returning to Cleveland. Youth generally were returning to traditional

school settings upon release, despite the presence of alternative school programs in the district. The

enrollment limit at alternative schools was generally met in September, so youth returning to the

community over the course of the school year were usually unable to gain admission. 

Traditional schools were reluctant to admit or re-admit these youth because they were typically

under-skilled for their age and before their incarceration had poor records of attendance and

behavioral problems. Returning to school was, however, a condition of probation. One traditional

Cleveland high school of several hundred students had admitted seven or eight students returning

from incarceration, which the school’s assistant principal thought was an excessive number for the

school to handle. These students, he said, required too much time and teachers were not social

workers. 

Nathaniel Hawthorne, a new alternative school operating on the western side of Cleveland, had

agreed to accept youth on a rolling basis during its first year of operation. By spring 2001, several

youth returning from Eastman School at YDC had been admitted and were doing well. The school

enrolled 125 youth, all achieving below grade level, and attempted to have them complete two

grades in one academic year by attending classes Monday through Friday and on some Saturdays.

Youth were closely monitored by the school, probation officers, and case managers. The school was

committed to using interactive, hands-on teaching methods and to building a sense of community

among youth, teachers, cafeteria workers, office staff, and custodians. Efforts to include parents

were not very successful, however. School leaders, nonetheless, hoped that participation of parents

would improve.

In East Cleveland, one alternative school, Shaw Alternative High School, intended to establish a

STW curriculum, but had not been able to do so. Shaw was a new alternative school beginning its

first full year of operation in fall 2000. At the time, the school was still completing renovations to

a church school it used during the week and was still establishing systems for school functions and

activities. A small number of youth had returned to this school rather than to a nearby traditional

school. The alternative school’s vision was to assist youth, who were generally under-skilled for

their age, to catch up to their grade-appropriate level on time to complete upper division work at the

nearby traditional school.

There was only one vocational education school in Cleveland, and parents needed to intercede on

behalf of their children, if they were to be enrolled. Parents of incarcerated youth were not likely

to do this, however. The IT training the youth received at YDC and Mohican was seen as a way to

prepare youth for business classes in traditional high schools. The training, moreover, provided

basic preparation for other high school classes, training these youth might have missed if not for the

project. IT training, envisioned as a vocational preparation, appeared more as a strategy to “level

the playing field” for youth whose families and neighborhood centers lacked technology available

to other students.
Section III - Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 45

Aftercare

The project provided eight assessment specialists, or case managers, for YODP youth returning

from YDC. In addition, it provided two job developers, two family therapists, and one anger

management-probation specialist. There also was another staff member who served as a transition

specialist at the YDC facility. None of these positions was supported directly with YODP funds. 

Transition back to the community began 90 days after incarceration, a time when a youth’s needs

were better understood, and when staff were more knowledgeable about how a youth was

responding to interventions by the project. Each Wednesday case managers went to YDC to meet

with youth entering the 90-day period and who would be assigned to them upon release. The

meeting, which also included YDC staff, addressed behavior issues, offenses committed, school

experiences, and established goals for youth leaving the facility. 

Thirty days before release, the supervisor of case managers returned to YDC to meet with youth

who would be released that month. The agenda covered the school transition, special needs and

concerns of the youth. 

When youth were released, the van bringing them back to Cuyahoga County came to the CCDJA

office at 1736 West Third Street in downtown Cleveland. There they completed paperwork and

signed releases so the staff could obtain information from schools and elsewhere. They also were

enrolled in an employment and training program (CCDJA for 12-15 year olds; LMM and YOU for

16-18 year olds). 

Each youth received a monthly calendar listing their daily activities. There were activities planned

for the youth every day after school, Monday through Thursday. The activities also included drug

tests and schedules of other meetings. After processing was finished, the youth waited for a parent

or guardian to pick them up. Daily activities began the following day.

Four rules were specified for youth as part of their aftercare services:

C first, curfew began at dusk;

C second, youth were required to attend school and assigned meetings;

C third, youth were prohibited from using drugs or alcohol; and

C fourth, youth were required to wear “appropriate dress” when they came to the

CCDJA office and they were not allowed to bring friends with them. 

Case managers met assigned youth one or two times each week at school. In addition, case managers

took turns visiting the LMM and YOU sites every day activities were scheduled. This meant that
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

46 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

youth were observed by a case manager three or four days a week and that the case managers knew

all youth participating in the project. If a youth was absent from an assigned activity, the case

manager followed up with home visits and contacted the probation officer. Despite this system,

attendance by youth varied, especially for IT training sessions.

Younger youth came to CCDJA Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday for pre-employment and IT

training. Older youth were assigned employment training on these days at LMM or one of the YOU

sites. Youth were tested weekly for drugs and anger management was offered weekly as well.

(Drug testing was mandatory; anger management was required, if assault had been part of a youth’s

offense.) 

Youth received work readiness training during their first month in the project and staff hoped that

the youth would then find jobs and start work. LMM offered job placement services for the older

youth and two job developers at CCDJA offered job placement services for younger youth. (The job

developers at CCDJA were also the IT instructors.)

Based on discussions with project participants, case managers recognized that young women in the

project needed special time and attention. Consequently, case managers designed “Young Women

of the Future,” a 12-week discussion program for groups of eight. Discussions addressed questions

and issues that were raised about sexuality, drug use, and personal abuse. Attendance was voluntary.

Youth returning from the Mohican facility returned to the care of the youth development specialist

and job developer at the regional DYS office. The parole officer was a veteran drug intervention

specialist, and he and the job developer had worked together for several years. The case manager

received a case within 10 days of the youth arriving at MJCF. He visited with the youth during his

monthly visits to the facility as well as with parents before release.

Sixty days before release, the case manager in Cleveland and the Mohican staff developed a unified

case plan for the youth’s release process. The YO-LSI risk-assessment instrument determined some

aspects of the release plan. After their release, youth were contacted daily during their first five

days home. For the next 60 days, a youth who was considered high risk was contacted four times

a week; otherwise he was contacted twice a week. Unless there was trouble, the level of contact

dropped after 60 days.

After a youth completed parole, which could be six, nine, or 12 months, he received no further

follow-up from DYS. If the case was confidential, no notice was sent to LMM or YOU when a

youth’s status changed; otherwise, the youth continued to receive services at LMM or YOU. In

many cases, youth were not referred by DYS to the county for services.

All aftercare specialists were concerned there were few options for a youth whose home situations

were detrimental to the developmental process of aftercare. There were no half-way houses or short-
Section III - Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 47

term foster care provisions for these youth. The DYS staff wished that youth could receive high

school credit for work they accomplished while incarcerated.

There were tensions between the staffs at YDC and CCDJA. The YDC program was considered a

training school program while the CCDJA saw the failure to provide therapeutic interventions to

youth as a missed opportunity. More specifically, anger management, substance abuse and other

personal problems were not dealt with until youth were released into CCDJA’s care. No youth on

medication were assigned to YDC, but youth with attention deficit disorders were not referred for

services or went without medication. 

The CCDJA staff were specialists with master’s degrees and advance certifications in areas of

special education, substance abuse, family therapy, and other similar specialties. Only three YDC

staff members who were engaged in the release process were trained at the master’s degree level;

none of the direct service staff was trained at this level. 

The difference in approaches to youth corrections became more evident as the CCDJA staff

attempted to inaugurate the integrated case management process, which was similar to the one used

by DYS. The CCDJA staff wanted release plans to reflect assessments of a youth’s needs for

specialized services and interventions with the family. The YDC staff, however, did not share this

urgency. One veteran CCDJA staff member described the relationship between the two agencies as

traditionally awful, although getting better from both sides.

Category II projects required the development of operating partnerships, especially when youth

were being released back to their communities. In general, the Ohio project experienced

relationship-building issues during the second year of the grant that projects in other YODP

categories had addressed earlier. Although the partnership improved communication among agencies

offering services to the same target population, some issues remained to be addressed. There were,

for example, communication loops that left one or another party in the dark, depending on the

subject of the communique and the staff members’ place in the network.

The core innovation for Category II projects was to be the insertion of a STW curriculum in youth

correctional facilities. By spring 2001, however, the Ohio project did not have in place a strong

STW curriculum. Organizational innovations primarily involved aftercare services offered by

Cuyahoga County, which made the Ohio project more like a Category I project than a Category II

project.

Training and Employment Activities

Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility: Half of the youth at Mohican were in remedial classes;

25% were in GED preparation classes; and the remaining 25% were working at grade level.

Typically, fewer than half of these youth returned to formal education in any form after release from

the center.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

48 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Each of the eight social workers at Mohican had an average case load of 20 clients. Four case load

supervisors and a psychologist were on staff, and a psychiatrist was on call for counseling and to

provide medication as needed. 

IT classes began at the facility in April 2000. The youth were divided among the three classes being

offered. IT classes at the facility focused on IT careers, career pathways, Windows 98 set up, and

introduction to Microsoft, including Word, PowerPoint, Access, Excel, and Paint. Students also

learned keyboarding and how to install software. As part of the introduction to IT careers, a guest

speaker came to the facility to talk to the youth. The major drawback of the training system was that

youth arrived and left the facility throughout the academic term.

Since installation of the IT course at Mohican in April 2000, 68 youth had completed training. Not

all project youth, however, were taking the IT classes. Some lacked the educational skills to benefit

from the training while others were not interested in the course. At the time of the third evaluation

site visit in spring 2001, 38 youth were from Cuyahoga County and 23 were actually in IT training.

After Release, MJCF: Sixteen youth had been released from Mohican and returned to Cuyahoga

County since the beginning of the IT classes. Youth released from the facility were provided

employment and training services through LMM and YOU. 

The DYS parole officer was a veteran substance abuse counselor who coordinated aftercare services.

In addition to case management, the DYS aftercare specialist coordinated substance abuse

interventions for the youth with the county’s DTS and organized a relapse prevention effort that

included both Mohican and YDC youth (the only treatment that served older and younger youth

together). The aftercare specialist coordinated treatment services with the LMM case manager.

At LMM, youth received one month of intensive services, including employability training, twice

a week for one and one-half hours a day. Youth also were assisted with interpersonal relationships,

pre-employment skills, job development skills, and job placements. And, they received from LMM

follow-up after job placement and case management after their parole was completed. YOU

provided youth with an IT course one day a week. Youth were paid $5.50 per hour for attending the

IT class and received $100 if they stayed with it for 60 days. Both LMM and YOU provided

monthly reports on services delivered, attendance, and reasons for terminations of participants. 

Many youth reported that they were not interested in IT careers and that few jobs they held used the

skills they were taught at Mohican. Some youth also resented the time required to take the bus to

class when they were not interested in the material being taught. Other youth said the IT class

covered the same material taught at Mohican. Staff, nonetheless, encouraged youth to continue with

the IT classes so that they did not lose the skills they had acquired. The YOU teacher reported there

was no way to know which students had covered what material. Staff members were working on

ways to let the YOU instructor know what the youth were taught at MJCF.
Section III - Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 49

All those serving youth maintained reporting systems. CCDJA also was developing an integrated

project information reporting system that would make it possible to see what services a youth had

received and to track her/his progress through the program.

There also were communication problems between assessment specialists and the LMM program

staff. The assessment specialists sometimes would excuse a youth from class, but not tell the LMM

staff about it. These communication problems were on-going throughout the project and documented

in LMM monthly reports. 

Youth rarely found work in IT. Arrangements with IT employers failed to develop, partly because

many youth were too young to work full time. Some youth also lacked strong enough IT skills to

hold IT jobs. LMM staff reported that even after six weeks of employability training, it was still

hard to find jobs for youth. Although DYS had used the Federal Bonding Program in the past, it did

not use it during the YODP.

None of the youth in the project had connected to the Job Corps, which had been recommended in

the SGA by DOL. Job Corps staff reported that they allowed youth to apply only after they had

completed six months of parole, although this restriction was not formal Job Corps policy. Further,

mandatory drug testing discouraged some youth from applying. Table 12 reports the status of

project participants on June 30, 2001, for both the Mohican and the YDC youth. 

Table 12. Status of Clients, Ohio Project, June 30, 2001

OUTCOMES

Enrollment Goal 525

Enrolled 170

Referred for Services 114

Work Readiness Training 168

In School 170

Employed 44

Joined Military 0

Entered College 1

Receiving Follow-up Services 0

Incarcerated 12

Youth Development Center: All youth at YDC were enrolled in the Eastman School, a sixth

grade to twelfth grade school operated by the Cleveland City Schools. At the time of the first
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

50 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

evaluation site visit in May 2000, the computer laboratory had not been completely set up, nor had

any youth been released to the project in Cuyahoga County. By spring 2001, an IT class was being

taught at Eastman School five days a week, and teachers had begun to ask the IT teacher for

assistance in designing their class plans to include IT exercises.

The IT teacher at YDC emphasized mathematics and science software in her computer classes

because these were the curriculum components the youth were most likely to fail during the standard

testing sequence prescribed by Cleveland Schools. In addition, she taught youth how to make

posters, newsletters and announcements for various YDC activities. Computer art classes also were

introduced to the youth. One of these was “Beautiful Woman,” an exhibit of autobiographical

information and computer-generated pictures of female participants.

Some youth had begun to come to the computer lab on their own and to work on individual projects.

The teacher did not think they were operating at the level of sophistication needed for employment

in IT fields, however, but she did think that they had become comfortable with computers and would

be able to use them in high school classes when they returned home.

YDC also was attempting to provide more connections between youth and their parents and between

the youth and their aftercare specialists. Cuyahoga County Office of Childrens’ Comprehensive

Services provided parents with transportation to visit their children while they were incarcerated.

The office also offered Cuyahoga Family Workshops at YDC for youth and their families on visiting

days. 

DTS placed an assessment specialist at YDC, who served as a bridge between youth there and the

aftercare program in Cleveland. He identified the needs of the youth, calculated their risk profiles,

and helped them determine their goals. These were shared with the case managers before youth

were released into their care. The YDC superintendent reported that the presence of the assessment

specialist on campus was creating better communication about aftercare and better understanding

of how to help youth successfully transition back into their communities. 

With the assessment specialist on campus, the practice of developing a release plan for each youth

was being resumed. Toward this end, the aftercare specialist had developed a three-month planning

template to use with each youth. Before release, all segments of the program were considered and

designed into a youth’s release plan, including unfinished business and the youth’s educational,

mental health, and special needs. The hope was that the release plan would lead to inter-agency

cooperation to provide treatment before and after a youth’s release.

After Release, YDC: By spring 2001, 109 youth had returned to Cuyahoga County from YDC.

After release most YDC youth were assigned to LMM, YOU, and DTS for services. The youth

visited assessment specialists in the downtown Cleveland DJA building. If youth were under 16

years of age, they also received their IT training at the downtown site while older youth received

these services through YOU and LMM.
Section III - Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 51

YOU Eastside provided an IT training course once a week and YOU Westside provided job training

to older youth. CCDJA hired two job developers who offered employability training, IT classes,

and community service opportunities to 12-15 year olds. In these sessions, youth were taught how

to complete applications and prepare resumes. Bus passes were given to them to come to the DTS

office and also to older youth to get to the YOU service sites.

Assessment specialists located community service placements for the youth in Habitat for Humanity,

child care centers, and other nonprofit and community agencies. Once the youth were placed, they

received minimum wage pay for 15 hours per week. 

If youth worked full time, they were excused from the IT class; if they worked part time, they were

required to continue to attend the class. Although younger youth were supposed to come to the DTS

office for IT classes, they were not considered in violation of probation if they: went to a YOU or

LMM office for class on a day they did not have to see the assessment specialist; received anger

management training; or took a drug test.

Most youth were younger than most workforce participants. Because of this, it will be several years

before project designers are be able to judge the impact the project’s intervention had on the kind

of jobs the youth will obtain when they become age-eligible. The status of these youth participants

as of June 30, 2001, is reported in Table 12 (page 49).

Collateral Services

Youth received work clothing as needed, as well as bus tokens to pay for trips to program events.

Although youth were referred for substance abuse interventions, there did not seem to be welldeveloped relationships with providers of other service providers, such as those offering mental

health, tattoo removal, programs that youth might need. Through a grant procured by the DTS,

however, youth were beginning to receive personal counseling through a family therapy model.

Early in the project, staff met with representatives of several IT employers in the Cleveland area who

promised positions for some youth after they completed training. In the early months of the afterrelease portion of the project, however, many youth seem uninterested in IT careers and generally

were not eligible for such positions in any case. Instead, they were placed mainly in entry-level jobs

with grocery stores, fast food restaurants, and similar service-delivery companies.

Staff Recruitment

The project was administered by the director of DTS, which is part of Cuyahoga County’s DJA.

Day-to-day operations were the responsibility of a senior case manager who served with

CCDJA/DTS before the grant was awarded; his background was in business (accounting). The

project manager was hired for the YODP. Her education was in criminal justice.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

52 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

The two correctional facilities each hired an IT instructor for the project. The teachers had worked

at their respective schools before the grant was awarded. At Mohican, the teacher was teaching

business education when she applied for the position. The YDC teacher once had taught at the

facility and was rehired using grant funds.

The EDC firm provided STW training for teachers and administrators at each school, but the training

occurred before the IT teacher at YDC was hired. The teacher implemented a curriculum based on

what she had read. The two IT teachers were to have collaborated in developing a coordinated

curriculum for the project, but they had been able to meet only once because of travel difficulties.

One site was three hours south of Cleveland and the other was one hour north of the city. Bringing

the two teachers together regularly proved too difficult. 

The Mohican teacher was a veteran staff member, and she had visited several youth facilities that

had IT training programs. She had been able to establish a program for youth to gain experience with

computers, software and some Internet applications, although the facility had no connection to the

Internet.

Case managers assigned to serve youth returning from residential confinement were hired using

funds other than those from DOL. The LMM and YOU instructors, case managers, and job

developers also were hired with funds other than those from DOL grants.

Target Population Recruitment

Youth were recruited into the program by virtue of their assignment to one of the residential

facilities. Evidently, youth initially assigned to the aftercare program did not understand that they

were to become part of a highly structured training experience. Motivating them to participate

proved to be an on-going issue. Even after youth were made aware of their involvement with the

project, many reported that they were not interested in participating and thought that they were being

punished by being required to attend.

Teachers reported they were concerned about the pattern of service delivery resulting from

incarceration and release practices. Youth arrived on a rolling basis at YDC, and they were released

on a rolling basis to the community, depending on their behavior, grades, and other factors.

Teachers said they never knew for how long they would have a youth in class.

Aftercare classes and services also received youth released on a rolling basis and staff did not know

for how long they would have the youth in their care. The effect, despite the effort to design a

curriculum either at the residential facility or in the community, was that there was no provision for

youth to complete their training once probation was over.

The IT training seemed to be a mismatch for many of these youth. Their academic skills were

gauged by one teacher as averaging about the fourth-grade level, so it appeared that IT training for

many youth was irrelevant. The staff at YOU depended on assessment specialists to get youth to
Section III - Category II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 53

attend the program that had been designed for them. In general, the youth disliked the trips to

downtown Cleveland and the continuous drug monitoring. Youth said they were told that they

would be eligible for jobs providing wages of $8.55/hour with the training they received, but they

found that they did not qualify for jobs that paid that much.

Youth often did not attend classes. Meanwhile, trainers grew impatient because there were other

youth in the community seeking slots. Assessment specialists, however, wanted the trainers to keep

the slots open for YODP youth as they attempted to re-engage them in training. Staff reported that

many parents also offered no help in keeping their children engaged with the program.

Staff at CCDJA believed, however, that the youth needed the IT skills to survive in high school as

well as in the job market. It appeared that the youth were making progress in using the computer

for word processing, spreadsheets, and some desktop publishing tasks. With the overwhelming

majority of project youth under the age of 18, it was hard, however, to judge the long-term

employability of these youth based on their level of computer skills in spring 2001.

What youth generally wanted were jobs, and they tended to find them on their own. Once they were

off probation or had completed requirements for a high school diploma, they no longer returned to

the training program. Some also were concerned that subsidized jobs the project helped them get

would be cut off after probation. There was no assurance additional grant funds could be found to

continue youth subsidies.

Technical Assistance

The project’s education and training staff attended the September 1999 and the February 2000

technical assistance conferences sponsored by DOL. The staff also participated in two conference

calls for Category II site leaders held in 2000 and in early 2001. These calls allowed DOL, the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice (DOJ),

and site leaders to share what they knew and to address challenges in a collegial setting.

The project’s leadership also received semi-weekly telephone or e-mail inquiries from the technical

assistance team at Research and Evaluation Associates. Based on issues that surfaced during

telephone conferences, a special Category II workshop was scheduled for March 2000 in Lakeland,

Florida. The workshop focused on issues involving data files, entrepreneurship, and aftercare. The

workshop included a visit to the Avon Park Youth Academy, another Category II project site, and

to the offices of STREET Smart, the organization responsible for the aftercare component.

Technical assistance events for the Ohio project included these:
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

54 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

C In August 1999, a site visit was made by a Research and Evaluation Associates

technical assistance specialist to the Mohican and YDC facilities for needs

assessment, to meet all the staff, and to gather baseline data.

C In May 2000, Ms. Doris Humphrey facilitated a workshop on implementing a

School-to-Work System at both the Mohican and the YDC facilities.

C In October 2000, Dr. Troy Armstrong gave a workshop on the Intensive Aftercare

Program Model to all the YODP leadership in Cuyahoga County. 

C Dr. Armstrong returned to the project with two colleagues in spring 2001 to provide

training on the integrated case management model, reducing the disproportionate

minority confinement of youth, and on gender-based programming for female youth

offenders.

Before each TA events, extensive conversations were held with the project’s leadership and TA

consultants, so that the workshops were tailored to the specific considerations of the project.

Sustainability

Ohio’s demonstration project served as the catalyst for a major restructuring of the Department of

Treatment Services and the beginning of a major restructuring of the relationship between the two

correctional facilities and the home aftercare programs. Project staff members were confident that

county and city WIA funds would continue to support the expanded services to youthful offenders

put in place during the demonstration. They also believed that foundations would continue to

support supplementary services provided youth through the project.

Other elements of the Ohio project also benefited from the project and, it appears, will continue after

YODP funding ends. More specifically:

C IT classes should continue to be taught because of the funding that was provided to

initiate them.

C The aftercare portion of the project was being amplified and will be sustained

through a combination of WIA and foundation grant funds.

It should be noted, however, that the STW curriculum specified by DOL for Category II projects was

not implemented and that project staff saw no need for it. Instead, the staff focused mainly on the

aftercare portion of the Category II model. Perhaps this was because project staff were not in a

position to affect school policy. If a STW system is ever implemented, it might be best for the

project staff to consider training youth for occupations that would better engage their energy and

attention.
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 55

Section IV

CATEGORY III - COMMUNITY-WIDE COORDINATION PROJECTS

Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) grantees in six medium-sized cities were awarded

about $300,000 each to focus on high poverty and high-crime communities. The design for the twoyear project was for grantees to work with youth service providers to develop linkages that would

strengthen the coordination of prevention and recovery services for youth offenders. More

specifically, Category III grantees were tasked to consider ways to:

(1) build upon existing employment and training, recreation, conflict resolution, and other

youth crime and gang prevention programs;

(2) establish alternative sentencing and community service options for youth offenders,

especially those who have been gang members; and

(3) establish or continue gang suppression activities.

The Statement of Work issued for Category III projects by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)

required grantees to design their projects in ways that would:

C enhance existing education, training and employment services within their communities

for youths who were either in-school or out-of-school;

C establish linkages and partnerships with other service providers to develop a seamless

system of services that addressed the needs of the targeted youth population;

C reduce school dropout, gang involvement, drug and alcohol sales and abuse, teenage

pregnancy, and other activities that lead to criminal behavior;

C increase the number of youth entering full-time permanent employment, completing high

school, entering institutions of higher learning, completing training, returning to school,

or entering alternative learning facilities;

C establish linkages with the local school system, law enforcement, social services

agencies, community based organizations, the Workforce Investment Act system and

other services for youth;
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

56 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

C include local community residents, parents, youth, local police, parole system, guardians,

businesses, schools, faith-based organizations, etc. in the development of decisionmaking involving the initiative;

C expand existing program services and initiate new employment, training, education, and

support services;

C use the Federal Bonding Program and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit program to

facilitate employment for project participants;

C maintain a quality staff;

C develop with partners and community members a well-conceived implementation plan

with emphasis on development of a system that addresses the needs of the targeted youth

population; and

C provide core services in a facility that was clean, attractive, well lighted, fully equipped,

ventilated, with easy access for clients, and large enough to accommodate some staff

from some partnerships and most of the project's core activities with a welcoming

atmosphere.

Section Organization

To assess the ability of grantees to address these requirements, evaluators made three visits to each

of the six Category III projects. (See Table 3, page 7.) The findings in this section consider nine

areas of interest based upon the visits:

C Planning the Project;

C Establishment of Effective Linkages and Partnerships;

C Organizational Issues;

C Training, Employment, Gang Suppression Activities;

C Collateral Services;

C Staff Recruitment;

C Target Population Recruitment;
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 57

C Technical Assistance; and

C Sustainability.

Reports for each Category III project, which consider the areas of interest more fully, can be found

in Appendix E.

FINDINGS

Planning the Project

Evaluation site visits for the six Category III projects found that planning for the projects by grantees

was adequate. In formulating their plans for the demonstration projects, evidence suggests that

project planners designed their projects to accomplish the goals specified for Category III projects

and to meet requirements set forth in the DOL Statement of Work.

Table 13 indicates planning responsibilities initiated for the six projects. Four of the projects

involved two or more agencies in the planning phase. All of the projects included both public and

private agencies and organizations as collaborating or supporting partners, although the level of

involvement varied among projects. It should be noted that participation of youth in the planning

for the demonstrations also varied among the six Category III projects. In all, youth and their

parents were asked to participate at only two project sites — Bakersfield and Rockford.

It was difficult to say with certainty, however, how important youth and parental involvement in

youth-oriented projects had been as a contributing factor in the success of the projects. The project

in Rockford, which involved youth in the planning, was strong primarily because it was well

established while the project in Bakersfield, which also included youth in the planning phase,

struggled. Toward the end of the demonstration period several projects began to include youth on

their advisory boards, perhaps because of WIA requirements that emphasized training of youth and

mandated that local Workforce Investment Boards form youth councils.

Program managers in Knoxville, Pensacola, and Rockford also served as members on youth councils

in their areas and were able to capitalize on their involvement. Both Knoxville and Rockford

received funds through local Workforce Investment Boards. Rockford’s program manager also

served as a member of the state youth council.

Establishment of Effective Linkages and Partnerships

To a large extent, and with only minor exceptions, the six Category III projects followed the original

project designs they outlined in their applications for the demonstration grants. They also attempted

to establish important linkages in support of project goals. All projects were to build upon existing
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

58 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. Table 13. Planning for YODP Grants, Category III Projects Target Site Bakersfield, California Clifton, New Jersey Knoxville, Tennessee Minneapolis, Minnesota Pensacola, Florida Rockford, Illinois Project Name Youth Goals Job Ready Project NOVA Fresh Start Building Success YouthBuild Lead Partner(s) Employers Training Resource (ETR) 1. Workforce Development Center 2. Passaic Vicinage Probation Division 1. Knoxville/Knox County Community Action Committee (CAC) 2. Metropolitan Drug Court (MDC) 3. Knoxville Community Development Corp (KCDC) 4. District Attorney Minneapolis Metropolitan Employment and Training Program (METP) 1. Escarosa Regional Workforce Development Board (RWDB) 2. Office of Juvenile Studies, University of West Florida (OJS) 1. Rock River Training Corporation 2. YouthBuild Rockford Managing Agency ETR Passaic Vicinage Probation Div. KCDC Employment Action Center OJS YouthBuild Rockford
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 59

systems, which included both core and collateral services provided youth. Some existing systems,

however, were more developed than others and, as a result, were able to progress more quickly

toward meeting their objectives and goals. 

Strong systems, including well-established partnerships, already were in place in Minneapolis,

Knoxville, and Rockford. Implementing the projects in these locations required only the addition

of workers to supplement much of the work already being done through collaborative networks.

Systems in Bakersfield, Clifton, and Pensacola, however, were less fully developed. This situation

caused the projects to struggle to gain and maintain momentum from the beginning. As a result, the

lead agencies of these three projects found it difficult, in varying degrees, to recruit both partners

and clients. 

Schools as Partners

Recruiting schools as partners posed a special problem for project officials in Pensacola, apparently

because of the school system's policies on removing disruptive students. Likewise, the Minneapolis

and Knoxville projects, for political and other various reasons, struggled to establish formal

partnerships with the traditional school system. Project officials in Clifton, however, developed

close ties with public schools, although the project discontinued its partnership with the Paterson

Adult School in July 2000 when two teachers who had been hired for the project left.

There were some encouraging signs by spring 2001, however. Pensacola had moved aggressively

toward establishing a partnership with a charter school in its target area. The project planned to

supply a full-time vocational education teacher to the school to help about 20 students learn the

construction trades. In Minneapolis, the project was in the process of establishing a partnership with

at least one high school. As a result, some students were funneled into Fresh Start. And in

Knoxville, Project NOVA had received an $80,000 grant through the local Workforce Investment

Board to collaborate with local schools, the Young Women’s Christian Association, and the

University of Tennessee. The project also sought to identify and provide services through the four

partners to about 350 needy youth. 

Also, by spring 2001 the Bakersfield project had refocused its efforts that included both providing

services to youth while also creating and strengthening partnerships with service providers that had

expertise in meeting the needs of youth. As a result, Youth GOALS was working more closely with

established agencies to provide youth job referral services, GED training, and mental health services.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

60 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Working with the Juvenile Justice System

Several projects successfully worked with juvenile justice systems in their areas to recruit clients.

Referrals to the projects frequently were made by judges and probation officers. Of the six

Category III projects, these projects were more directly involved with the juvenile justice system:

C In Pensacola, the project's lead agency also was responsible for a medium-security

confinement facility for youth. The design of the project was to expose youths in the

facility to the Building Success project in hopes that they would enroll in the project

when they were released from confinement. At the time of the third evaluation site visit

in May 2001, however, only a few youth had participated after their release.

C In Minneapolis, project officials worked to build a partnership with the local mediumconfinement facility, which they considered an important possible source of clients.

Referrals also came from the city's truancy team, diversion programs, juvenile and drug

courts, and alternative schools.

C In Clifton, project officials also were probation officers who fed clients into the project.

C In Knoxville, project officials once served as the Truancy Center staff, before

responsibility for running the Truancy Center was reassigned to the police department.

As a result, the project benefited from its well-established relationship with officers who

ran the Truancy Center. And, project case managers continued to have access to

vulnerable youth. Youth picked up for truancy were assessed by the Truancy Center

and, if appropriate, were funneled into the project. 

Recruiting Employers

The six projects encountered several barriers involving partners that hampered their ability to serve

the targeted youth. Many employers in most locations, for example, appeared unwilling to hire

youth who had criminal records or lacked skills and education. Other employers considered project

participants only for low-paying and menial jobs, justifying their unwillingness on their low

educational attainment and low-skill levels. Staff at several projects also reported that employers

generally misunderstood the workings and requirements of the Federal Bonding and Work

Opportunity Tax Credit programs. Many employers, for example, incorrectly believed the programs

required large amounts of paperwork. 

Perhaps the most promising, and potentially long-term, job prospects for project participants were

at those projects that directly offered project clients vocational training, especially in the

construction trades or other specialized areas. The skills that were taught generally were in highdemand and paid relatively good wages, compared to those found in service industries, such as at

fast-food restaurants.
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 61

Especially worth noting were efforts in Rockford, which offered training in building houses and

manufacturing, and in Pensacola, which also partnered with Habitat for Humanity to provide project

participants training in home construction. Rockford hoped to expand its efforts in the fall of 2001

by offering clients a computer technology track that would teach them how to repair computers.

Pensacola also planned to add a full-time vocational education teacher to teach construction skills

to about 20 students at a charter school in the project’s target area. 

Providing Services to Clients

To a large extent, the lead agencies of the six projects served as the primary coordinators and

managers while also providing some basic services to clients. Their coordination responsibilities

generally included recruiting employers and other partners that provided various basic training,

educational, and collateral services to project clients. Evaluators visiting the demonstration projects

generally found that the efforts by all the lead agencies fulfilled their coordination responsibilities

as specified by the DOL Statement of Work. 

The cities where the six projects operated generally also had many similar programs aimed at youth,

both former offenders or those who were at risk of becoming court involved. In theory, programs

that work together, and despite redundancies in their services, often create a synergy that magnifies

and intensifies a community’s attempts to serve youth. When possible, the demonstration projects

attempted to take advantage of existing programs and services to supplement their efforts. In

Knoxville, for example, churches and other agencies were active in the target areas and offered

youth diversionary and aftercare programs. Minneapolis also had an array of available programs

aimed at youth. The YMCA offered memberships to clients of the Bakersfield and Rockford

projects. It appeared that the communities offering the least number of youth-oriented programs and

services were Pensacola and Clifton. 

Table 14 (page 62) outlines the division of responsibilities among partners at the six projects. The

lead partner at all six projects was responsible for intake and assessment, case management, soft

skills training, job search support, job placement, and post-placement follow-up. Other services,

including academic and collateral services (barrier removal such as tattoo removal), generally were

provided by other partners or agencies. Both Rockford and Pensacola projects provided vocational

training.

Organizational Issues

The importance of strong, clear, and consistent leadership from a central organization, as well as

willingness to share it with partners, cannot be dismissed. These elements give direction and

coherence to projects and programs. In general, the six Category III projects offered such

leadership, although some experienced difficulties in building momentum and then sustaining it. 
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

62 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Table 14. Service Providers in Category III Projects

Service Bakersfield,

California

Clifton,

New Jersey

Knoxville,

Tennessee

Minneapolis,

 Minnesota

Pensacola,

Florida

Rockford,

Illinois

Intake and

Assessment

ETR Probation

Division

Project

NOVA

EAC OJS YouthBuild

Case

Management

ETR Probation

Division

Project

NOVA

EAC OJS YouthBuild

Diploma or

GED Help

Other

Agencies,

Schools

Other

Agencies,

Schools

WIB,

Pellissippi

State

EAC Other

Agencies,

Schools

Other

Agencies

Soft and Life

Skills

Training

ETR Probation

Division

WIB,

Pellissippi

State

EAC OJS YouthBuild

Barrier

Removal

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

Vocational

Education

Other

Agencies,

Schools

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

OJS YouthBuild

Job Search

Support

ETR Probation

Division

Project

NOVA,

WIB

EAC OJS YouthBuild

Job

Placement

Support

ETR Probation

Division

Project

NOVA,

WIB

EAC OJS YouthBuild

Postplacement

follow-up

ETR Probation

Division

Project

NOVA

EAC OJS YouthBuild

Substance

Abuse and

Person

Counseling

Other

Agencies

Probation

Division,

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

Other

Agencies

YouthBuild

and Other

Agencies
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 63

It appeared, however, that success of the six projects depended less upon the nature of leadership

than the particularities of place and circumstance. One critical factor, for example, was whether the

organization running the project was well established in the community. (This is discussed further

in the Lessons Learned chapter.)

One other aspect that influenced the success of the projects' ability to deliver benefits to clients

concerned location of project facilities. Ideally, facilities are convenient and accessible to clients.

The locations of five Category III projects, to a large degree, were conducive to the efficiency

and effectiveness of their operations. These were Bakersfield, Clifton, Knoxville, Minneapolis, and

Rockford, which were in close proximity to the target populations. The projects were either within

or on the fringe of targeted neighborhoods and provided participants easy access to project services.

The location of the Pensacola facility, however, was the exception. It was on the suburban campus

of the University of West Florida about 10 miles from the target population. This posed a major

barrier to recruitment of youth. Many project participants found it difficult to find transportation to

the facility. The problem persisted until student caseworkers volunteered to drive clients to and

from training. 

There were, however, some advantages to having the project situated on the UWF campus. The

campus was considered “gang neutral” territory and it had a well-equipped wood working facility

for clients to use. It appeared, nonetheless, that location hindered the Pensacola project as it sought

to serve 45 clients a year. This situation was about to change in the spring of 2001 as the project

worked to establish a partnership with a charter school in its target area.

As specified in the Statement of Work, the projects generally were operated in facilities that were

clean, attractive, well lighted, fully equipped, ventilated, and provided participants easy access.

They also adequately accommodated staff and some partners as well as core program activities.

And, they generally presented a welcoming atmosphere to youth.

Training, Employment, Gang Suppression Activities

The most successful models for building competencies to prepare youth for life, worthwhile work,

and transition into careers are those that have the proper mixture of several key elements. These

components include:

C community-wide collaboration;

C employment and training programs; 

C alternative sentencing and community service programs; and

C anti-gang initiatives.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

64 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

In general, evaluators found that the efforts of the six Category III projects made important strides

toward creating significant and effective amalgams of these components. As a result, the six

projects helped improve the lives of the youth they reached and served in their communities.

Community-wide Collaborations

Some projects were uncertain about whether their efforts should focus more on building

partnerships and linkages or helping place clients into jobs. In general, all projects initially believed

that their projects would be evaluated primarily on their ability to find jobs for clients. This

misunderstanding changed somewhat as the projects progressed and became better educated and

more oriented toward the demonstration project’s objectives and goals involving partnerships.

Evaluators found that those projects that emphasized job placement, or delivery of services, at the

expense of the more important task of building and enhancing partnerships were generally less

successful than those that attempted to balance these efforts. Projects that had difficulties were

Bakersfield, Clifton, and Pensacola. By spring 2001, however, Bakersfield had taken steps to

balance its approach to include both providing services to clients and establishing strong

partnerships with other agencies and organizations. Also, Pensacola had refocused its efforts toward

establishing a partnership with a charter school and to more fully integrate its project into its

aftercare program. The change should help the Pensacola project improve recruitment. 

Employment and Training Programs

In addition to building and enhancing partnerships, the six Category III projects also provided some

basic services to clients as a way to better prepare them for continued education, jobs, and careers.

More specifically, the services that were provided sought to increase the number of youth entering

full-time permanent employment, completing high school, entering institutions of higher learning,

completing training, returning to school, entering alternative learning facilities. It appeared that for

the most part the services that the projects provided clients were adequate to help them develop

skills, knowledge, and competencies.

In general, the services provided directly by the agencies running Category III projects were

designed to prepare youth for several skills. The services were intended to help them:

C prepare for increased personal or job responsibility;

C interact better and become involved in their community;

C develop support systems that included families, peers, schools, and employers;

C develop new resources; and
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 65

C assist them in developing their abilities to lead happy and productive lives. 

To reach these goals, each of the six projects provided clients:

C assessment, classification services;

C individual case management that incorporated family and community perspectives; and

C links to social and employment networks and resources.

All of the projects generally offered clients intake and assessment, case management, job search

support, job placement support, and post-placement follow-up. With the exception of Knoxville,

all of the projects directly offered clients pre-vocational skills and life-skills training. Both

Rockford and Pensacola also offered vocational training programs to clients. In general, clients

needing specialized help, such as drug or alcohol counseling or tattoo removal, were referred to

partners or other agencies providing these services.

Case workers at all projects spent a large amount of their time attempting to help qualified clients

find appropriate employment. They noted serious, and what they considered unanticipated,

problems in doing this. These problems included the lack of skills, poor attitude, lack of motivation,

and lack of educational attainment among many project clients. The distance to good paying jobs,

which increasingly were found outside inner-cities and in the more-distant suburbs, also dissuaded

many project clients from seeking work, the case workers pointed out. 

Placing clients in jobs indeed proved difficult for all six projects. Although the economies of the

areas where the projects were situated were generally good throughout the course of the

demonstration, many good-paying jobs required well-educated and skilled workers. Many project

clients, however, were unskilled youth. In addition, in Minneapolis many clients were recent

immigrants who had not yet developed adequate English-language skills.

A challenge for all projects was to find effective ways to provide remedial writing and mathematics

skills training to help youth become more employable. In Pensacola, for example, helping targeted

youth become employable proved a monumental problem for both the project and other agencies.

Many youth who had been released from confinement had only third-grade skills and were reported

to need special education classes.

A key problem at the Pensacola project was what to do with those clients under 18 who rejected

formal schooling and had low aptitudes, but were prohibited or discouraged from seeking

employment. Officials estimated that 35 to 45 percent of youth involved in the juvenile justice

system there faced these problems. A strategy that emerged late in the project combined vocational

and academic training at a charter school in the project’s target area.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

66 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Alternative Sentencing and Community Service Programs

The demonstration projects served as alternative sentencing or community service programs in

varying degrees. The Knoxville program, for example, received from juvenile courts a large

number of youth who entered Project NOVA to complete their GEDs as an alternative to lock-up.

The project, however, worked with the courts to first decide which youth were suitable for the

project. Some youth also were referred to the project to perform community service.

In Minneapolis, the project increasingly became one of the city’s diversion programs. As a result,

the project by the spring of 2001 received about 72 percent of its clients from juvenile and drug

courts. Case workers there believed that the power of the courts gave them more clout to require

clients to attend training.

The Building Success program in Pensacola operated two tracks. One track was for youth from its

aftercare program and the other was for youth serving at the Blackwater confinement facility. The

two groups were segregated, however, and not allowed to interact. At one time, juvenile judges

were ordering youth to Building Success, but only a few had arrived in 2001. Several times

probation officers also referred youth to the project who violated their probation. Youth in the

program had the opportunity to work with Habitat for Humanity as community service.

Clifton’s project had the goal of providing services for up to 300 youth on probation. Probation

officers funneled clients to the project where they also could perform community service. Rockford

targeted only youth who were at risk of criminal involvement and required potential trainees to apply

for the program. The project also required trainees to perform weekly service projects in the

community. And, in Bakersfield the project took probation and court-ordered youth as well as youth

who were at risk of court involvement.

Anti-gang Initiatives

A major requirement for YODP grantees was to establish or continue gang suppression activities.

The reluctance of youth to identify themselves as gang members, combined with strong anti-gang

efforts in some cities that had driven gang activity underground, made this difficult to do. This

especially was the case in Pensacola, Knoxville, and Minneapolis. As a result, this was an aspect

of the project that was not fully developed. Several projects, however, pointed out that the services

they offered served as important anti-gang efforts by keeping youth engaged in constructive

activities. 

Gang activity, nonetheless, affected many of the projects significantly. In Bakersfield, for example,

the high level of gang activity in the target area affected project outcomes because some youth were

unwilling to travel to a project facility that was situated in a rival’s territory. To counter this effect,

case workers attempted to meet students in relatively safe spaces, such as in schools, where they

provided counseling and other services. The threat of gang violence also affected a client's access
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 67

to public transportation in neighborhoods where many youth lived. Both Pensacola and Minneapolis

projects, however, operated in parts of the city that were generally gang neutral.

Project Outcomes

Table 15 (page 68) presents an overview of outcomes resulting from the efforts of the six projects.

It should be noted that a complete assessment of the outcomes was not possible. A lack of a uniform

reporting system, which was not a requirement of the grant, made it difficult for evaluators to piece

together an accurate count of dispositions/outcomes. The data reported in the table represents a

compilation of information provided by each project as well as data collected by evaluators during

their site visits and from other reports. 

It also should be noted that only one project, Knoxville, extensively targeted the Job Corps as a

possible source of training for clients. In all, 24 of Project NOVA's clients had joined the Job Corps

by July 2001. Projects that primarily received clients through the justice system — Pensacola,

Minneapolis, and Clifton — had not focused either on the military or on Job Corps as sources of

training because the organizations placed restrictions on offenders. The armed services, in general,

reject youth who lack a high school diploma. They also severely restrict enlistment of those with

GEDs or who have criminal records.

Collateral Services

In the case of Category III projects, collateral services are services for clients other than soft skills,

pre-employment, basic, vocational, and educational training. These services, for example, included

tattoo removal, help in finding adequate work clothes, and counseling for personal and family

problems. In general, the six Category III projects were not equipped to provide collateral services

and chose instead to refer clients who needed them to other more-specialized agencies. 

There were some exceptions, however. YouthBuild in Rockford and the Probation Division, which

runs the project in Clifton, offered substance abuse and personal counseling to clients. And, almost

universally, caseworkers used their personal transportation and personal time to help clients obtain

driver's licenses, birth certificates as well as to attend training sessions and job interviews.

Staff Recruitment

The level, intensity, and quality of services offered clients in support of employment and training

programs depended greatly upon the capabilities, experience, and enthusiasm of staff members.

Therefore, it was important for the projects to recruit staff members who were both knowledgeable,

energetic, and enthusiastic about their work. In general, evaluators found that the staff members of

all six projects met these standards. The evaluators also noted that quite often the staff members

went above and beyond the call, spending their own time helping clients with personal problems,

obtaining vital documents, and driving them to and from training and job interviews.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

68 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. Table 15. Status of Clients, Category III Projects Outcomes Bakersfield, California (7/23/01) Clifton, New Jersey (8/24/01) Knoxville, Tennessee (6/30/01) Minneapolis, Minnesota (7/24/01) Pensacola, Florida (6/30/01) Rockford, Illinois (8/21/01) Enrollment Goal None set 300 None set None set 45 90 Total Enrollment 427 198 207 151 40 88 Dispositions Unsubsidized employment 51 25 74 59 22 35 Joined the military 0 0 3 0 0 0 Dropped for non-participation 0 NR 0 22 12 NR Returned/remained in school 4 24 115 2 22 1 Entered college 7 1 6 0 0 5 Completed education NR 10 19 3 4 24 Incarceration 77 18 11 12 6 2 Joined Job Corps 0 3 24 0 0 0 Moved NR 3 9 Unk Unk 8 Enrollment in Pre-employment and Educational Training NR 121 40 151 3 3 Enrollment in GED/Other Academic Education NR 5 12 36 est. 5 65 Referred for other services 124/mo. 21 104 87 26 51 In process of being assessed 0 NR 21 NR NR 0 Receiving follow-up services 90/mo 183 186 59 19 88 NR: Not Reported
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 69

Evaluators identified several patterns concerning the recruitment of staff members by the six

projects. These included, in general:

C Grantees used YODP funds to add staff to existing organizational structures. Doing this

ensured continuity within the organizations and that pay and responsibilities were

commensurate with other workers holding similar positions. Most of the projects added

either one or two full-time positions for the demonstration project.

C The projects’ recruitment processes were often affected by local labor market conditions.

In some instances, for example, the low unemployment rate made it difficult to hire

highly qualified personnel for the projects. One project position in Pensacola was

discontinued after project officials were unable to fill it. The Bakersfield project as well

had difficulties filling a counselor’s position. Several other projects were forced to hire

relatively inexperienced, but usually committed, younger workers.

C Older, experienced staff members working with well-established organizations that dealt

with youths appeared to have less turnover and to be more effective in dealing with

clients. The Knoxville staff served as an example of how experience, knowledge, and

continuity among a staff can enhance a project's effectiveness. 

C Project coordinators at all projects were seasoned and experienced. 

C Staff turnover appeared to be a distraction for several projects. In Minneapolis the

project coordinator left after a year as did the project coordinator in Pensacola. Key

members in Clifton, Bakersfield, and Knoxville also resigned and required replacement.

Target Population Recruitment

Each project targeted clients differently and received them from a variety of sources. The juvenile

justice system served as a primary provider of clients in Bakersfield, Clifton, Minneapolis, and

Pensacola. Both Knoxville and Rockford, however, focused primarily on recruiting youth who were

at risk of court involvement. In Knoxville, a large number of clients came through the Truancy

Center while clients in Rockford were recruited by distributing flyers door-to-door and by word of

mouth in the project’s target neighborhoods.

Evaluators found that projects dealt primarily with younger youth who were under 18. These were,

for example, Bakersfield (75%), Pensacola (78%), and Minneapolis (60%). They also found that

project officials often had to compete with other youth-oriented programs for clients. Probation

officers who had power over clients often weighed the advantages of assigning youth to the

demonstration projects instead of to other programs that provided similar services. This especially

was the case in Minneapolis where there were many similar programs that targeted youth.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

70 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Table 16 (page 71) presents a general, although incomplete, demographic portrayal of Category III

clients. A uniform reporting system was not in place to provide sufficient data for analysis.

Therefore, it was impractical in this report to discuss whether clients who sought project services

were more likely to experience positive outcomes than those who were referred to the project

through the juvenile justice system or who participated reluctantly. 

Anecdotal evidence collected from project counselors who served with some projects (Knoxville

and Minneapolis), however, suggested that youth who volunteered for the projects were somewhat

more eager to attend training and seek employment. It also should be noted that the data in the

table were collected both by evaluators during their site visits and from information that the projects

reported to the technical assistance team at Research and Evaluation Associates.

Technical Assistance

In accordance with its contract with DOL, Research and Evaluation Associates was not initially

authorized to conduct more than an initial visit to Category III projects. Subsequently, authorization

was given for an additional technical assistance site visit to each Category III project. During the

course of the demonstration, Category III projects did receive technical assistance during two

conferences that were held in Washington, DC, and Tampa, Florida. Research and Evaluation

Associates also held scheduled bi-weekly telephone conversations with the projects. Technical

assistance also was provided via telephone and e-mail when projects requested it. In addition, the

team collaborated with the National Youth Employment Coalition (NYEC) to arrange for

specialized technical assistance that was delivered by NYEC consultants. The consultants facilitated

on-site sessions for Bakersfield, Clifton, and Rockford projects. (The Final Report on Technical

Assistance provides more information.)

Table 17 (page 72) shows dates and services provided to projects by the Research and

Evaluation Technical Assistance Team.

Sustainability

The possibility that the projects would be unable to obtain funds to continue their operations after

demonstration grant funding created anxiety among staffs at several Category III projects. Even

the projects that appeared to be the most secure and had the greatest chances of being sustained

expressed this. In the case of Knoxville, for example, the program manager at one point was

uncertain whether to continue accepting clients into the project because he feared funding would end

when clients were in the middle of training. In Clifton, funds for the project's educational

component ran out and the project ceased providing that service.

In general, the anxiety expressed by the projects was understandable. Accepting funds may prove

beneficial in the short run, but in the long run may place what has become a worthwhile service in

a precarious position. In short, it was difficult for projects to fully come to grips with the fact that
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 71 Table 16. Demographics of YODP Participants, Category III Projects Demographic Information Bakersfield, California (07/23/01) Clifton, New Jersey (6/30/01) Knoxville, Tennessee (10/3/00) Minneapolis, Minnesota (7/24/01) Pensacola, Florida (6/30/01) Rockford, Illinois (8/21/01) Number enrolled 427 198 207 151 40 88 Gender Males 57% (298) 82% (163) 69% (121) 73% (111) 93% (37) 72% (63) Females 43% (129) 18% (35) 31% (54) 27% (40) 7% (3) 28% (25) Race White 23% (80) .01% (3) 66% (116) 17% (26) 53% (21) 14% (12) Black 22% (78) 70% (139) 31% (54) 70% (106) 40% (16) 81% (71) Hispanic 49% (174) 27% (52) .5% (1) .1% (1) .5% (2) 6% (5) Native American 0 0 .5% (1) .6% (9) 0 0 Asian 0 0 0 .5% (7) 0 0 Biracial/ Other 6% (20) .01% (2) 2% (3) .1% (2) .3% (1) 0 Unk .01% (2) Ages 13 to 17 years old 75% (316)* 17% (35) 41% (71) 60% (90) 78% (31) 22% (19) 18 to 25 years old 20% (82)** 82% (163) 59% (104) 40% (61) 23% (9) 78% (69) Unknown 5% (29) H.S. Dropouts NR 88% (175) 52% (91) 45% (68) NR 86% (76) Offenders 49% (204) 100% (198) 68% (119) 72% (108) 100% (40) 44% (39) Gang Affiliated 6% (25) NR NR NR NR Unk (Client numbers are reported in parentheses) NR: Not Reported * Clients were between 14 and 19 years old ** Clients were between 19 and 24 years old
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

72 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. Table 17. Technical Assistance Provided to Category III Sites Bakersfield, California Clifton, New Jersey Knoxville, Tennessee Minneapolis, Minnesota Pensacola, Florida Rockford, Illinois 8/1999 Needs Assessment by TA team 8/1999 Needs Assessment by TA team 8/1999 Needs Assessment by TA team 8/1999 Needs Assessment by TA team 8/1999 Needs Assessment by TA team 8/1999 Needs Assessment by TA team 8/2000 TA workshop Topics: Team building; maintaining partnerships; engaging community; engaging hard to serve youth; engaging parents 10/2000 TA workshop Topics: Building community partnerships; job development; engaging employers; relationship management 9/2000 Bi-level case management workshop Topics: Bi-level case management approach; perspectives for front- line service providers; assessment planning and client capacity building; delivering a dynamic case management program 2/2000 Two staff members participated NYEC training in Baltimore, MD. Topics: Engaging employers, establishing business opportunities 2/2000 Two staff members participated NYEC training in Baltimore, MD. Topics: Engaging employers, establishing business opportunities 3/2000 Bi-level Case Management workshop Topics: Bi-level case management approach; perspectives for front- line service providers; assessment planning and client capacity building; delivering a dynamic case management program 8/2000 NYEC sponsored Nick Briggs from Gulf Trades Center to provide TA on Case Management
Section IV - Category III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 73

the YODP was a pilot project, an experiment so to speak, that was designed to provide lessons,

rather than serve as the core of a new full-fledged program.

Further confusing the matter was the stated goal that projects should seek ways to sustain the

services once the pilot ended. There was no easy solution to this situation, perhaps other than

educating the projects early on about how to find ways to seek out future funding streams and the

importance of building strong links and partnerships.

By June 2001, DOL had announced that it would provide additional funds to four of the six

Category III projects so that they could continue operations for another year. The projects were

Bakersfield, Knoxville, Minneapolis, and Rockford. Although it was not refunded, Pensacola

requested and received a one-year no-cost extension, which would allow it to continue operations

through the summer of 2002. In the end, sustaining the project after grant funding ended posed a

significant problem only for Clifton. 

Plans for sustaining the projects varied among the six Category III projects at the time of the third

evaluation site visit. These were the thoughts of project officials in the spring of 2001 about the

prospects for continuing the project after the demonstration grant funds ended:

C Bakersfield: Project officials attempted to build contacts with various agencies to ensure

continuation of the project. Although there were no other funding streams to ensure

continuation of the project, project officials were searching for additional funding

sources, including through local Workforce Investment Boards.

C Clifton: Project officials were not optimistic about continuation of the project. By

summer 2000, the project had severed its ties with the Adult School. A year later, it had

just begun making connections with the Workforce Development Center for possible

additional funds. Funding constraints and other pressing matters, especially the attrition

of probation officers, had placed project continuation low on the priority list. 

C Knoxville: Continuation of the project after grant funds ended was not a problem. The

project staff was part of a large well-funded community agency. Project staff had

secured additional grants through the local Workforce Investment Board, U.S. Housing

and Urban Development, and other sources that would allow the project to continue.

C Minneapolis: Sustainability was not a problem, primarily because the project's lead

agency was part of a large well-established non-profit organization that offered many

different youth services throughout the city. The project had been integrated into the

existing organizational framework. Continuation of the project required only a

minimal amount of additional financial support. The project's parent organization

was working with the city’s government to secure additional funds, including those

offered through local Workforce Investment Boards.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

74 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

C Pensacola: University of West Florida officials were committed to binding the Building

Success project with its Advanced Aftercare program and the Blackwater confinement

facility after grant funds ended. Officials anticipated that the university would receive

additional funds through other grants to support the project.

C Rockford: YouthBuild, a well-established and successful program, was certain that it

would adapt components of the demonstration project after grant funds ended.

YouthBuild receives about $5 million annually from grants and in-kind support.

SUMMARY

At the end of the two-year demonstration project, most of the Category III projects were well poised

to build on what they had accomplished and to continue into the future. All of the projects had

assembled capable and hard working staffs and had developed generally workable and efficient

systems for delivering basic services to clients. And, to a large extent, the projects had met the

DOL goal of enhancing existing education, training, and employment services offered in their

communities. 

The projects that received additional demonstration funds or no-cost extensions also had another

year to improve on what they were doing. Their new task was to create additional partnerships, to

develop further those that already existed, and to refine their organizational, operating, and feedback

systems that they had installed as a result of the grant program. It appeared that if they took these

tasks to heart, they would be able to serve and help an even larger number of youth while moving

their projects forward toward sustainability.

The staffs of the six Category III projects should take pride in knowing that their efforts during the

past two years — both those that were successful and unsuccessful — have made significant

contributions to the development of more effective ways to lead troubled youth toward worthwhile

lives, productive work, and long-term careers. That was no small accomplishment.
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 75

Section V

LESSONS LEARNED

The Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) was still evolving when this report was

written. Seven of the 12 projects evaluated by Research and Evaluation Associates over the past two

years had been refunded to continue operations for another year. With the exception of Clifton, New

Jersey, the other five projects, which did not receive new funds, had received no-cost extensions to

continue through the summer of 2002. (It should be noted that the Clifton project had expended its

funds fully by the end of the grant period and, therefore, was ineligible for an extension.)

Only when the projects have ended and enough time has passed to examine their long-term

outcomes will it be possible to state more explicitly and confidently what lessons actually were

learned from the demonstration projects. Attempts to assess results too soon would be simplistic

and, perhaps, counterproductive. 

It is possible at this time, nonetheless, to tentatively identify and discuss several factors that appear

to have contributed to the success of the projects. It also is possible to consider several barriers that

appear to have hindered the projects to work effectively. It is important to keep in mind, however,

that gains in several projects occurred by learning from efforts that sometimes were unsuccessful.

For the time being then, the focus of the Lessons Learned section of the report will have to remain

on promising practices that hold potential for similar future projects.

This section consists of three parts:

C The first part discusses nine components that Research and Evaluation Associates used

to gauge the progress the demonstration projects were making toward meeting their

objectives and goals. 

C The second part discusses how contextual aspects affected implementation of the

various demonstration projects.

C The third part offers a summary and brief discussion of how the demonstration project

has served to further organizational learning. 

Public Management Model

During the demonstration effort, as a result of learning from the project sites and analysis by

Research and Evaluation Associates and DOL, a structured organizational model of public

management was developed. The model identified nine components that helped gauge the effort and

progress the demonstration projects were making toward meeting their objectives and goals. The
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

76 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

model was based on both qualitative and quantitative data the evaluation and technical assistance

teams collected during interviews, site visits, telephone calls, and from reports the projects

produced. 

The nine components formed the basis for DOL’s early footprint for effective practices for a second

round of demonstration projects that started on July 1, 2001. The model appears below in Table 18.

A short discussion of each indicator then follows.

Table 18. Public Management Model

Indicator of Success Criteria for Gauging Progress Toward Goal

1. Developed a Well-conceived

 Plan

C Program has a clear and focused vision and mission.

C Program goals and objectives are realistic and measurable.

C Stakeholders, including community partners, family

member representatives, and front-line staff are involved

during program development and implementation.

2. Established Partnerships with

 the Juvenile Justice System C Grantee is experienced in working with the Juvenile Justice

System.

3. Collected and Maintained

 Data

C A system for collecting and reporting program information

is available and utilized.

4. Developed Community

 Support/ Network

C Program is supported by youth and family serving agencies

including CBOs, faith-based organizations, and public

service agencies.

5. Grantee Was Involved

C Grantee is the lead agency, actively providing direction and

coordination for the project.

C Grantee involvement and support is continuous.

6. Connected to Workforce

 Development and Juvenile

 Justice Systems

C Grantee coordinates with and utilizes resources available

through the Workforce Development, Juvenile Justice, and

Health Care Systems.

7. Leveraged Resources Through

 Collaboration and

 Partnerships

C Project effectively identifies and utilizes other resources and

funding streams to support project goals.

8. Continuous Improvement

 System 

C Project conducts self-assessment and actively seeks and

accepts available technical assistance.

9. Shared Leadership and

 Information Sharing

C Decision making and information is shared with

stakeholders.
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 77

1. Well-conceived Plan

Projects that have well-conceived plans are more likely to succeed. More specifically,

demonstrations must:

C have a clear and focused vision and mission;

C have realistic and measurable objectives and goals; and

C involve stakeholders, including community partners and front-line staff, in program

development and implementation.

In general, well-conceived action — or implementation — plans require involvement of various

stakeholders who first must reach consensus on what a project’s objectives and goals should be.

Once this is accomplished, implementation plans must delineate tasks to be accomplished and

designate persons responsible for the tasks. They also must establish time-lines and benchmarks as

well as identify expected outcomes. In doing these things, the plans serve as “living” documents

that are revised, updated, or expanded as the projects progress and learn from their experiences,

whether successful or unsuccessful. 

Category I Projects

Three Category I projects began their activities with a clear vision, which sustained their efforts

through the implementation process. Project staff in Denver, Houston, and Seattle understood what

were their goals for the projects and also how the projects fit into the larger vision their communities

had developed for youth employment services.

In Philadelphia, the vision for the project came from a small number of school officials and was not

well-connected to goals DOL had set for the demonstration. Lacking direction, project leaders

continued to struggle to align the project with an achievable vision. In Richmond, communitybased partners and the city did not share a common vision for youth. The denouement of the

struggle between the two occurred when the city took over project management and became the

primary deliverer of services.

Several Category I projects were unclear about the nature of a demonstration. Initially they were

unaware that the demonstration required them to develop all the major components of the integrated

services model. Others struggled with how they would be evaluated, assuming that the major

assessment of their programs would be tied to a particular outcome, such as the number of youth

enrolled and served or the number of youth holding jobs at the end of the demonstration period.

When it became clear that many participants were too young to be working full time, the projects

feared that their efforts would be discounted.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

78 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Program goals evolved to some degree in each project as staff became better acquainted with the

youths’ needs and the opportunities to serve them better. The projects added more educational

services once they realized how difficult it would be to place youth without a high school education.

The award of Youth Opportunity grants to two communities also meant that in the case of those

projects more services became available to YODP youth. In general, the projects struggled to assist

youth with deep and special needs such as those involving drug treatment, support for teen parents,

and similar services.

A task for all projects was developing a shared vision among partners. Many partners had worked

with each other in previous efforts to serve youth, but the YODP partnership also required that they

develop common terms and definitions, overcome some local agency operating cultures and

procedures, and agree on ways to engage project youth.

All Category I projects experienced good local support and several had developed a broad network

of stakeholders. In general, project advisory committees consisted primarily of partners’

representatives. But Denver, Houston, and Richmond also formed larger networks of youth service

providers who were beginning to broaden the options for serving targeted youth. 

Category II Project

The Ohio Category II project was well-planned. Its plan was rooted in an assessment of the

disconnected relationship between residential correctional facilities and the youths’ home

communities. In retrospect, project staff recognized that the plan was too complex for a two-year

demonstration that involved: two correctional facilities, one a state facility and the other a county

facility; two municipalities; two school districts; and youth who spanned a wide age range and had

multiple and different needs.

Category III Projects

To a large extent, the planners and managers of Category III projects understood and attempted to

incorporate into their projects practices and principles that have been shown to reduce youth

delinquency and crime, while also developing the potential of youth to lead happy and productive

lives. In this sense then, the six projects demonstrated that they had “a clear vision” for their efforts.

To reach their goals, all grantees designed their projects as enhancements to existing programs.

As in the case of Category I projects, there was some uncertainty among staffs at several Category

III projects about how evaluators would measure their efforts and determine whether they were

successful. This resulted in some confusion about the nature of the program’s objectives and goals,

which in turn clouded the visions of several projects. Initially, it appeared that the projects assumed

that they would be evaluated mainly on their ability to place clients in jobs, rather than on their

ability to develop and enhance linkages and partnerships with other organizations and agencies.
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 79

This was the case even though the DOL Statement of Work for the projects specified that Category

III projects were to focus on strengthening existing partnerships. 

The result of this misunderstanding was goal displacement in which some projects tended to

concentrate much of their efforts on tasks that were not related to the primary thrust of the project.

Initially this was especially the case in Clifton and Pensacola and somewhat the case in Bakersfield.

Both Bakersfield and Pensacola adjusted their visions and plans toward the end of the 24-month

period when it became apparent that their plans were not working as envisioned. In Bakersfield, for

example, the project began to better balance its efforts to build partnerships while also providing

some services directly. In Pensacola, project officials began to establish a strong partnership with

a charter school in the targeted neighborhood to train project youth. The project also took steps to

integrate the project more fully into its existing aftercare program. 

For the most part, the projects were properly organized and adequately staffed with competent and

skilled workers. Advisory committees, which usually met monthly, consisted primarily of

partnership representatives. In general, implementation proceeded generally according to designs

specified in the original grant applications, although in some instances there were significant delays

before clients were recruited. In some cases, however, projects did not closely follow

implementation plans they had outlined early on and instead focused their efforts on finding jobs

for clients.

Lessons Learned: Successful projects develop well-conceived implementation plans by

involving stakeholders and front-line staffs. Clear vision results from consensus that is reached

among partners and stakeholders early on in a project’s life cycle, often through advisory councils.

For future demonstration projects, it may be necessary to better educate project staffs about grant

requirements and what should be the focus of their grants so they clearly and fully understand their

responsibilities. Intensive on-site technical assistance and facilitation of planning sessions also may

help ensure that projects quickly get on track and that they remain focused on their primary tasks.

2. Established Partnerships with the Juvenile Justice System

Successful projects are knowledgeable about the culture and operating procedures of the juvenile

justice system. And, preferably, they have gained experience by collaborating with it in the past

on youth-oriented programs. As a result of efforts, they also have established strong

communications systems with judges, district attorneys, and probation officers in their communities.

Category I Projects

Category I grantees would have benefited if they had established solid relationships with the juvenile

justice system before they received the YODP grant award. DAYS in Denver and YSB in

Richmond had such a relationship, and one of Seattle’s partners was the King County Superior
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

80 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Court. In Philadelphia, however, it took the hiring of a former probation officer as project

coordinator to overcome problems that resulted from the lack of a strong connection with the court

system. HoustonWorks also needed to intercede directly with the Texas Youth Commission to gain

referrals from probation officers in the regional office.

Case managers often needed to better understand how the juvenile justice system operates in order

to assist youth and their families navigate through the system and learn its requirements and

expectations. In Denver, one case manager became the “specialist” in court cases, taking on most

clients who needed to make court appearances.

By spring 2001, Philadelphia had formed a new project advisory committee, made up primarily of

judges, district attorneys and other court and youth-serving agency staff to help the project establish

a direction to provide sustainable support for court-supervised youth. In Seattle, judges were invited

to White Center to observe for themselves the progress the youth were making in the project.

Category II Project

In Ohio, the grantee and the organization responsible for project management already were part of

the juvenile justice system. The grantee and the staff of the county’s confinement facility, however,

did not share a common vision for working with youth targeted for the project. Moreover, project

leaders were not in a position to influence state, city, and county educational policies. As a result,

the project’s energy shifted from making a school-to-work system operational to strengthening the

aftercare system for county youth.

Category III Projects

Several Category III projects had experience working with the juvenile justice system and benefited

from it . This was especially the case in Knoxville where the project was run by the Truancy Center

staff and where a police officer served as chair of its advisory board.

There was also strong involvement of the juvenile justice system in Clifton where probation officers

oversaw the demonstration project. In addition, the Rockford project was run by a former probation

officer and benefited from his knowledge and 12 years of experience with that county’s juvenile

justice system. The Bakersfield project, which initially included a retired probation officer on its

staff, also depended heavily upon assignment of clients through the juvenile justice system.

The Minneapolis project, however, had some early difficulty recruiting clients through the juvenile

justice system, even though the project manager once served as a police officer in Texas. This

situation appeared to result from an overabundance of similar youth programs and services available

for probation officers to choose from. Once the project’s reputation as a credible and worthwhile

program was established, however, referrals of clients through the juvenile justice system picked

up considerably.
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 81

Lessons Learned: If projects lack knowledge about the juvenile justice system, they need to

ensure that they include representatives from the juvenile justice system in their planning and then

as significant partners during implementation. 

3. Collection and Maintenance of Data

Well-managed and effectively operated demonstration projects have in place, and use, a system for

collecting and reporting program information. In the case of the YODP, however, all 12 projects

suffered from a lack of a uniform reporting system. It should be noted that this was not a

requirement of the grants for all three categories of projects.

Although the projects generally maintained their own records, reports they submitted provided data

in different formats. The reports also did not uniformly classify participants according to services

they received, demographic information, or their status in the project. Nor did the reports provide

other information that evaluators could use to help determine project performance and whether the

projects were meeting expectations, objectives, and goals.

While collection of data is important for measuring program performance, it is important to note that

performance indicators and evaluation by objectives by themselves are rarely adequate or suitable

for evaluating programs. In many cases, focusing too much on outcome measures leads to goal

displacement by the program staffs. This results in staff aversion to testing innovative approaches

out of fear of failure or an over-focus on short-term tasks that are being measured by evaluators.

In general all Category I and Category III project partners collected data to support their activity

reports. The reports were designed to support each partner’s agency goals and were submitted along

each partner’s accountability path. The difficulty was that the projects were slow to develop a

project-specific reporting system that integrated activity reports from all the partners. Further,

record systems were not uniform in reporting categories and definitions. Developing integrated and

consistent reporting systems would have helped project managers identify problems earlier and

would have alerted the technical assistance and evaluation teams to ask questions about aspects of

the projects.

Similarly, every partner in the Ohio Category II project collected data, but an integrated information

reporting system was not developed during the demonstration period. The project manager kept

some common counts of youth by service, but reporting limitations meant that no one had a good

understanding of what youth received what services or had achieved what outcomes.

Demonstration grants are not designed to be driven by numbers, so insisting that projects develop

a database of activity records from the beginning could prove problematic. Some project staff

repeatedly asked what other demonstration reports were like: how many enrolled, how many were

in school, and other similar questions. These comparisons would not have been useful because the
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

82 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

projects were designed differently and were being implemented differently. A clearer understanding

of the nature of demonstrations would have alleviated such concerns.

Lessons Learned: Reporting requirements for projects should be established and specified

clearly at the beginning of demonstration projects. Evaluations, however, must avoid focusing on

short-term outcomes or performance indicators to avoid goal displacement among project staffs. 

4. Developed Community Support/Network

The experiences of demonstration projects reinforced the importance for projects to have broadbased community support, if they are to succeed. For juvenile crime prevention to work, there must

be a commitment and sense of ownership by major agencies and interests that play a role in these

efforts. Especially important is the need for projects to nurture support from youth and family

serving agencies, such as community-based organizations and other public service organizations.

Category I Projects

In the case of two Category I projects, Denver and Houston, the YODP was one piece in city- or

county-wide plans for youth employment in their enterprise communities. Seattle’s YODP was part

of King County’s pilot to reduce the need for an additional residential facility for youth. All three

of these projects were pieces of a much larger and well-publicized effort to bring services to youth.

All had the attention and support of both political and agency leadership.

Richmond’s project was the product of several small agencies with a particular passion for youth

in their neighborhoods. These agencies convinced the city’s employment and training office to

submit the proposal without being very connected to either its planning or operation. Similarly, in

Philadelphia, a staff member of the School District of Philadelphia prepared the proposal as a

dropout prevention scheme and convinced the then-private industry council to submit it — again

without either involvement in the plan or in the operation. When problems arose, grantees realized

they needed to become more involved. In Philadelphia’s situation as well, the school district did not

have the relationships within the city agencies or community-based organizations that could have

leveraged resources better for the project.

During the demonstration period, Denver and Houston formed larger networks of youth serving

agencies that were able to leverage additional services for YODP youth. Being well-connected to

these larger networks provided useful information and training as well as additional resources.

Category II Project

There was strong inter-agency support for the Ohio project, and it operationalized several key

recommendations of the county juvenile justice plan. Local foundations and government funding

sources significantly expanded aftercare services for youth. 
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 83

Category III Projects

In the case of Category III projects, three of them — Knoxville, Minneapolis, and Rockford — had

in place well-established partnerships and relationships with public, private, and non-profit agencies

and organizations that provided youth and family services. The Knoxville project, for example,

benefited from the partnership network that had been developed by the Truancy Center. Likewise,

Minneapolis benefited from the partnerships developed by its large and well-established parent

organization, the Employment Action Center, that specialized in providing services, including job

placement, to adults and youth who were at-risk of court involvement. In Rockford, the project

essentially became a component of its well-established YouthBuild project and was able to take

advantage of its services and funding streams, including the $5 million it received annually in grants

and in-kind services.

The other three projects — Bakersfield, Clifton, and Pensacola — did not have strong partnerships

and community support in place before their start-up. As a result, these projects struggled with

developing strong agreements with other agencies that could provide services to clients. 

Pensacola, which had the fewest number of participants of the Category III projects, was important

to consider because initially it relied mainly upon elements of other programs that were run within

the Office of Juvenile Studies at the University of West Florida for client recruitment. These

included the OJS aftercare program and Blackwater Creek Development Center, a medium-security

confinement facility for youth. Toward the end of the project, however, OJS was in the process of

developing a strong partnership with a charter school in the project’s target area while it also was

more fully integrating the demonstration project into its aftercare program.

Lessons Learned: Successful projects nurture broad-based community support and rely heavily

upon partnerships with private, public, and non-profit agencies and organizations.

5. Grantee Involvement

Evaluations of the demonstration projects appear to suggest that well-managed and operated projects

are those in which grantees remain involved in all phases of the projects. The grantees serve as the

lead agency and actively provide direction and coordination for the projects, even when they

subcontract project responsibilities to other organizations. In addition, involvement and support of

grantees must be continuous throughout the projects.

Category I Projects

Category I projects varied in the degree of grantee involvement. HoustonWorks USA kept the

project in-house, while grantees in Philadelphia and Richmond passed the funds through to other

organizations. Denver and Seattle contracted out management of the projects, but remained actively

involved as coaches and facilitators. 
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

84 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

The Seattle and Denver model seemed to work best for implementing the project. Leadership

expectations were clear, and the project was unencumbered by the reorganization both grantees

underwent as the WIA legislation was implemented and as they prepared to implement large Youth

Opportunity (YO) grants. Houston, on the other hand, was caught up in the reorganization and the

preparation for the YO grant. These seemed to be factors in delaying the YODP implementation

process. As mentioned earlier, having the grantee uninvolved in project implementation proved to

be very difficult, and ultimately impossible. Both the Philadelphia and Richmond grantees needed

to become engaged and to provide direction.

The confluence of WIA legislation and the special award of YO grants may have been idiosyncratic

events, not likely to affect future projects, however. At least in the case of Denver and Seattle, it

appeared that having the grantee outside the day-to-day operation seemed to have a value in itself.

Project leaders had a more complete view of how the YODP fit into their cities’ vision. And, they

had a more neutral perspective on the struggle to develop a project culture apart from those of their

member agencies. The grantees, nonetheless, maintained a leadership role in shaping the operation

and activities of the grant.

Category II Project

The Ohio grantee remained involved in the project’s advisory board. The Department of Youth

Services also contributed additional funds to assist youth in the program. Greater cooperation

between state youth offender workers in the regional office with county-level juvenile justice

workers was considered a key benefit of the demonstration.

Category III Projects

In the case of five of the six Category III projects, broad oversight responsibility was maintained by

the organization that had been awarded the demonstration grant. But day-to-day management

responsibilities were subcontracted to another organization. The projects were:

C Knoxville where the Knoxville/Knox County Community Action Committee (CAC)

subcontracted with KCDC, a large non-profit organization, that also ran the Truancy

Center;

C Minneapolis where the city's Metropolitan Employment and Training Program

subcontracted to the Employment Action Center (EAC);

C Rockford where the Rock River Training Corporation subcontracted to YouthBuild and

its parent organization; 

C Pensacola where the Escarosa Regional Workforce Development Board subcontracted

to the Office of Juvenile Studies, University of West Florida; and
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 85

C Clifton where Passaic County Workforce Development Center subcontracted to the

county’s probation department.

The one remaining Category III project, Bakersfield, did not subcontract responsibility for day-today management of the project. The Employer's Training Resource, the grantee, retained control and

provided some limited services directly to clients. 

Three of the five projects that were subcontracted generally succeeded in reaching their goals. These

were Knoxville, Minneapolis, and Rockford. Projects in Clifton and Pensacola, which also

subcontracted, were less successful. 

It should be noted that the degree of supervision varied among projects. In general, it appeared that

grantees of the more-successful projects — Knoxville, Minneapolis, and Rockford — provided

stronger oversight and were more closely involved with the agencies they had subcontracted to.

Those organizations that subcontracted in Clifton and Pensacola were not as closely involved in the

projects. At least in the case of Category III projects, however, more research is needed to better

understand the level of involvement required of grantees to produce the best outcomes. 

Lessons Learned: If projects are to be successful, grantees must remain involved in all phases

of the projects. Grantees must serve as the lead agency and continuously provide direction and

coordination for the projects.

6. Connection to Workforce Development and Juvenile Justice Systems

Staffs of well-managed and operated projects not only have experience and knowledge about the

workings of the workforce development and juvenile justice systems, but they also take advantage

of and maximize resources that are available through the two systems. To more fully integrate

services, project staff also should work to enhance coordination among the two systems. 

Category I Projects

Category I projects that did not have youth employment experience quickly learned how important

it was to have connections with agencies that did. Projects learned about the need to have employers

who were willing to closely supervise YODP youth and to teach them how to fit into the world of

work, including its requirements for regular attendance and punctuality, appropriate demeanor and

attire, and the ability to work in groups and handle stress. Indeed, the YODP demonstrated that the

youth offender population makes special demands on employers who must understand that these

employees have multiple problems to overcome, including criminal records.

Denver’s DAYS began the project without youth employment experience and learned a great deal

by being part of the network established by the Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development. The

Denver Workforce Initiative and DenverWorks partners also helped the DAYS staff traverse a steep
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

86 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

learning curve. Seattle’s Pacific Associates brought good experience, skill, and an employer

network to the project to augment the experiences of other partners. The Philadelphia project team

had no experience to build on and, as a result, struggled to acquire it throughout the YODP. The

Richmond project team also struggled to develop a network for unsubsidized work experience.

A major drawback to job placement efforts of all the projects was the low level of job readiness of

youth recruited for the projects. Large numbers of them were under the age of 16, an age when they

generally begin looking for work. A few of the youth were 18 and older, an age when they might

be expected to work full time. The short duration of the DOL grant in relation to the age of the

youth being served was one problem for demonstrating the effectiveness of the integrated services

model.

An issue related to age was that project staffs learned that services for younger and older youth

needed to be designed differently. Seattle and Philadelphia designed different strategies for the

different age groups. The other projects, however, learned as they went along, particularly that they

needed to get younger youth back into school, rather than into jobs. With older youth, the major task

became getting them into jobs and then wrapping developmental services around their work

schedules.

Deeper issues also surfaced during the demonstration period. Most project youth had not been

successful in school and placing them in jobs without high school diplomas or GED certificates was

very difficult. All projects invested more effort in helping youth stay in school, getting youth back

into school, and offering GED preparation than they originally had planned.

Many youth also had significant employment barriers beyond education. A large number, for

example, were abusing alcohol and drugs. And, many of them were already parents. Many youth

also were living in situations that made it difficult for them to acquire more constructive behaviors.

In general, project staff tried to get youth into substance abuse treatment, provide child care for

parents, and offered anger management and anti-violence training. Case workers reported driving

youth to get their driver’s license or taking them to interviews to help them overcome some of these

barriers. The level and complexity of youths’ needs, however, were daunting for all projects.

Projects also became aware that services designed for young males were not always sufficient to

serve young females. Project staff had begun to hold discussion groups and awareness classes for

female participants, and they reported that the young women attended these even when attendance

was not required. The service needs of young women were, however, not well-conceptualized

during the demonstration.

Some resources were discovered in the juvenile justice system, which understood the complex and

multiple nature of the youths’ problems. Drug treatment services and anger management classes

were available through some court offices. Taken as a whole, however, the youths’ needs exceeded

the YODP communities’ resources to serve them.
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 87

The main relationship needed with the juvenile justice system was to build a trusting partnership

with judges and probation officers. Each project had to do that. A major service to the probation

officers and judges was the intensive case management, without the weight of authority surveillance,

that the demonstration projects provided the youth. Probation officers also were able to keep

reluctant youth engaged. This valuable exchange built on the understanding the projects had

developed with authorities that the youth would be constructively involved as YODP clients.

Some Category I projects were not particularly aware of the gang situation in their city. The

development of collaborations with the juvenile justice system, however, enabled staffs to learn

more about the presence of gangs and to develop counter measures — often with help from local

anti-gang or anti-violence coalitions.

Category II Project

The juvenile justice system and community and faith-based service agencies collaborated to offer

job training and job placement services for the Ohio project. The city and county WIA youth

councils had been approached for additional funding for project participant services.

Category III Projects

Several Category III projects used and coordinated closely with juvenile justice systems in their

areas. Bakersfield, Clifton, Knoxville, and Minneapolis were particulary successful at using the

juvenile justice system to provide clients to the projects.

Category III projects also attempted to connect their projects with the workforce development

system in their areas, although they experienced varying degrees of success doing that. Knoxville’s

Workforce Investment Board, for example, provided a teacher who helped clients prepare for the

GED certificate. In Minneapolis, the project worked with One-Stop centers to provide clients some

services. The Rockford project established a good working relationship with the local workforce

development system, but used it only sparingly, mainly because of the self-contained nature of the

project. In Bakersfield, One-Stop centers became more integrated into the project as workers at

the centers became more familiar with the Workforce Investment Act, which required providing

some services to youth. And, in Clifton the project used the One-Stop centers for job leads for

project youth. 

There were difficulties, however. In Pensacola, although the grantee was the local Workforce

Investment Board, project clients were able to access only limited services through One-Stop

centers. Apparently Florida rules required One-Stop centers to channel clients under 18 years old

into academic programs. This appeared problematic, considering that many project clients, or

prospective clients, were functioning at low academic levels and had been unsuccessful in school.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

88 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Several project managers strengthened their projects by serving on youth councils of local

Workforce Investment Boards. These included managers in Knoxville, Pensacola, and in Rockford

where the project manger also served on the state youth council. Service on the councils often

resulted in additional funds for the projects. Project NOVA in Knoxville, for example, received an

$80,000 grant through its youth council. And YouthBuild in Rockford, over a two-year period,

received $250,000 in grant funds by working through the local Workforce Investment Board. It

appeared that service on youth councils not only paid off financially in some cases, but also provided

exposure and publicity for the projects and the services they provided. This in itself helped the

projects establish new partnerships and strengthen existing ones.

It is worth noting, however, that some projects appeared confused about the requirements of the

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and how it could benefit the projects. The manager in Rockford

also noted that Workforce Investment Boards required excessive paperwork for clients, compared

to requirements from other federal agencies. 

 

Lessons Learned: To avoid uncertainty and confusion, projects should become knowledgeable

of the Workforce Investment Act and the potential opportunities it can provide youth. Projects

should learn how One-Stop centers operate and become more closely involved with the youth

councils of local Workforce Investment Boards. The projects need to better understand how the

workforce development system can help them more effectively deliver services to their target

populations and secure funding once grant funds end. Greater attention also should be given to

educating the projects about how they can strengthen partnerships with the juvenile justice system.

In this sense, the projects must learn why it is important to educate prosecutors, judges, and

probation officers in their communities about how the projects can serve as tools to help reduce

youthful crime and recidivism. 

7. Leveraging Resources Through Collaboration and Partnerships

An important part of any project or program is its ability to deliver something of value to its clients.

Well-managed and operated programs identify and use other resources and funding streams to

support their goals. Building linkages and collaborative partnerships, which allow organizations

to participate in joint activities, also encourage development of innovative approaches for problemsolving and delivery of services. 

Without strong partnerships, organizations often find themselves alone and without broad political

and financial support for their efforts. Quite often the dynamics and interactions that result from

partnerships are more important than any effort or intervention undertaken by a single organization.

Category I Projects

As mentioned earlier, partners of Category I projects learned from each other and received resources

through networks they developed over time. These alliances and partnerships matured over the
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 89

course of the demonstration: two projects were experimenting with fee-for-service vouchers to

expand services and vendor options available to the youth; some were experimenting with offering

space in youth centers for other organizations to provide services or to be community links to the

WIA system; some were developing city or county networks of youth development service

providers. 

Development of these collaborations took time — time to get the model elements into place and

time to engage youth. Time, therefore, became an important resource for the projects. One measure

of its importance was the increase in the number of clients served in the last few months of the

demonstration period. By then partners had solved many of their internal struggles, had learned

better how to find and engage youth, and had earned the trust of court-referral sources.

The most difficult relationship to develop was with local school districts. Many school districts

were not open to working with youth who had not been very successful in classes and had often been

behavior problems. The projects began working more closely with schools when the importance of

finishing high school or a GED, as essential for employment, became clearer. It would have been

helpful if the schools had become more fully engaged as project partners from the start. (For similar

future youth offender demonstrations, additional DOL funding may be required to ensure that

schools become full partners.) 

Projects also often did not have strong partnerships with local police. In many communities, a

youth’s connection with the juvenile justice system began after arrest. In Seattle, however, this was

not necessarily the case. There the community police unit, staffed by a deputy sheriff and a

community officer, became engaged with youth before trouble began, and they were also beginning

to establish a more trusting relationship with project youth. This approach, perhaps, would have

strengthened crime prevention aspects of other projects.

Category II Project

The State of Ohio and Cuyahoga County learned from each other and shared resources. They

developed a common relapse prevention program, shared the use of the Youth Offender Level of

Service (YO-LSI) risk assessment instrument, and were developing a common integrated case

management process.

Category III Projects

Several Category III projects were challenged by the task of building and strengthening linkages

with organizations that provided services to clients. In general, the six projects attempted, in good

faith, to conform to the tasks and responsibilities specified in the DOL Statement of Work that aimed

at this objective. More specifically, they sought to enhance existing education, training, and

employment services provided in the local community to both youth who were in school and those

who were out of school.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

90 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

The manner in which all six Category III grantees approached these responsibilities after they

received their YODP grants, for the most part, was adequate, although disparate in their intensity.

The most successful of the projects in this regard — Knoxville — realized early on that effective

delivery of services to clients was a shared responsibility that depended upon project partners. Both

Bakersfield and Pensacola, until near the end of the demonstration period, struggled to establish

effective linkages with other agencies. At the time of the third evaluation site visit in spring 2001,

Bakersfield had refocused its efforts to include both providing clients counseling and referrals while

also establishing and building linkages. Pensacola also was working hard to build a partnership with

a charter school that served its target population. 

Lessons Learned: In the future, projects in all three categories should give greater attention to

developing community-wide partnerships, rather than focusing primarily on providing services

directly to clients. Building and enhancing partnerships will ensure that gaps in services for clients

are identified and filled. This was especially important in the case of Category III projects. For all

categories of projects, paying greater attention to building solid partnerships also would help ensure

that projects become sustainable after grant funding ends. Projects should pay particular attention

to establishing partnerships with schools and ensure that they are included in planning early on.

8. Continuous Improvement

Successful demonstration projects conduct self-assessments and actively seek and accept available

technical assistance. Successful demonstration projects also identify project objectives they seek

to reach as they prepare their implementation plans and use them as benchmarks to gauge their

progress. They then periodically assess their progress toward reaching the objectives and take

necessary corrective action.

Technical assistance is especially important to new projects and programs because it serves as a

valuable improvement and feedback mechanism. In general, specialized technical assistance plans

were developed independently for each project and focused on each project's specific needs. During

the initial site visits, the consulting team met with community stakeholders, discussed project

implementation and available technical assistance. Additional technical assistance, however, was

provided semi-weekly by the technical assistance team via telephone and e-mail. Two conferences,

one in Washington, DC, and the other in Tampa, Florida, also helped the projects with their

technical assistance needs.

The projects used the assistance to help them devise ways to expand existing services, develop

strategies to build community capacity, and strengthen relationships with other community

organizations or agencies providing services for youth. In addition, the projects effectively used

consultants from the National Youth Employment Coalition to augment assistance provided by the

technical assistance team.
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 91

Category I Projects

Category I projects differed in their openness to training and technical assistance. The staffs of some

projects appeared to believe that asking for TA was an admission of inadequacy while others looked

for every opportunity to train staff and to learn how other projects were handling common issues.

Over time, the projects came to realize the value of having an experienced outsider working with

staff and raising questions. 

Technical assistance specialists were crucial in assisting struggling projects, and all projects

struggled with some aspect of the model or partnerships. The change in openness appeared to occur

about the time category-specific conference calls were initiated. These calls focused on peer sharing

and advising and were valuable in posing options for various aspects of the service delivery model.

Formal training through conferences also was important in clarifying expectations and in initiating

collegial bonds among project staffs. Specific technical assistance visits supplemented these

conferences and provided tailored responses to a particular site’s issues. Follow-up after the TA

intervention allowed the project and the technical assistance teams to plan for on-going support.

The timing of implementing the WIA legislation meant that every community was learning a new

way of delivering services and that established bureaucracies were being recast. This loosening of

organizational boundaries allowed creative ideas and cross-department initiatives to flourish. The

award of YO grants gave several communities the chance to rethink their entire youth employment

structure and operations. The demonstration projects benefited from the creative contexts within

which they operated.

Only a few projects were developing internal assessments by the end of the demonstration period.

Such internal assessments earlier in the demonstration would have allowed the projects to track

youth, especially those too young for the workforce during the demonstration, and to see how they

fared when they did venture into it. Outcomes assessments also would have yielded valuable lessons

about the progress of the youth in jobs and wages. They also would have allowed the projects to

better monitor their relationship with the juvenile justice system.

Category II Project

The Ohio project requested technical assistance on several aspects of the project, and virtually

renovated the entire operation of the Division of Treatment Services. Grant preparation added more

than a dollar of additional funds for every dollar of DOL funds. These funds provided staff for

additional services for Cuyahoga County youth offenders. Staff hiring and training raised the skill

levels of staff dealing with the target population.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

92 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Category III Projects

In accordance with its contract with DOL, Research and Evaluation Associates was to provide only

one initial technical assistance visit to Category III projects. Subsequently, authorization was given

for an additional technical assistance site visit to each project site. Consultants also facilitated onsite sessions for projects in Bakersfield, Clifton, Knoxville, and Rockford. In addition, project staff

from Knoxville, Minneapolis, and Pensacola attended a NYEC-sponsored training session

Baltimore, Maryland. 

Several projects, used internal assessments to gauge progress toward reaching their objectives and

goals. This was the case in Rockford, which was required to meet requirements specified by its

parent organization, YouthBuild. Projects in Pensacola and Knoxville, and Minneapolis, which

were operated under a subcontract, also were reviewed by original grantees. 

Lessons Learned: The demonstration projects found technical assistance — although in the

case of Category III projects limited — helpful and necessary. In the future, all categories of

projects should receive intensive technical assistance, especially help in developing expected

outcomes that will allow the projects to better gauge their progress toward their objectives and goals.

Technical assistance appeared essential to help projects with their efforts to counter the effects of

gangs within target neighborhoods and ensure that the projects remain on track and receive help

when they encounter problems. In the future, technical assistance also should ensure that the

projects use their implementation plans, especially expected project outcomes, as an essential part

of their continuous improvement mechanisms. In the end, these efforts can only enhance the

abilities of the projects to fulfill project objectives and goals and become sustainable. 

9. Shared Leadership and Information Sharing

In successful projects, lead agencies and their staffs share both the leadership and credit for the

results of their programs with other stakeholders. Successful programs also share information with

other stakeholders so that fully integrated — and effective — services can be provided to clients.

If programs fail to follow these basic axioms, the philosophy, purpose, and often credibility of

projects is undermined. As a result, the programs may struggle or be less successful than they could

have.

Category I Projects

All Category I projects gained from shared leadership and information sharing. The partnerships

themselves became small learning communities, exchanging expertise and skills. The larger

partnerships that developed in several communities during the demonstration aimed at bringing all

youth development specialists in the city or county network to a common approach, common terms,

and a commitment to leveraging resources. 
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 93

Every Category I project had a distinct aspect that helped strengthen the demonstration. Denver had

the Piton Foundation and its work readiness assessment tools. Seattle and Denver had a common

location for all the services delivered to youth, and it became “their” place more than in other

projects. Houston had the Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office (MAGO), a resource that bridged the police

gang unit’s knowledge and the youth development service providers working with gang-involved

youth. Several projects had the assistance of partners who were not funded under the DOL grant.

(The development of youth-serving vendor networks was described earlier.) 

Category II Project

The regional office of the Ohio Department of Youth Services and the staff of the county’s

Department of Justice Affairs, Division of Treatment Services, shared information and respected

each other’s expertise.

Category III Projects

The more successful Category III projects took to heart the points about the importance of sharing

leadership and information. Although more research is needed into this issue, it appeared that those

projects that developed strong partnerships with other agencies and organizations and shared ideas,

values, philosophies, approaches, and responsibilities were more effective than those that did not.

Lessons Learned: Organizations that have to focus a great deal of their efforts on creating

partnerships and have not shared leadership and information about the project with other partners

experience difficulties building and maintaining momentum for their projects.

Contextual Aspects of Projects

As discussed above, a project’s success depended heavily upon the degree that it reflected the nine

components of the organizational model of public management. There were, however, contextual

factors outside a project’s control or sphere of influence that tended to either hamper or help a

project’s staff as it attempted to implement the project. 

Many contextual aspects were site-specific and affected only that site. Some aspects appeared to

occur serendipitously, such as when a new mayor who supported the project was elected.

Evaluators, nonetheless, identified two important contextual aspects that appeared to influence all

of the projects, regardless of their category. These were:

C The presence or absence of supportive communities and

C The strength of local economies.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

94 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Presence or Absence of Supportive Communities

Communities that identify problems, such as those involving youthful offenders, and then create a

favorable environment in which all parties are encouraged to work together are more effective in

solving them. This kind of an environment is important because it encourages different people and

organizations to support each other by coordinating their efforts, which in turn maximizes their

strengths and capabilities. 

The presence or absence of support from local institutions and community groups affected the

strength of effort and pace of movement as the projects progressed toward implementation of their

plans. In general, projects that had the support of local politicians and officials and community

leaders appeared to progress more quickly, while those that lacked positive community support often

encountered delays and barriers that impeded their progress. 

Community support for the projects varied among all three categories. In the case of Category III

projects it appeared that the strongest community support was found in Minneapolis and Knoxville.

The weakest community support appeared to be in Clifton and Pensacola. 

It should be noted, however, that many projects in all categories experienced some difficulty

building good working relationships with local school systems — despite the existence of generally

broad community support. Sometimes the reason for this was political. Such appeared to be the

case in Pensacola where pressure from parents and others encouraged the school system to expel

disruptive students rather than attempting to find ways to meet their needs. In Knoxville, the project

coordinator also found it somewhat difficult to convince school officials to release students to the

project where they would have gained more from GED training than by staying in school. The

apparent reason for this was that the school system was concerned about keeping its enrollment

figures up in order to assure funding.

Strength of Local Economies

The demonstration projects were initiated in 1999, a time when the United States was experiencing

an unprecedented economic boom. The generally excellent national economic picture that continued

well into 2001 was reflected in low unemployment and inflation rates as well as increases in worker

productivity. Faced with a tight labor market, many employers were eager to find workers — both

skilled and unskilled.

Projects in all categories benefited marginally from the economic boom. Unfortunately, however,

placing project clients in jobs with long-term career potential became a difficult task for most of the

projects in all categories. The reason was that many clients were ill-prepared for the work force,

primarily because they lacked diplomas or GED certificates, had low academic aptitudes and skills,

had debilitating personal problems, and had been offenders. As a result, the jobs that were found

for many clients were in the service sector, primarily in fast food restaurants, janitorial services, and
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 95

the like, which required little education or few technical skills. In the absence of a strong economy,

the task of placing project clients in jobs undoubtedly would have been even more daunting. 

SUMMARY

Demonstration projects by their nature are essentially learning experiences for all those who are

involved in them — stakeholders, sponsors, evaluators, technical assistance providers, and others

who support the effort. Indeed, the two-year-long Youth Offender Demonstration Project showed

this was the case.

Profiting from the 24-month demonstration experience were the Departments of Labor and Justice,

the 14 projects that received grant funds, and evaluators and technical assistance providers at

Research and Evaluation Associates. Several benefits that these groups received are briefly

discussed below. 

Lessons for the Departments of Labor and Justice

In a broad sense, both the Department of Labor and Department of Justice gained additional and

valuable experience from working as collaborative partners on the Youth Offender Demonstration

Project. The project required the departments to share information and ideas about how to best

prepare youthful offenders and those at risk of court involvement for productive employment and

successful lives. In the process of collaborating, the departments had to learn each other’s jargon,

values, philosophies, and methods of operation as they pertained to this special population. At times

doing this may have seemed like learning a foreign language or living in a foreign culture. The

Justice Department, for example, had to expand its knowledge about the operations and requirements

of the Workforce Investment Act, the state and local One-Stop delivery systems, as well as the

Labor Department’s approach to demonstration projects. On the other hand, the Labor Department

had to become more knowledgeable about the intricacies of the justice system, as well as the

department’s approach and the challenges of working with youth who were under court-imposed

restrictions.

In the process of “dialoguing” and working together, the departments were able to identify gaps in

theories and approaches that were used to address the problems facing youthful offenders and those

who are at risk of court involvement. The tangible result of this experience was to expand the

demonstration for a new group of projects in summer of 2001. More specifically, as a result of the

learning that occurred, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was added as a third

partner as part in the national effort to learn how to better serve youth offenders, including those

who have learning, drug-abuse, and other mental health problems.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

96 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

Lessons for Projects

For the 12 projects that were a part of this process evaluation, the most important lesson learned,

perhaps, involved the role that technical assistance can play in helping them succeed. Initially it

appeared that the projects were uncertain about whether to request assistance from the technical

assistance team in areas where they were struggling or having difficulty. These include, for

example: how to ensure sustainability after grant funding ends; how to provide effective route

counseling (case management) to project clients; and how to ameliorate the effects of staff turnover.

Initially it appeared that the projects feared that requesting help would reveal their inadequacies and

weaknesses and open them to monitoring and closer scrutiny. This misunderstanding about the role

played by technical assistance changed, however, as the projects became more comfortable working

with the technical assistance team and learned how the team could assist them in identifying problem

areas and strengthening their efforts to reach their objectives and goals. As the projects progressed,

they became more willing to ask for help — and to receive it.

For future demonstration projects, it will be important for the evaluation and technical assistance

teams to gain their confidence. It also will be important for the projects to learn the role that the

teams will play as part of their continuous improvement mechanisms as they strive to progress

toward their objectives and goals. These tasks will be accomplished through training and orientation

during kick-off conferences, telephone conference calls, and site visits by the evaluation and

technical assistance teams during the early days of the projects.

Lessons for Evaluation and Technical Assistance Teams

As the initial round of demonstration projects proceeded, the evaluation and technical assistance

teams gained valuable insights and information as well as new tools to help the projects progress.

As a result, the teams will be able to further refine the methodologies and approaches they use

during future demonstration projects.

One particularly important tool that resulted from the YODP was the organizational model of public

management that identified nine characteristics of well-managed and operated demonstration

projects. The model, which was presented in detail earlier in this report, was used by the evaluation

and technical assistance teams to help them gauge the progress each project was making toward its

objectives and goals. The model will be further refined as additional projects proceed with their

planning and implementation in hopes that it will become a standardized tool for studying and

evaluating programs and projects involving youthful offenders and youth who are at risk of court

involvement.

As a result of the information and experience provided by the initial demonstration project, the

evaluation and technical assistance teams will collaborate more closely and share information about

the implementation of future projects, rather than operating independently. The two teams will

become integral parts of each project’s continuous improvement feedback mechanism. This
Section V - Lessons Learned

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 97

approach should help the projects identify gaps in their implementation plans and devise effective

strategies to overcome barriers they encounter. It also should help the projects move toward

implementation more quickly, while avoiding the pitfalls, or learning curve, that naturally goes with

such a complex undertaking as the Youth Offender Demonstration Project. 

CLOSING

This process evaluation report provides an assessment of the implementation process undertaken by

each project and, to the extent possible, it reflects how effective the projects were in building upon

existing programs and systems to serve targeted youth. Although the demonstration project

continues with additional projects until the summer of 2003, and, perhaps, beyond the report’s major

findings for the initial YODP have indicated:

C Partnerships between youth offender agencies and workforce development agencies provide

an important connection that can further each agency’s mission.

C The partnerships are likely to continue and the YODP was the instrument for this

breakthrough.

C Youth indicated that the promise of jobs at a decent wage is what drew them to the local

projects and it is what kept them engaged with the projects.

C Use of a crime prevention model that includes employment, training, and placement services

appears critical for these youth.

C The project’s promise and ability to help youth transition to employment was a major feature

that led many probation officers to local projects.

C It may take additional time to demonstrate that an investment in education and training will

result in more youth offenders, or youth at risk of criminal involvement, successfully

transitioning to full-time employment.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

98 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.
References ..............................................................................

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 99

REFERENCES

Altschuler, D.M. (1998). Reintegrating juvenile offenders into the community: OJJDP’s intensive

community-based aftercare demonstration program. National Institute of Justice Research

Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M. (October 1994). Balanced and restorative justice: Program

summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP.

Benson, P. L., Galbraith, M.A., and Espeland, P. (1995). What kids need to succeed: Proven ways

to raise good kids. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute and Free Spirit Press, Inc.

Federation for Community Planning. Comprehensive strategy for juvenile justice and delinquency

prevention. Part one: Prevention and graduated sanctions, Cuyahoga County’s plan

(September 2000). Cleveland, OH.

Fray, H. E. (April 1999). Employment and training for court-involved youth: An overview (OJJDP

Fact Sheet #102). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Granger, R.C.(1999). Establishing causality in evaluations of comprehensive community initiatives.

In New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, volume 2: Theory, measurement and

analysis. The Aspen Institute. Aspen, CO.

Howell, J.C. (Ed.) (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent,

and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Howell, J.C., Krisberg, B., and Jones, M. (1995). Trends in juvenile crime and youth violence. In

J.C. Howell, B. Krisber, et. al. (Eds.), Sourcebook on serious, violent and chronic juvenile

offenders (pp. 1-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

King County Interdepartmental Human Services Team. Human services recommendations report

for 2001-2003. King County Department of Community and Human Services. King County,

WA.

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (March 1999). Reducing youth gang violence in

Urban areas: One community's effort. In On good authority, Vol. 2, No. 5. 

King County phase II juvenile justice operational master plan. (March 2000). King County, WA.

Mendel, R.A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works and what doesn’t.

Washington, DC. American Youth Policy Forum.
DOL Youth Offender Demonstration Project Final Report

100 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

National Institute of Justice (Dec. 1998). Reintegrating juvenile offenders into the community:

OJJDP's intensive community-based aftercare demonstration program. National Institute of

Justice Research Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Spergel, I.A. (1990). Youth gangs: Continuity and change. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.),

Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 12. Chicago, IL: Unniversity of Chicago Press.

Steiner, P. (February 1994). Delinquency prevention (Fact Sheet No. 6). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, OJJDP.

Stufflebeam, D.L. and Shinkfield, A.J. (1985) Systematic evaluation. Hingham, MA: Klumer

Academic Publishers.
A-1

APPENDIX A

Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA)
A-2
A-3

Billing Code 4510-30

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

ACTION: Notice inviting proposals for Youth Offender demonstration projects.

SUMMARY: This notice contains all of the necessary information and forms to apply for grant

funding. The U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration is authorized

to award grants to provide services aimed at youth who are or have been under criminal justice

supervision or involved in gangs. In setting aside these funds, Congress noted "the severe

problems facing out-of-school youth in communities with high-poverty and unemployment and

the inter-relatedness of poverty, juvenile crime, child abuse and neglect, school failure, and teen

pregnancy." The Department of Labor (DOL) has worked with the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice (DOJ) in deciding to use these

funds for three categories of projects to serve youth offenders. They are, I. Model Community

Projects; II. Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiatives; and III. Community-Wide

Coordination Projects. 

All proposals must by submitted by the Service Delivery Area (SDA). Applicants can only apply

under one of these categories which must be clearly identified on the face sheet of the

application.

DATES: Applications will be accepted commencing September 2, 1998. The closing date for

receipt of applications is December 1, 1998, at 4 P.M. (Eastern Time) at the address below.

ADDRESS: Applications must be mailed to Ms. Denise Roach, U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Division of Acquisition and Assistance, 200

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room S-4203, Washington, DC 20210, Reference: SGA/DAA 98-

015.

FURTHER INFORMATION: Questions should be faxed to Ms. Denise Roach, Division of

Acquisition and Assistance, Fax (202) 219-8739. This is not a toll-free number. All inquiries

should include the SGA number (DAA 98-015) and a contact name and phone number. This

solicitation will also be published on the Internet, on the Employment and Training

Administration's Home page at http://www.doleta.gov. Award notifications will also be

published on the Home Page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Funding for these awards is authorized under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), Title IV,

Pilot and Demonstration. Applicants must clearly identify which category they are applying for.

This information must appear on the face sheet of the application. IT IS STRONGLY

RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR APPLICATION BE SUBMITTED USING THE FACE

SHEET INCLUDED IN APPENDIX "A", AS THIS WILL GREATLY ENHANCE OUR
A-4

REVIEW PROCESS. As a condition for award, applicants must agree to participate in the DOJ

evaluation of these demonstration efforts. Funding for this evaluation will be provided to an

independent contractor by DOJ. Therefore, no funds awarded under this grant should be set aside

for that purpose. 

Demonstration sites will be required to collect and maintain participant records through

administrative data so that this can be a learning experience for DOL and DOJ. In order to keep

participant records, the Standardized Program Information Report (SPIR) required for JTPA

Title II programs must be used. The DOJ evaluator will evaluate the process experiences in

implementing this youth offender program. However if additional resources become available,

the evaluator may also examine intermediate outcomes for the youth. Each applicant must

provide an assurance that they will cooperate with the evaluator and provide access to the data

necessary to the evaluation.

CATEGORY I - Model Community Projects. 

These demonstrations will be set in high-poverty neighborhoods where comprehensive,

community-wide approaches to dealing with youth have already been established. Grant awards

will be provided to set up a combination of gang prevention and gang suppression projects;

alternative sentencing and community service projects for youth offenders; to support existing

case management and job placement services for youth on probation or returning to the

community from corrections facilities. These neighborhood-wide projects will then serve as

models for other high-poverty, high-crime communities in the country.

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS. This award category will be limited to those SDAs that have

received grants under DOL's Youth Opportunity Unlimited (YOU), Youth Fair Chance (YFC),

or Opportunity Areas for Out-of-School Youth (OASY) demonstrations. Organizations that

operate DOJ's Safe Futures or Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention,

Intervention, and Suppression demonstrations, can also apply through their SDAs. These

organizations should contact their Mayor's Office for a listing of the SDAs in their area.

Applicants should outline how they will involve residents, youth and others of the community in

planning and involvement in the effort.

PROGRAM COMPONENTS. Grant funds must be used to build upon an existing system

currently serving out-of-school youth, youth offenders or at-risk youth in gangs or prone to

joining gangs. Youth employment and developmental activities funded under this grant shall be

used for a structured set of activities focused sharply on getting youth offenders and gang

members ages 14-24 either into long-term employment at wage levels that will prevent future

dependancy and/or break the cycle of crime and juvenile delinquency that contributes to

recidivism and non-productive activities. This overall strategy needs to be responsive to the

particular problems of youth offenders and gang members in high-poverty areas. Efforts should

be made to integrate youth into educational and alterative school programs when appropriate.

Any new service must also be developed and implemented focusing primarily on the needs of

youth involved in the juvenile justice system and gangs. Employment, education, criminal justice
A-5

and community-based youth programs should become an interrelated component of the project.

In developing this interrelated system, grant funds shall be used to create a youth offender and

gang prevention advisory board that participates in the coordination of all activities and provides

input and community support to the project's leadership. 

INVESTMENT OF APPLICANT AND PARTNERS. Applicants should use partnerships both

(1) to enhance the youth offender programs funded under this grant and (2) to provide

complementary programs so as to link services within the target community and provide a

diversity of options for all youth offenders within the target area. These partnerships must agree

to:

 C Implement a training and employment program for youth offenders and gang members in

the target area. 

C Coordinate with the private sector to develop a specified number of career-track jobs for

target area youth offenders. 

C Establish alternative sentencing and community service options for youth offenders and

gang members in the target area. 

C Expand gang suppression activities in the target area. 

C Establish a gang prevention advisory board for the target area. 

FUNDING AVAILABILITY: The Department expects to award (5) grants approximately $1.5

million each under this category

CATEGORY #1 RATING CRITERIA: Each application under this category will be evaluated

against the following rating criteria:

C Need in target neighborhood, as demonstrated by severity of gang problem, the number

of youth offenders residing in target community and the inability for existing services to

include youth offenders and gang members (35 points); 

C Plan and capacity for conducting project including plan for preventing recidivism (40

points); 

C Level of investments of schools and other public sector partners (10 points); 

C Level of investments of private sector partners, including commitments for private-sector

jobs (5 points); 

C Linkages and coordination of services (10 points).

CATEGORY II - Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative. These projects

would provide comprehensive school-to-work education and training within juvenile corrections

facilities, and would also provide follow-up services and job placements as youth leave these
A-6

facilities and returned to the community. Again, the comprehensive services developed under

this project will serve as a model for other juvenile corrections facilities across the country.

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS. The State Juvenile Corrections Agency is the eligible applicants

and should identify a juvenile corrections facility within their State where the project will

operate. DOJ is considering a formal random assignment evaluation of the effectiveness of the

enhanced services being provided under this category. Therefore, juvenile corrections facilities

proposed as demonstration sites must have a minimum of 100 youth in residence. 

Your application must show the involvement/commitment of the following partners: the SDA

which is the administrative entity for Job Training Partnership Act program; the state School-toWork partnership; the local School-to-Work Partnership to which a majority of the youth

offenders will return if clearly defined; and representatives of major employer networks

connected to the school-to work effort. 

PROGRAM COMPONENTS. Grant funds shall be used to build upon an existing system

currently serving youth offenders. Youth employment and developmental activities funded under

this grant shall be used for a structured set of activities focused sharply on getting youth

offenders and gang members ages 14-24 either into long-term employment at wage levels that

will prevent future dependancy and/or break the cycle of crime and juvenile delinquency that

contributes to recidivism and non-productive activities. This overall strategy needs to be

responsive to the particular problems of youth offenders and gang members in juvenile

corrections facilities. 

Programs must be designed to raise the quality of work and learning for incarcerated juvenile

offenders, and strengthen follow-up services and aftercare, including mentoring for youth

returning to their communities by building connections to local workforce development and

School-to-Work systems. This includes the development of a reformed and intensive corrections

education program, vocational training with ties to vocational development and youth

employment services. The jointly developed curriculum should include input from corrections

education, the state School-to-Work partnership, local school districts and employer networks

connected to the school-to-work effort. Projects are also encouraged to work with Job Corps

centers, in the development of a school-to-work based education curriculum. This curriculum

should be linked to the curriculum developed for the communities to which youth offenders will

return once leaving juvenile corrections and structured in such a way as to enable the youth to

transition from the institution to the community and continue in a sequential manner with their

educational and vocational development. 

Grant funds should be coordinated with existing programs to provide case management and

aftercare for youth returning to communities from juvenile corrections to facilitate community

reintegration, healthy lifestyle choices and educational success and skills development. In

addition, grant funds may be used for staff and teacher training in order to facilitate an effective

system of connected classroom-based and work based activities. The Federal Bonding Program

and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) should be considered as necessary tools to assist
A-7

with youth offender employment placements. Information regarding these programs will be

made available upon award of this grant. Additional funding sources may include Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act formula grants funds and Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) funds. JAIBG funds should be used to compliment those

available through this grant to upgrade training facilities within permanent juvenile corrections

facilities.

INVESTMENT OF APPLICANTS AND PARTNERS. Applicants should use partnerships

both (1) to enhance the youth offender program funded under this grant and (2) to provide

complementary programs which make residence communities better able to provide after-care

services for all returning youth offenders. The State recipients of a JAIBG award are strongly

encouraged to contribute, in the form of a cash match, 10% of the total program cost, except

when the JAIBG funds are used for construction of permanent corrections facilities. Partners

under this category shall agree to:

C Implement a school-to-work program in the target juvenile corrections facility. 

C Provide case management and after-care services to youth offenders returning to their

communities. 

C Develop linkages to local school-to-work efforts with assistance from the State Schoolto-Work Partnership. 

FUNDING AVAILABILITY: The Department expects to award (2) grants approximately

$1.125 million each for Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiatives under this

competition. 

CATEGORY RATING CRITERIA: Each application for funding under this category will be

reviewed and rated against the following criteria:

C Need in target juvenile corrections facility and state juvenile corrections system, as

demonstrated by the effectiveness of current curriculum, the number of youth offenders

who stand to benefit, and rate of recidivism (25 points); 

C Plan and capacity for conducting project including aftercare services and plan for

preventing recidivism (40 points); 

C Level of investments of schools and other public sector partners including School-toWork partnerships (15 points); 

C Level of investments of private sector partners, including commitments for private-sector

jobs (10 points);
A-8

C Recidivism prevention plan (10 points). 

CATEGORY III - Community-Wide Coordination Projects.

This program component will fund smaller grants for communities within small to medium-sized

cities with high-poverty and high-crime. These projects will work with local youth service

providers to develop linkages that will strengthen the coordination of prevention and recovery

services for youth offenders. Linkages to existing community programs such as the Job Training

Partnership Act (JTPA) year-round youth training and summer jobs for at-risk youth, School-toWork Programs, and other federal programs could contribute to juvenile crime prevention.

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS. Service Delivery Areas (SDAs) within high-crime communities

with a population of at least 100,000 and not greater than 400,000 and a significant youth gang

and youth crime problem are eligible to apply. Applicants should provide documentation from

their local law enforcement agency showing support the existence of an existing or emerging

gang problem and other serious youth crime problems. The SDA is the administrative entity for

Job Training Partnership Act programs.

PROGRAM COMPONENTS. Grant funds shall be used to build upon an existing systems

currently serving in-school and out-of-school youth, youth offenders or youth in gangs or prone

to joining gangs. Youth employment and developmental activities funded under this grant shall

be used for a structured set of activities focused sharply on getting youth offenders and gang

members ages 14-24 either into long-term employment at wage levels that will prevent future

dependancy and/or break the cycle of crime and juvenile delinquency that contributes to

recidivism and non-productive activities. This overall strategy needs to be responsive to the

particular problems of youth offenders and gang members in high-poverty, high-crime areas.

Efforts should be made to integrate youth into educational and alterative school programs when

appropriate. The Federal Bonding Program and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)

should be considered as necessary tools to assist with youth offender employment placements.

Information regarding these programs will be made available upon award of this grant.

INVESTMENT OF APPLICANTS AND PARTNERS. Applicants should use partnerships

both (1) to enhance the youth offender programs funded under this grant and (2) to provide

complementary programs so as to make the target community an available service area for all

youth offenders. Applicants also should agree to a good faith effort to continue projects started

under this grant beyond the 24-month grant period. Partners should also agree to:

C Build upon existing employment and training, recreation, conflict resolution and other

youth crime and gang prevention programs to include youth offenders and gang

members.

C Establish alternative sentencing and community service options for target area youth and

gang members. 

C Establish or continue gang suppression activities within the target area.
A-9

FUNDING AVAILABILITY: The Department expects to award (6) grants approximately

$300,000 each to Community-Wide Coordination Projects under this competition. 

CATEGORY RATING CRITERIA. Applications received for funding under this category

shall be rated against the following criteria: 

C Need in target neighborhood, as demonstrated by severity of gang problem, the number

of youth offenders residing in target community (30 points); 

C Plan and capacity for conducting project including plan for preventing recidivism (30

points);

C Level of investments of schools and other public sector partners (10 points);

CLevel of investments of private sector partners, including commitments for private-sector

jobs (10 points);

CCurrent youth offender programs and youth crime prevention strategies (10 points);

CLinkages and coordination of services (10 points). 

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: The period of performance for all grants awarded under this

competition will be for 24 months from the date the grant is awarded.

APPLICATION SUBMITTAL. All applicants must submit and original and three (3) copies of

their proposal, with original signatures. The applications shall be divided into two distinct parts.

Part I - which contains Standard Form (SF) 424, "Application for Federal Assistance, and Budget

Information Sheet." (See appendix "A". All copies of the SF 424 MUST have original signatures

of the legal entity applying for grant funds. Applicants shall indicate on the SF-424 the

organization's IRS status, if applicable. According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995,

Section 18, an organization described in Section 501(c) 4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

which engages in lobbying activities shall not be eligible for the receipt of federal funds

constituting an award, grant or loan. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is

17.249. In addition, the budget shall include--on a separate page(s)--a detailed cost break-out of

each line item on the Budget Information Sheet. Part II shall contain the technical proposal that

demonstrates the applicant's plan and capabilities in accordance with the evaluation criteria

contained in this notice. Applicants must describe their plan in light of each of the Rating

Criteria. Applicants MUST limit the program narrative section to no more than 10 double-spaced

pages, on one side only. This includes any attachments. Applications that fail to meet the page

limitation requirement may not be considered.

LATE APPLICATIONS. Any application received after the exact date and time specified for

receipt at the office designated in this notice will not be considered, unless it is received before

awards are made and it - (a) was sent by registered or certified mail not later than the fifth
A-10

calendar day before the date specified for receipt of applications (e.g., an application submitted

in response to a solicitation requiring receipt of applications by the 20th of the month must have

been mailed/post marked by the 15th of that month); or (b) was sent by the U.S. Postal Service

Express Mail next Day Service to address not later than 5:00 P.M. at the place of mailing two

working days prior to the date specified for receipt of applications. The term "working days"

excludes weekends and federal holidays. The term "post marked" means a printed, stamped or

otherwise placed impression (exclusive of a postage meter machine impression) that is readily

identifiable, without further action, as having been supplied or affixed on the date of mailing by

an employee of the U.S. Postal Service.

HAND DELIVERED PROPOSALS. It is preferred that applications be mailed at least five

days prior to the closing date. To be considered for funding, hand-delivered applications must be

received by 4:00 P.M., (Eastern Time), on the closing date at the specified address.

TELEGRAPHED AND/FAXED APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE HONORED. Failure to

adhere to the above instructions will be a basis for a determination of nonresponsiveness.

Overnight express mail from carriers other than the U.S. Postal Service will be considered handdelivered applications and MUST BE RECEIVED by the above specified date and time.

REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS. A careful evaluation of applications will be made

by a technical review panel who will evaluate the applications against the established criteria

under each Category. The panel results are advisory in nature and not binding on the Grant

Officer. The Government may elect to award the grant with or without discussions with the

offeror. In situations without discussions, an award will be based on the offeror's signature on the

SF-424. The final decision on awards will be based on what is most advantageous to the Federal

Government, taking into account factors such as geographic diversity, mix of EZs and ECs, and

demographic characteristics. 

Signed this 28th day of August, 1998

JANICE E. PERRY, GRANT OFFICER

Department of Labor, ETA
B-1

APPENDIX B

Scope of Work
B-2
B-3

ATTACHMENT I

Research Questions for Category #1:

1. In what ways did the projects build upon existing systems currently serving out-of-school

youth, youth offenders or at-risk youth in gangs or prone to joining gangs to develop a

structured set of activities focused on getting youth offenders and gang members into

long-term employment at wage levels that will prevent future dependency? What

problems were encountered in doing so? In what ways did the projects address or solve

these problems?

2. In what ways did the projects build upon existing systems currently serving out-of-school

youth, youth offenders or at-risk youth in gangs or prone to joining gangs to develop a

structured set of activities that will break the cycle of crime and juvenile delinquency that

contributes to recidivism? What problems were encountered in doing so? In what ways

did the projects address or solve these problems?

3. How are training and employment programs for youth offenders and gang members

responsive to the particular problems of these target groups in high-poverty areas? In

what ways must effective strategies differ from more traditional approaches?

4. What are the most effective ways to engage employers to provide participants with longterm employment with these target groups?

5. How did the projects work with the court system to establish alternative sentencing and

community service options? What were the key building blocks in implementing these

alternatives?

6. What rate did the “gang prevention advisory board” play in the project? Was its

composition suitable given this role? Was it effective in this role?
B-4

Research Questions for Category #2:

1. What are the challenges/problems encountered in building connections to local workforce

development and school-to-work systems? In what ways do the projects address these

challenges?

2. How do projects effectively develop reformed and intensive education programs and

vocational training? In what ways do projects adapt the principles and strategies of the

School-to-Work Opportunities Act into their education and training programs?

3. In what ways can the State school-to-work system, local school-to-work partnerships,

employer networks, and local school districts effectively collaborate with correctional

facilities to develop curricula and programs?

4. How are projects able to build on existing programs to provide case management and

aftercare for youth returning to communities from juvenile corrections facilities to

facilitate community reintegration, healthy lifestyle choices and educational success and

skills development? What are the challenges in doing so, and how do projects address

these challenges?
B-5

Research Questions for Category #3:

1. In what ways did the projects develop linkages to existing community programs that

strengthen prevention and recovery services for youth offenders and gang-prevention

efforts?

2. In what ways did the projects build upon existing systems currently serving out-of-school

youth, youth offenders or at-risk youth in gangs or prone to joining gangs to develop a

structured set of activities focused on getting youth offenders and gang members into

long-term employment at wage levels that will prevent future dependency? What

problems were encountered in doing so? In what ways did the projects address or solve

these problems?

3. In what ways did the projects build upon existing systems currently serving out-of-school

youth, youth offenders or at-risk youth in gangs or prone to joining gangs to develop a

structured set of activities that will break the cycle of crime and juvenile delinquency that

contributes to recidivism? What problems were encountered in doing so? In what ways

did the projects address or solve these problems?

4. How are training and employment programs for youth offenders and gang members

responsive to the particular problems of these target groups? In what ways must effective

strategies differ from more traditional approaches?

5. What are the most effective ways to engage employers to provide participants with longterm employment with Bonding Program and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit in

developing job placements? What other roles can employers play in serving these target

groups?

6. How did the projects work with the court system to establish alternative sentencing and

community service options? What were the key building blocks in implementing these

alternatives?
B-6

Tasks

The contractor will perform the following tasks:

1. Coordinate with Technical Assistance Staff. The contractor will coordinate activities

between the evaluation and technical assistance staffs and ensure that there is no

duplication of effort or excess burden on the grantees.

2. Data Collection. The contractor will collect and analyze site-specific data which will

include the MIS data developed under the technical assistance portion of this contract as

well as other relevant information collected by the grantees or other organizations.

3. Site Visits. The contractor will conduct periodic site visits to observe the operation of

each grantee in the demonstration. For categories 1 and 3, it is anticipated that 3 visits

per site will be conducted. The first will be conducted shortly after the contract is

awarded, the second approximately mid-way through the grantees’ period of

performance, and the third shortly before the grants expire. For projects in category 2,

there will be an initial site visit shortly after grant award. If the Department of Justice

proceeds with an impact evaluation, beyond its initial phase, this will be the only site

visit to category 2 grantees. If the Department of Justice decides not to proceed with an

impact evaluation, a second site visit will be made immediately after this decision is

made and a third site visit will be made near the end of the grantees period of

performance. If these site visits are conducted, they will include gathering information

from samples (if necessary) of the “home areas” to which youth will return.

4. Analysis and Reporting. The contractor will perform appropriate descriptive and

qualitative analyses of information gathered from the MIS, field work and other

resources. Reports will communicate the study’s findings to both policy and practitioner

audiences.
B-7

Deliverables

The contractor will submit the following reports, at the time and in the number of copies

specified, to the DOL official designated as responsible for the evaluation. If requested, oral

briefings will be held on the interim and final reports on the study:

1. Monthly Progress Reports in two (2) copies. The first such report will be due 30

calendar days after the contract beginning date and subsequent reports will be due

monthly thereafter. Reports should address monthly progress in terms of completion

tasks specified in the statement of work, identification of problems and plans for their

resolution and, if necessary, provide an updated work plan for the remainder of the

contract period.

2. Design Report in three (3) copies. This design report shall be due 60 calendar days after

the contract beginning date. The report shall include a list of research issues to be

addressed, detailed descriptions of site visit plans, site visit protocols and other data

collection instruments.

3. Site Visit Memoranda in three (3) copies. Within thirty days of the completion of each

first round site visit, the contractor will submit a memorandum describing the site’s

administration, data systems, program and service population as it was at the time of

grant award. The memoranda should also briefly describe each grantee’s general plan for

implementing their proposed strategies for serving youth offenders.

4. Interim Report in ten (10) copies. Within ninety days of completion of the second round

of site visits, the contractor will submit a interim report that documents early

implementation efforts.

5. Final Report in ten (10) copies, one of which is camera ready. The contractor will submit

a separate final report for each grant category and an Executive Summary covering all

categories. A detailed outline of the final reports, will be submitted no later than 90

calendar days before the end of the period of performance. Draft final reports shall be

submitted no later than 60 days before the contract end date. The final reports,

incorporating ETA comments, will be due by the contract end date.
B-8
C-1

APPENDIX C

Field Research Guide
C-2
C-3

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Field Research Guide

Site__________________

Date_________________

Lead Organization (s):

Partners: Target Community: 

Interviews (Person and Organizational affiliation):

Introduction: Hello. I am ________________ representing Research and Evaluation

Associates. My firm received a contract form the Department of Labor to observe the

development of this Youth Offender Demonstration Project, doing what is known as a

process evaluation. I will ask you a set of questions today similar to those that were used

during (my/the) first visit by ______________ and will be used again when we return next

February or March. The questions are designed to show the development of the

demonstration project activities that can be described today compared to the baseline visit.

Do you have any questions before we begin?
C-4

1. Project Context

We want to know what the community is like in which the YODP develops and operates.

Have there been significant changes in the characteristics of the community context of the

project (demographic, economic, socio-cultural, and political) since the last visit and how are

they impacting project development and implementation?

Data Needs: Collect documents, if possible, or report on:

 1.1 Demographic data on the target population in the selected communities

Describe the demographic composition of the target community by:

--gender 

--ethnicity or race

--age

--marital status (percentages single parents in the target group: counts and

percentages). 

--family status (under age 18) with family of origin, single on their own, married) 

--number of children in the home and residing elsewhere

--current educational status--years completed, (Student, in college or other

educational program) 

--school status (under age 18) (percentages in school, suspended, dropped out, 

 in other training programs). 

1.2 Criminal Justice Status (last 5 years or over as much time as records

provide):

--number and types of crimes committed by youth

--number of youth sent to:

alternative sentencing programs
C-5

community service

residential confinement

--number in the target area on probation

--number in the target area who leave probation successfully

--number in the target area who are adjudicated after probation (recidivism)

--number of youth involved with the Criminal Justice system who are in the

 program and the number not in the program

 1.3 Community economy

Describe following characteristics of the target community:

--employment status (percentages unemployed, part time job, full-time job), 

--income

--major industries/employers and opportunities for youth

 1.4 Socio-cultural

Describe the following characteristics of the target community

--youth culture 

--gang activity, names of gangs, location on maps of gang boundaries, 

 membership, style, etc. 1,069 active gang members

 1.5 Political

 Describe the following characteristics of the target community:

 --responsiveness of city/county/state government

 --history of integrated service delivery and community consensus building
C-6

1.6 Community-based Organizations

--description of the schools in the target community, their quality and reputation 

--accessible non-school educational and training opportunities for young

 people in the community.

--community-based organizations, not part of the demonstration project 

 (if any), offering programs for the target population. (Name contact person

 (include telephone number and street and mailing address information.)

--clinics

--churches

--mentoring or tutoring volunteer groups

--youth programs ("Y," scouting, martial arts, etc.)

--hang outs (Youth Centers, Parks and Recreation Centers, Arcades)

--sports teams, etc.

2. Planning

Q: What role did community planning bodies or councils play during the project?

2.1 Discuss the role community planning bodies or councils played during the

project’s planning and implementation phases.

--What were the major responsibilities of planning bodies/councils?

--How was consensus for project goals and objectives developed?

--Which stakeholders actively participated in the project?

--In what ways were various stakeholders involved in the project?

--What were the roles of youth and parents on the council?
C-7

--How often did planning boards/councils meet?

2.2 Discuss the positive and negative effects their involvement has had on

development of the project.

2.3 What were the results of these efforts?

3. Building Partnerships and Linkages

Q: What is the current partnerships network and how has it changed since _____ (month)? 

Data needs

Partnering organizations

3.1 Describe the partnerships and linkages developed. (Include contracts

 memoranda of agreement, etc.)

--What is the connection to the project--MOU, contracts?

--Which partners are funded through the demonstration? Which participate

 through other funding sources?

 3.2 What is the level of participation by:

--Schools in the local public system (probe this especially)

--Employers (probe this especially)

--Probation department staff

--Court system staff

--Employment training staff

--Soft skills staff

--Health care agencies

--Parents

--Grassroots community leaders
C-8

 3.3 Provide the names and roles of employers who have agreed to work with the

Youth Offender Demonstration Project, if not part of the formal arrangement;

nclude contact persons and organizations with telephone number and street

and mailing address information.

4. Partnership Performance

Q: What program components are implemented and how successful are the efforts to build on

existing systems and create an integrated service network? (Incorporates DOL questions

C1.1, C1.2, C2.1 C2.4, C3.1, C3.2, C3.3.)

Data Needs

4.1 Names and contact method for all service provider personnel and

 organizations.

4.2 How is the project organized?

4.3 What is the authority structure?

--Who is accountable to whom?

--Where are data on participants mentioned and in what form are the data?

 (Get the existing data)

4.4 What is the number of staff directly involved (New&Veteran) with youth?

4.5 How does the program assure that every youth is connected to a caring

adult?

4.6 Describe the primary services actually implemented
C-9

4.7 How are “best practices” of workforce development built into program

services?

Probe:

 --individual needs assessment

--job training

--classroom-based learning

--career awareness

--career counseling

--job exploring

--expectations of high skill standards

--integration of academic and vocational learning

--work-based learning

--work experience

--incorporating all aspects of an industry

--facilitation of more schooling or job placement

--job training coordinated with classroom learning

--job training coordinated with career path

--instruction in general workplace competencies

--strategies for matching students with work based learning

--active participation of employers

--regular evaluation of youth’s progress

--connecting activities
C-10

4.8 Describe the support services that were actually implemented.

--How are best practices incorporated into support services?

--Life skills training

--Transition assistance (job, school, other help)

4.9 How is the program establishing long-term connections with youth?

4.10 How is the program providing challenging activities with the youths’ peer

groups?

--Are there leadership development opportunities for youth?
C-11

4.11 What after care and monitoring services are given to youth who have been

involved in juvenile court?

4.12 What barriers to building partnerships and delivering services are being 

encountered? (Incorporates DOL questions C1.1, C1.2, C2.1, C2.4, C3.1, C3.2,

C3.3.) 

Probes:

--Level of City/County Support

--Level and kinds of Business Community Support

--Level of support from the advisory/planning body/partners

--Level of support among the veteran ___________(organization) staff:

--Level of support among the new ___________ (organization) staff:

4.13 How successful were the efforts to overcome barriers to developing

linkages, relationships, and partnerships, and how did the actual

 partnerships perform? (Incorporates DOL questions C1.1, C1.2, C2.1, C2.4,

C3.1, C3.2, C3.3.)

Probes:

--How successful were each of the strategies?

--What accounts for the relative success of each strategy?

--What was the ongoing role of the advisor/planning bodies in overcoming

 barriers?

4.14 In what ways has the project adapted the principles and strategies

 of School-to Work into its employment and training programs?

 (Incorporates DOL question C2.2.) 

 Probe: Describe how the project adapted these principles.
C-12

 4.15 How effective are the projects operating in correctional facilities in

 collaborating with the career One-Stop centers, employer networks, and

 local school districts to develop curricula and programs (Incorporates DOL

 question C2.2.)

--Are the youth offenders getting connected to the local One-Stop centers?

--Are the One-Stop centers providing support (child care, transportation, etc.)

 for eligible project participants?

--Are the youth getting ongoing job placement help through the One-Stops?

4.16 What role are the gang prevention advisory boards playing, and is

 the composition appropriate? (Incorporates DOL question C1.6.)

Describe:

 4.17 How have gang suppression activities established or expanded? 

Describe:

4.18 Category 1 and 3 specific: What strategies are being used to engage

 employers, and what role are they playing to provide the target population with

long-term employment? (Incorporates DOL questions C1.4, C3.5.)

Describe:

4.19 Category 1 and 3 specific: What strategies are being used to develop

 alternative employment-related sentencing and community service options?

(Incorporates DOL questions C1.5, C3.6.)

Describe:
C-13

4.20 Category 3 specific: How are drop-out and suspension prevention

and college- bound efforts being expanded in middle schools and high

schools?

Describe:

4.21 Category 1 specific: What strategies are being used to provide

 community-wide sports and recreational activities for target youth

 ages 8-17?

Describe:

4.22 Category 1 and 3 specific: Have the Bonding Program and the Work

 Opportunity Tax Credit options been used in developing job placements?

Describe:

5. Facility Location

Q: Where are facilities located in relation to where the youth reside? Does the location of the

facilities give access to and facilitate the recruitment of the target population as program

participants? 

Data Needs

5.1 Probe: Describe the process for selecting the sites where services are

delivered.

5.2 What attention was given to issues of access by the target population?
C-14

5.3 Describe the locations serving the target population (Are they clean, new,

professional, providing confidential areas, etc.)

5.4 Do the facilities foster a positive attitude among youth served, their

parents/caregivers, and peer group members?

5.5 How have the locations facilitated or impeded access to program activities?

5.6 How does the program assure:

--workplace safety

--multiple job experiences

--youth are closely monitored at work sites

--youth are exposed to high quality work sites (jobs with career potential)

6. Project Staffing and Training

Q: What staff have been recruited for the YODP project?

 Data Needs

6.1 Provide a list of staff recruited for the Youth Offender Demonstration

Project.

6.2 Describe the training and experiences that led to staff being assigned to this

project.

6.3 Provide job descriptions, and qualifications used to recruit staff.
C-15

6.4 Describe the training that has been provided for each staff member

(including subcontractors).

6.5 Describe the degree to which the program staff have been willing to rethink

traditional vocational and academic training activities to achieve:

--A common vision for the students’ outcomes

--Clear role expectations for each staff person

--Common training for all project staff

--All staff know all the competencies students are expected to acquire

--High standards of skills expectation

--Flexibility in integrating work and school based learning

--Regular opportunities for staff coordination

--Regular student assessment and evaluation

6.6 Describe the behavioral objectives of the training. What attitudes, skills

and behaviors do you expect staff to exhibit?

7. Recruitment of the Target Population

Q: What methods are being used for gaining access to, and recruiting, members of the target

population as program participants? How responsive have the methods been to the needs of

the target population, and how successful are they?

Data Needs

Probe: 

7.1 Describe the recruitment strategies for reaching the intended target

population.

7.2 Describe how the program enrolls recruited youth and keeps them

 participating.
C-16

7.3 Describe individualized educational or any other assessments used to plan

services to target youth in the program.

8. Primary Service Delivery

Q: What are the training, employment, and gang suppression services actually being

provided to the intended target population? What is the intensity, duration, fidelity, quality

of the services? (Incorporates DOL questions C1.3, C3.4.)

8.1 Describe the content of each service delivered.

Do youth receive:

--training that involves integration of academic, vocational, and social skills?

--work-based training that is well-developed?

--work-based training that involves multiple activities?

Are:

--records kept of youth skills attainment?

--students actively engaged in setting goals, interacting with supervisors and 

 trainers?

Does:

--training link secondary and post-secondary training?

--the program have specific career goal options?

(Collect data; matrix of data)

8.2 Youth status at entry to the program:

Collect youth offender participant records reporting:

--gender

--ethnicity or race

--age

--family status (percentages with family of origin, single on their own, married)

--single parents in the target group (counts and percentages)

--marital status

--number and ages of children

--educational status years completed

--school status (in-school, suspended, dropped out)

--employment status (unemployed, part time job, full time job)
C-17

--wage levels of jobs held

--involvement in the criminal justice system (arrested, convicted, confined)

8.3 Data on the intensity and duration and content of the primary services, i.e.,

fidelity. For each participant who received primary service please describe:

--activities assigned

--the number hours of each activity (hours of participation expected)

--the frequency of each activity (hrs/wk)

--length of program intervention

--degree of participants’ attendance

 8.4 Describe special job-related efforts:

 --getting youth driver’s licenses

 --getting tatoos removed/hidden

 --getting youth work-appropriate clothing

8.5 For each participant please provide data for the following outcomes:

--still in program

--dropped out of program

--placed in long term employment.

--character of employment received

--formal education or training certificates

 (diploma, GED, employment certification, etc.)

 --no longer a gang member

 --recidivism: arrested or incarcerated for new criminal activity

--begun apprenticeships

--joined military

--joined Job Corps

--connected to One-Stop

--continued gang involvement
C-18

8.6 How effective have been the gang prevention advisory boards in deterring

 youth from gang involvement? (Incorporates DOL question C1.6.)

8.7 Describe the outcomes of the gang suppression advisory boards.

8.8 What have been the gang suppression activities?

8.9 How effective have been gang suppression activities?

8.10 Describe the results of the gang suppression activities. 

8.11 How has gang activity changed over the course of the project

(Data on these are likely to be police department estimates only):

--number of new recruits

--age of new recruits

--total membership

--level and nature of criminal activity

--other

9. Collateral Service Delivery

9.1 Category 1 and 3 Specific: How successful have been strategies used to

engage employers to provide the target population with long-term employment?

(Incorporates DOL questions C1.4, C3.5.)

Probe:

--How many employers employed graduating participants?

--How many participants were employed by each?

--Which participants were so employed?

9.2 Category 1 and 3 specific: How successful have been strategies used to

develop alternative sentencing and community service options? (Incorporates

DOL questions C1.5, C3.6.)
C-19

Probe: --What guidelines have been adopted?

--How many persons have been adjudicated under them?

--What employment, etc., outcomes have the youths experienced?

9.3 Category 3 specific: How successful have been drop-out,

 suspension prevention, and college-bound efforts?

Probe: Get data available

--What change in drop-out and suspension rates has occurred during course

 of the project?

9.4 Category 1 specific: How successful were community-wide sports

 and recreational activities for youth ages 8-17 incorporated into the

 projects?

9.5 Category 1 and 3 specific: How successful was the role played by the

Bonding Program and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit in developing

job placements?

Probe: What types of employers have used these options?

10. Project Continuation

Q: What changes/improvements will be made between now and next February/March? What

will these changes require of: partners, youth, others?

10.1 What are the program’s continuous improvement mechanisms?

10.2 What steps have been taken to ensure continuation of the integrated

services and activities after project funding ends and what is the likelihood of

success? 
C-20

10.3 Describe the stable funding streams supporting the activities of partners.

10.4 Describe the evaluation benchmarks of the system that are designed into the

program structure to justify project continuation.

10.5 Gather data on placements if not captured at Question 8.

Data needs: placements into jobs, military, Job Corps, apprenticeships, etc.

10.6 Describe the local evaluation processes used to assess program

effectiveness.

Probe:

--Is the evaluation implemented?

--What are the components of the evaluation?

--Who is responsible for performing the evaluation?

--Who receives the evaluation reports?

Notes about the visit itself:
D-1

APPENDIX D

Category I Final Report Summaries
D-2
D-3

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for

Denver

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

Denver City and County are a single governmental unit. The economy was strong with an

unemployment rate in May 2001 of 3.6%, although the staff of the Mayor’s Office of Workforce

Development (MOWD) reported that the Employment Services Office was receiving more

unemployment insurance claims with the current economic downturn. The economy was

diverse, however, with a strong high technology sector; and jobs were still plentiful. The target

neighborhoods for the Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) were gentrifying as

housing in the Denver area became more scarce and more expensive. There were reports of

lower income families from neighborhoods near downtown being displaced to Denver’s suburbs.

The YODP grant was housed in the MOWD, formerly known as the Mayor’s Office of

Employment and Training (MOET). Denver had received a Youth Opportunity (YO) grant in

addition to its YODP grant. These grants, plus Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds for

youth, have provided the impetus for reorganizing the youth employment office and programs.

The MOWD staff devised a Generation Youth 2000 (GY2K) strategy to provide employment

training and other assistance to all economically disadvantaged youth living in the 12 city and

county enterprise communities. The concept was for each youth to be assessed as to her/his

needs and be assigned to services that would best serve him/her within the programs’ eligibility

requirements. A youth under court supervision, for example, might live in the YODP target

neighborhoods and so qualify for YODP support; the youth might also qualify for some services

provided through the YO grant or WIA youth funds. 

Denver focused its demonstration project on the Barnum, Highlands, Sun Valley, and part of the

Westwood neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were adjacent to downtown and were primarily

residential with small retail establishments. They were older neighborhoods of single-family

dwellings that appeared neat and orderly to the visitor. Interviewees, however, reported that

27% of youth in neighborhoods along the Platte River, of which these are a part, were living in

poverty. While the economy remained strong, youth in the target neighborhoods struggled with

poverty and high drop-out rates from school. 

Fifty-nine percent of project youth were court-referred to Denver Area Youth Services (DAYS);

generally they had come from the juvenile justice system as a result of anti-social behaviors,

such as substance abuse and truancy. Some youth who referred themselves to the project or had

been recruited by staff had been under court supervision at some time. As a result, 64% of

project youth had been or were offenders (33% for misdemeanors and 31% for felonies). The

staff estimated that 30% of the 1,067 Denver youth under court supervision lived in YODP target

neighborhoods. Project staff reported a continuing need to help youth get drug and alcohol

interventions and mental health services. 
D-4

Gang activity was monitored by the Denver Metropolitan Gang Coalition, representatives of

area police, courts, schools, employment training, and community-based organizations who

coordinated their prevention and intervention strategies. DAYS, the lead community-based

organization for the YODP, was a coalition member. DAYS reported that it was to monitor gang

membership among YODP youth. Youth did not report gang membership, and it was difficult to

distinguish a “gaggle of kids” from a gang. Nevertheless, there had been issues of youth wearing

gang colors at the project center, and some youth admitted to gang membership. The MOWD

staff reported that gangs seemed more active in spring 2001 compared to recent years. The staff

hoped that summer employment and other youth activities would keep gang violence in check

during summer 2001. 

The project staff offered a gang prevention and suppression curriculum,“Gang Rescue and

Support Project”(GRASP), to youth who attended GED classes at the project center. This fivesession discussion explored the effects of violence on the youth’s lives, their families, and their

communities.

The youth were generally younger than 18. Of the 178 participants of record, 72% were between

13 and 17; 42% were either 16 or 17. Seventy-nine percent of participants had earned fewer

credits than required to be a high school junior. A major thrust of the YODP effort, therefore,

had been to prevent the youth from leaving high school and offering the GED alternative for

those who had. 

Political support for the project within city and county remained strong. Councilwoman Ramona

Martinez met monthly with providers of youth services in her district in southwest Denver. Her

efforts have strengthened networks, developed mutual support, and leveraged resources among

schools and other service providers. 

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

Denver had accumulated a number of partners interested in delivering employment services to

youth through a Kulick grant the city had received. The MOWD staff described how they

brought together YODP partners and allowed them to work out the proposal design together,

which constituted a departure from the usual method of writing the proposal and circulating it

among interested partners for comment. These partnerships have been stable and became more

complex when Denver received its Youth Opportunity (YO) grant. There were 34 partners

delivering services to youth in spring 2001, including the YODP partners who also delivered

services to YO youth.

The relationship between the YODP and Denver schools initially was underdeveloped. The

district itself was under transition as one superintendent left, leaving an acting superintendent in

place for a year, only to be followed by a superintendent who stayed just one year. The DAYS

staff made presentations to administrators of high schools in the target neighborhoods to explain

the purpose of the grant and the services it could provide to school youth. As YODP partners
D-5

realized that 56% of project youth were high school dropouts and that employment opportunities

were slim for youth without a diploma, the project staff made a concerted effort to keep youth in

school and to provide GED tutoring to those who had left. The district assumed financial

responsibility for teachers of GED classes DAYS offered during spring 2001. As a result, three

certified special education teachers and a social worker were hired.

MOWD had seen its role as organizing project partners, training service providers in the “youth

coaching” model for working with youth, and bringing the YODP partners together regularly for

training and coordination. Any training provided toYO providers and case managers (YO Coach

Days) also included YODP providers. The YODP staff also trained YO providers in intensive

case management, so benefits have flowed in both directions.

MOWD continued to look for funds to leverage the federal grants Denver received. Some funds

had come to the GY200K: the Denver government general fund, federal Temporary Assistance

to Needy Families (TANF) funds, the Rose Fund, and the Annie Casey Foundation’s “Building

Families” program. For the summer employment program, both subsidized and unsubsidized

jobs were being developed through the Public Education-Business Coalition.

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services? 

Partnership relationships were stable from the project’s beginning. The project started with

DAYS as lead partner. DAYS had 27 years’ experience training and supervising courtappointed youth on community service and restitution projects. It subcontracted with

DenverWorks for soft skills and work readiness training. What DAYS needed to develop was a

complete employment training program with job development and placement services. To that,

DAYS added GED classes and provided clients access to other support services. 

MOWD contracted separately with the Denver Workforce Initiative (DWI) for work readiness

assessment tools for both entry-level employees and front-line supervisors. Originally, DWI also

would have provided coach mentors from various industries to match with youth in the program.

The coach- mentor aspect, however, proved too difficult to implement. DWI provided technical

assistance to project staff to develop “circles of support” for those seeking work. 

The Community College of Denver (CCD) received a contract from MOWD to provide a

connection between the DAYS youth and the CCD Tec West campus where youth were assigned

for GED preparation and some vocational education. Non-contractual partners participated as

well: law enforcement, schools, criminal justice, and other community-based organizations in

the MOWD network.

DAYS had traditionally provided community service and restitution activities for youth assigned

alternative sentences; their case management, employment and training, education, anti-gang and

crime prevention initiatives, and access to special support services were developed with the

YODP grant. DenverWorks provided soft skills training at the DAYS center. The greatest
D-6

challenge had been developing an adequate network of industries that could offer youth

employment opportunities with advancement potential. The entire youth employment partnership

network of MOWD recognized this challenge and planned to focus on enhancing its employer

network in 2001-2002. 

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

DAYS provided the intake, assessment, individual service strategy (ISS) plan development, case

management, job development, project record-keeping, initial work experience, GED classes

plus enrichment activities, drug counseling, and homework resources and help for those in

school. DAYS also operated Family Nights to provide a positive experience for youth and their

families; the youth prepared a meal; youth received awards for achievements and families

received gift certificates for participating. DAYS became a youth One-Stop center, but other

family members also could obtain some employment-related services there. 

DAYS had traditionally put all its clients into a supervised work crew for the first six weeks after

enrollment, and this work experience component was continued. The work crew experience was

a preliminary work-readiness activity (punctuality, industry) and also served as a work-maturity

assessment activity (ability to work in a group, accept assignments, work through disagreements,

etc.). DW provided more formal work readiness during the sixth week of the work crew

experience. The emphasis in delivering service became completing high school equivalency and

then moving to job search and placement. 

DenverWorks came to the DAYS center to provide its portion of the work readiness. As part of

training, on the theme of reaching mountain peaks, trainers took the youth to a wall climbing

(simulated rock-face climbing) activity to demonstrate that they could accomplish more than

they thought they could. Staff invited males to “Men at Work,” a section of their office devoted

to men’s used apparel, where youth could obtain interviewing and work clothes. Girls were taken

to a used clothing store called “Dress for Success.”

DWI came to DAYS to train staff in the circles-of-support approach to assisting first-time

employees and to learn how to use the “Learning to Work It Out,” an instrument to assist firsttime employees to be successful in the world of work. 

The only part of the Denver program that required youth to participate in activities at another site

was placement at Tec West, the Community College of Denver, a personalized computer-based

learning program for GED acquisition and career exploration. Tec West was developed as part of

the Kulick grant. There an outreach worker tracked the youth and facilitated her/his transition.

This same outreach worker also recruited youth for the program from among Tec West students

who were working on their GED. For the few youth who aspired to a specific employment field,

Community College of Denver also provided specific vocational education.

Some youth qualified for both YO and YODP. If they did, the youth were co-enrolled to receive

services from whichever source made the most sense. Some youth moved sequentially from one
D-7

program to the other. If a youth lacked the maturity for unsubsidized employment, for example,

she/he could be transferred to another employment program to receive more training. Some

services funded by one program were made available to youth in other programs without coenrollment. Job fairs were open to all youth program clients; recreation was paid for from YO

funds but made available to youth clients from all programs.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

The DAYS facility in Denver was in gang-neutral territory, and it was accessible by public

transportation. The facility was a former one-story warehouse that the city/county refurbished for

the project initially and then as a youth One-Stop center with some YO funds. All services

except occupational education and some GED classes were held there. It was clean and bright

and youth there seemed relaxed and at home. Tec West was a satellite campus of the Community

College of Denver. It occupied several suites in an office building at the edge of a residential

neighborhood, somewhat away from downtown. It was clean and functionally furnished.

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

MOWD hired a staff person to coordinate the project. He was an experienced probation officer

with youth offenders. By the middle of the second year, this staff member returned to the

Department of Corrections, and MOWD hired a new staff person whose experience had been

supervising several half-way houses for returning offenders.

The director and assistant director of the YODP at the DAYS center were responsible for the

coordination of services and outreach to youth; both were veteran human service professionals.

They hired three case managers and a job developer using YODP funds. All but one of the

initial front-line staff members had changed over the course of the project. The second round of

case managers and job developers were young college-educated workers who were career testing

themselves. Two were hired away by the YO grant that was paying $4,000 per year more than

YODP. Most of their replacements and the YODP work crew leaders had worked on and off

with DAYS over the years, and only one of the front-line staff persons was hired directly from

college. The teachers, substance abuse counselor, and the social worker were all veteran

members of their sponsoring organizations. All the staff seemed committed to the youth and

expressed satisfaction with their work. Denver Works and the Denver Workforce Initiative did

not hire specifically for this project. 

Training sessions during the project’s second year were all-day long and included sessions on

such topics as: recruitment of clients, substance abuse and mental health issues of youth, and

leveraging the services within the youth employment network. All sessions were held jointly

with the staff and partners of the new YO grant and WIA network. The YODP staff alone had

completed training on the Federal Bonding and tax credit programs, the DWI work readiness
D-8

instruments, and case management techniques. As noted above, most of the staff were now

seasoned professionals.

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

In the beginning youth were recruited to the project entirely from the courts; but since the project

began, about 41% were referred from other sources, especially youth who wanted or needed to

work:

C Youth receiving services recommended the program to their families and friends;

C The new relationship with the school district led to referrals;

C Members of the partnership referred youth; and

C The outreach worker at CCD was a source of recruits.

Case managers admitted that the youth have been difficult to keep engaged. Those under court

supervision were better than others about attending; but the tendency among the youth, as a

group, was to work until they earned the money they needed for something they wanted and then

drop out until they had another money goal. After completing probation, the staff had to work

hard to keep the court-referred youth engaged in the process of completing their ISS plan. Case

managers continued to work with the youth, and they knew that most would return until they

achieved stable employment. 

Teachers in the GED program also reported that the motivations among youth varied; some were

intensely engaged in preparing for their GED exams, and others less so. Seven had completed

the GED since October 2000. All youth reported having had difficulties in school, but several

youth have successfully passed the GED exam after only a few months of study. Ability may be

an issue with some youth, but clearly not for all.

Project youth were 35% female and 65% male; 14% were parents or pregnant; 4% had a

disability, and about the same number were limited in their English language skills. About 10%

were considered at high risk of criminal involvement. Ethnically the youth were diverse: 9%

White, 4% African- American; 84% Hispanic, 2% Native American; and just over 1% Asian or

Pacific Islanders. As mentioned earlier, the youth were generally under age 18, with only 28%

18 or older.
D-9

8. What types of training, employment, and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

DAYS provided the following services to YODP youth: intake, assessment and individual

learning plan development, or an Individual Service Strategy (ISS), work crew experience, and

the concomitant DenverWorks work readiness program, GED classes or tutoring and help with

homework for those in school, subsidized employment placement, unsubsidized job search,

placement and follow-up, and drug abuse counseling, personal counseling, and other supports

that were part of the ISS.

Table 1 reports the status of YODP participants in May 2001.

Table 1. Status of Denver YODP Participants in May 2001 

 

OUTCOMES

Enrollment Goal 300

Enrollment as of May 23,2001 284

Assessment and Case Management 284

Referred for Services 51

Community Service 1

In School 68

Enrolled in GED classes 100

Completed work readiness training 230

Completed Education 7

Job search/placement activity 139

In subsidized employment 222

In unsubsidized employment 60

Exited the program 27

Entered the military NR

Entered Job Corps NR

Incarcerated NR
D-10

Seven youth completed GED studies. One youth began apprenticeship training and four have

gone on to community college. The YO partnership provided regular job fairs for all the

participants in youth programs. 

Case management loads were large, averaging about 70 with 50 active clients for each case

worker. Staff were reluctant to turn anyone away, and they gave priority time to those who were

newly enrolled or dealing with a crisis situation. Some youth moved away from the center when

they finished work readiness and went on to work, but they returned if they needed help with

finding a new job or with a personal problem. Some youth were stable, and a monthly phone

call was all the follow-up they received.

Case managers went to court with a youth facing a court appearance, both as an advocate for the

youth and to assist parents with the court processes. A court appearance, however, could take all

day. Case managers gave most of the cases involving court appearances to one case manager,

and they arranged to have case managers at the center during busy times.

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were the

intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Part of the GED class experience was the GRASP curriculum to reduce violence. Thirty-four of

the GED students also had participated in leadership training. The trainer who took

responsibility for the leadership program believed it had been almost a failure because the group

did not continue throughout the academic term. The group did, however, mediate an issue of

wearing gang colors to school. The youth resisted a dress code, and the leadership group finally

worked with their peers to “change their attitude if not their clothing.” Students agreed not to

use gang-challenging language, wear gang tatoos in a visible place, or speak disrespectfully to

students or teachers. The leadership concept was to be piloted again in the fall 2001 academic

term.

The YO grant provided recreational opportunities for youth in Denver’s enterprise community.

DAYS also made arrangements for youth to use recreational facilities in the neighborhood once

a week. 

A full-time drug counselor was at the YODP center in the grant’s second year. She was not paid

from YODP funds, but from another grant. She addressed a serious hurdle in the advancement of

approximately 24% of YODP youth who had been referred for substance abuse counseling. 

The Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network, part of the Juvenile Probation

Office, developed an Employment Network Subcommittee as part of its overall goal of

improving the health and well-being of youth in custody. The subcommittee was made up of

representatives of employment and training providers across Denver who worked with youth.

They met monthly and shared their resources. One member, for example, provided suicide

prevention training to the YO and YODP staff. The network had received a grant for “Jobs for
D-11

Youth” to begin in July 2001 to assess, treat, and refer for employment youth who were both

substance abusers and offenders. 

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

MOWD “blended” its approach to youth employment. Each source of funding was directed to

its target group, but the vision, approach (youth coaches), and training were developed in

common for all youth programs. The Kulick grant, YODP, and WIA were the main funding

sources; but grants were prepared to close gaps and to customize specific service needs, like

substance abuse treatment and suicide prevention. The school district was funding the GED

classes at DAYS on a per-pupil basis, and that was likely to continue As funding streams came

to an end, the staff hoped that it would be able to find alternative sources of funding or transfer

youth to another still-active program.

The vision MOWD had for youth employment led to its strategy of training service providers

across Denver in a common approach with common expectations. This cadre of trained staff

would remain in place regardless of future funding. The YO case managers had been trained in

the intensive case management approach that had been needed for YODP youth. Many YO

youth were also court-supervised, and MOWD recognized that such case management would be

needed for a portion of youth clients receiving services through other programs and in other parts

of the county. 

Using WIA funds, Denver established seven One-Stop centers, including the youth One-Stop at

DAYS. It was unlikely to add any more than the centers at: Speer Boulevard (the headquarters),

Community College of Denver (both East and West campuses), and in the Adalia, Valverde, and

Quigg-Newton neighborhoods. Not all were full-service centers, and various funds have

leveraged the WIA funds. YO funds, for example, developed the computer laboratory at the

DAYS One-Stop center that was used during the day for GED classes and in off-hours for

neighborhood youth’s homework or tutoring support.

The Denver partnership networks were expected to continue after the YODP grant ends. Partners

reported that they had been able to leverage their funding by using each other rather than

duplicating services. MOWD was committed to providing youth offenders access to all youth

services, regardless of funding source. MOWD staff believed that the confluence of YO, YODP,

and WIA youth funds gave them a window of time to establish a permanent youth employment

strategy and partnership network.
D-12
D-13

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for

Houston

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

HoustonWorks, USA (HW), received the award for the Youth Offender Demonstration (YODP)

grant in Houston, Texas, calling it Project U-Turn. HW delivered work readiness training,

placement, support, and follow-up services or brokered or contracted for those services to the

residents of Harris County. It operated under the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC), the

local workforce development council. All employment services supported under HGAC were

publicized as “WorkSource,” regardless of the sponsoring employment training organization.

Houston’s economy was robust and diversified. As with other YODP sites, there were plenty of

jobs available for youth who were interested in employment. Many youth in the target

neighborhoods, however, lacked the skills to compete for those jobs that offered a liveable wage

and had career potential.

HW focused the YODP on the city’s north side and fifth wards. Both areas were part of

Houston’s “Enhanced Enterprise Community,” which had received both public and private funds

to restore the neighborhoods to the vibrant communities they once were. These neighborhoods,

adjacent to the downtown, were bounded by Interstate Highways 10 to the south, 45 to the west

and 610 to the north; the fifth ward was the eastern boundary. A major route, Highway 59,

bisected the community, separating the fifth ward from the rest of the target area.

The neighborhoods were mostly small, single-family dwellings with one very large public

housing project, which the City of Houston was in the process of renovating. Youth in the target

neighborhoods were challenged by poverty, and family disruption. The two high schools in the

target area, Jefferson Davis and Wheatley, had high dropout rates. The YODP built on the

Kulick grant Houston had received, so the needs of neighborhood youth were well-known to the

main contractor there, Educational Training Centers, Incorporated (ETC).

There seemed to be a general decline in the number of youth in the target neighborhoods,

according to a March 2000 survey reported by the Center for Labor Market Studies in Boston,

which performed a demographic study of the enterprise communities. Enrollment at Wheatley

High School, for example, dropped from 1,400 in 1995 to about 800 in 2001. The renovation of

the large public housing project caused the relocation of many families out of the target area.

Even as the apartments came back on line, the families were not returning to the old

neighborhood. Despite the reduction in the number of youth in the target area, there were

enough youth at-risk of court supervision and adjudicated youth to meet the enrollment

expectations of the YODP grant.
D-14

A probation officer for the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) reported no reduction in youth

crime in the Enhanced Enterprise Community over all, but the crime had moved to the periphery

of the target area, north and east. The majority of referrals from the TYC probation officers to

the YODP had proved to be ineligible for the program because the youth resided in this

peripheral area, not in a YODP target neighborhood. 

The TYC sent fewer youth, over the course of the YODP grant, to the privately sponsored

residential correctional facility, Gulf Coast Trades (GCT), another main contractor for Project UTurn. GCT had been the project site for School-to-work programs to prepare incarcerated youth

for skilled employment upon their return to the neighborhoods. Judges were making fewer

assignments to correctional facilities, however; so the facilities operated by the TYC took

priority for residential placements. Only three eligible youth were referred to GCT over a sevenmonth period when the predicted referral rate of eligible youth to GCT had been about 10 per

month. 

Mayor Lee P. Brown put the city’s anti-gang operation in his office as a way to demonstrate its

importance. A staff member of the YODP represented HW at meetings held at the Mayor’s AntiGang Office (MAGO). MAGO not only facilitated information sharing among service providers

to youth offenders or those suspected of gang membership, but it also had funds to support

outreach staff working in high-crime neighborhoods.

The reported number of gangs operating in the Houston area had increased proportionately with

the increase in the general population. Gang activity in Houston had decreased by 10% in recent

years, however, according to the MAGO director. Gang-related homicides and aggravated

assault incidents had declined for 1999 and 2000, and the decline continued for the early months

of 2001. Drug trafficking increased during this time and arrests for drug possession and

trafficking increased as well.

The ethnicity of gang and youth crime activity shifted during this time. African American

activity and the number of African American homicide victims declined while the involvement

of Hispanic males, particularly new immigrants, increased. There had been a slight increase in

the number of female youth involved as well.

No one was sure how much of the gang activity decline could be linked to the concerted effort

by the member organizations of MAGO, but MAGO’s Violence Reduction Team had designed

an intervention that included more intensive monitoring of gang members on parole and

probation, closer attention to their conditions of parole and probation with the goal of assisting

them to remain successful in meeting those conditions, and focusing attention primarily on

criminal gang members rather than on gang members in general. Members of the Police

Department’s Gang Task Force also had changed their strategy by alerting the Violence

Reduction Team if they suspected that gang clashes were likely, instead of waiting for the

violence to occur. 
D-15

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

Houston had accumulated a number of partners interested in delivering employment services to

youth through the Kulick grant the city had received. HW staff described that they brought

together the existing and new partners and allowed them to work out the proposal design

together. This was a departure from the usual method of having the HW staff write the proposal

and circulate it among interested partners for comment. 

In Houston, new partners were the Harris County Courts, Texas Youth Commission, MAGO and

the police departments; that is, HW had not heretofore worked with the youth offender

population. Both the employment and training and the criminal justice partners were pleased to

be working together and they found that the partnership was proving mutually beneficial.

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services? 

HW contracted with ETC for services to youth residing in the target neighborhoods and with

GCT for incarcerated youth from the neighborhoods. Several non-funded partners leveraged

YODP grant funds: The Texas Youth Commission paid the residential costs for the youth at

GCT, and the Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office (MAGO) paid for community intervention specialists

who maintained neighborhood contacts, recruited youth for the project, and provided gang

prevention activities. With the award of a Youth Opportunity (YO) grant, HW decided that YO

would be responsible for in-school youth and Project U-Turn (YODP) would be responsible for

out-of-school youth.

ETC and GCT received their contracts from HW only in the summer 2000, so the project was

delayed in coming into full operation. Although ETC and GCT were written into the grant

proposal, HW had decided that they needed to have a competitive request for proposals before

preparing the contracts; it had taken until July-August 2000 to complete the process.

The YO grant also provided the impetus to reorganize the HW youth programs as a whole. The

original project manager for Project U-Turn was made assistant director for all youth programs

and a former case management supervisor became project manager. 

Only partially implemented, the new approach to youth employment was to recognize the

eligibility of all Houston youth for services through one or several funding streams: YODP, YO,

WIA, and privately funded summer youth employment projects. Each funding stream had

restrictions on what services could be offered as well as to whom they could be offered. By

completing an expanded enrollment form, the staff determined for which services the applying

youth was eligible. A youth’s ISS could route her/him through several types of employment

training, support services, and employment search and placement options.
D-16

Funding was viewed as “following the kid,” that is, the youth’s needs could be met through a

variety of vendors whose qualifications had been vetted as part of the process to become eligible

for referrals. The new set of partnerships, referred to as PAYS, included all vendors on the

accepted vendor list. A quality assurance function was added to HW to oversee the safety and

quality of facilities and services provided through the vendor arrangement.

Representatives of the vendors became the advisory committee for all youth employment

programs. Although it was not a WIA youth council, the committee functioned like one. It was,

in effect, the project’s advisory committee. It did not include parents or youth; the entire

representation came from HW and its vendors. By the time of the third evaluation site visit in

spring 2001, ETC was not a member of PAYS.

Each vendor submitted a per-capita cost for providing a service, for example, drug abuse

counseling services or a work readiness training class. Case managers provided youth with the

options available (schedules, locations, etc.), and youth chose the vendor from which he/she

would seek service.

This development took ETC by surprise. It had accepted the YODP contract for providing case

management, referral, and some direct services to youth offenders, assuming that it would also

be receiving a contract for providing less intensive services to YO youth, who were easier to

serve. By having responsibility for the Project U-Turn youth and being only one of the

employment training options for area youth under YO, the organization believed that it had been

put into a very difficult financial position. ETC reported, however, that it was providing services

according to its Project U-Turn contract.

Gulf Coast Trades, as mentioned earlier, had a contract to serve incarcerated youth from target

neighborhoods. The TYC would have been responsible for their residential expenses as well as

for providing the School-to-work and GED preparation during the months of their incarceration

(typically 9 months). The GCT contract was based on anticipation of providing employment

placement and follow-up services to 100 area youth when they left the facility and returned to

their homes and for 12 months after they found employment.

When referrals to GCT were not forthcoming, HW thought it could encourage TYC to transfer

eligible youth from one of the TYC facilities to GCT for the last six months of their sentences.

TYC needed to keep its own facilities fully subscribed, however, so youth were not released to

GCT. HW then made arrangements for GCT to go to the TYC institutions to provide the same

services to youth at TYC facilities. 

TYC agreed to move all the YODP-eligible youth to one of two facilities, which already held the

majority of incarcerated youth who were eligible for Project U-Turn: Hamilton (Bryan, Texas)

and Jefferson (Beaumont, Texas). Not fully implemented in spring 2001, the plan would be for

GCT to provide a school-to-work curriculum applied to a few occupational fields at these two

facilities. TYC agreed to give Project U-Turn youth a pre-employment assessment and to

purchase Magellan software for individual learning, aptitude testing, and career exploration.
D-17

Funds that GCT had for work readiness and placement would be realigned for GCT to do more

aftercare in Houston when the youth returned: providing case management, reducing barriers

(such as transportation costs), assisting with job placement and follow-up. GCT had been tested

as a model for neighborhood-based services, and this model would be expanded with YODP

funding from GCT’s existing contract.

The partnership of MAGO, the probation office, the courts, and the police with HW evolved

with the planned development of a Juvenile Justice Center slated to be a special youth One-Stop

center. The former Casa de los Amigos Clinic already had been identified as a youth One-Stop.

And, with funds or in-kind support from MAGO, Weed and Seed, YO, and state juvenile justice

grants, it would become a youth employment center with an alternative court, a home base for

MAGO outreach staff and for other service providers with a special interest in youth offenders.

RIO, TYC’s employment and training office, planned to put a worker in the center. The center

would serve other youth from the neighborhood as well. The HW staff hoped that Houston

Independent School District (HISD) would become more actively engaged with the effort.

The original partnership network for Project U-Turn did not include faith-based and communitybased organizations, other than ETC. PAYS included both faith-based organizations and

community-based nonprofit organizations and agencies. Through PAYS, for example,

recreational services would become available for U-Turn youth–services not previously

available.

While the YODP grant was awarded directly to HW, the YO grant Houston received was

awarded to HGAC, making HGAC more active in the delivery of youth employment services in

Houston. In effect, HGAC, the area workforce development council, became another partner in

the planning and implementing of youth employment services.

The Unified School District planned to establish a recognized charter school at ETC in August

2001 and pay for the certified teachers. The school would focus on youth two grades behind

their age-appropriate school level. The goal would be to assist the youth in catching up in order

to return to traditional school or to complete high school through the existing GED preparation at

ETC. Project U-Turn youth would be eligible for this charter school.

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

Houston basically had two programs, one through ETC for youth at home and Gulf Coast Trades

for incarcerated youth. At ETC, youth were provided intake and assessment as part of an

extensive application process. The youth were assisted in preparing a personal plan, one that

included education, community service, and support services, such as substance abuse

intervention, assistance with child care or transportation. ETC operated a GED preparation class

during the day, and work readiness and life skills assistance were offered as needed. ETC

provided job development, placement, and follow-up for 90 days. Should a youth lose a job, the

placement process and follow-up began again for another 90 days.
D-18

For youth who expressed an interest in a particular occupation, HW arranged courses, generally

through the Houston Community College. Nine youth earned a certificate for laying fiber optic

cable and had found work placements directly from the program at $7.50 an hour plus benefits.

One youth wanted machinist training and earned a certificate through the Texas Engineering

Extension (TEEX) in Houston. Most youth did not receive vocational education before being

advanced to the job search phase of the program.

The Gulf Coast Trades operation was a thorough going school-to-work program for incarcerated

youth. The GCT provided all the work readiness services listed earlier, but these skills and

services were embedded in a program of academic preparation and vocational education

provided through The Raven School, a recognized alternative school in the New Waverly School

District. Youth spent 2.5 hours each day in academic preparation and 5.5 hours in vocational

education shops: auto mechanic, culinary, building maintenance, masonry, and computer

applications. Youth refurbished, helped construct, and maintained all the GCT buildings. Youth

could move on to YouthBuild, and GCT had completed four homes and planned to sell them for

more land and materials. Service learning and leadership opportunities were part of the program.

For youth approaching their 18th birthday, and who did not have a stable home to return to, GCT

provided an independent living program to help them begin life on their own after incarceration.

The program helped them find an apartment and a car. It also assisted them in finding

employment back in the Houston neighborhood, and provided follow-up services to them for a

year after they were hired.

As mentioned earlier, only three youth benefited from this program over a seven-month period.

The new plan called for GCT to offer the occupation-based school-to-work program services

directly to two TYC-supervised youth in TYC facilities. With the difficulty of developing the

hands-on training bays, only two or three occupations would be featured at the TYC facilities,

compared to the six at GCT. Academic preparation would be provided by the TYC school

facilities, and GCT would provide the follow-up and job placement services to the youth

returning to the target neighborhoods.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

HW, itself, was in a large commercial office building in downtown Houston; but the clients

rarely needed to come there. Houston’s ETC was in what appeared to be a renovated

professional office; it was clean, bright and airy. There were offices and classrooms where GED

classes were taught. The location was both gang-neutral and accessible. GCT was about an hour

from Houston to the north and sufficiently far off the main highway that the youth would not be

encouraged to walk home. It was set in a stand of pine trees that was originally a Jobs Corps

site. There were multiple modular-type buildings for offices, residences, classrooms and shops.

There were no towers, fences, or guns. 

Houston had plans to build or refurbish four buildings as youth One-Stop centers; all were in the

general YODP target area. These One-Stop centers would be built with funds from multiple
D-19

sources, but primarily from the YO grant. One of these centers was operational and was part of

a large multi-use community center. Casa de los Amigos would be another site, but its repairs

had been delayed by the presence of asbestos. This building, when renovated, would be a

juvenile justice center with multiple services for youth offenders and youth at risk of criminal

activity. The other sites were not ready by spring 2001.

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

The original project manager for Project U-Turn had been a veteran member of the HW staff

who became the new assistant director for Youth Programs at HW. The new project manager

had been a case manager supervisor for Project U-Turn. He was an experienced youth

development specialist and had worked with youth in mental health settings. He served as a

liaison between Project U-Turn and the other HW projects under the new youth employment

strategy, and he represented the project on MAGO.

Two HW staff members were hired by HW, one an African American male with extensive

experience in law enforcement and parole. The other was a Latina case worker with employment

training background. Both were located in the ETC office while the new youth One-Stop centers

were readied. They supervised the case management of youth at ETC and managed youth who

remained employed beyond 90 days, at which time they completed their client status with ETC.

HW offered a regular program of staff training, and a certain number of hours were required of

all employees. The only project level training had occurred through the technical assistance

consultants referred to the site, Linda Reed on developing project organization (common terms,

protocols, and procedures) and Tom English on strengthening gang suppression activity. Linda

Reed’s workshop was intended to help the cross-agency team develop a common vision for the

project. Both reported that the training was well-received.

ETC used veteran staff members for management and to provide specialized services, such as

gang intervention and substance abuse. It hired several case managers who served Project UTurn youth as well as others. The GED teachers were funded from other sources.

It was ETC’s philosophy that all staff needed to understand the work of the others on the team;

the staff was cross-trained and met weekly to review the project. The ETC staff was trained at

the HW Academy for proper eligibility determination and for completing the HW enrollment

form. GCT used existing staff for their project U-Turn services, and the three youth referred to

GCT were mingled with the other youth at the facility.

PAYS also provided a means to develop expertise among participating agencies. At their

monthly meetings, the partner representatives heard from police officers, parole officers, and

MAGO leaders. Such activities strengthened all the participating agencies’ ability to work with

the youth offender population.
D-20

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

Recruiting youth had been limited by the general delay in contracting for services. Through

summer 2000, HW received nine referrals from the community-based organization, NonCustodial Fathers. When contracts were signed, ETC and GCT moved aggressively to meet their

contractual service load of 500 youth: 100 at GCT and 400 at ETC.

GCT contacted TYC directly to get lists of youth to check for eligibility. Given TYC’s need to

keep its facilities fully enrolled, only three youth were referred successfully to GCT. As

described earlier, GCT planned work with TYC to provide services to incarcerated youth

directly.

ETC contacted the “Dropout Recovery” office of HISD for a list of names of youth who had

dropped out of school or who were returning from San Marcos, a boot camp. Staff attended job

fairs and sent flyers to persons on the HISD lists; staff attended neighborhood events and

maintained contacts with neighborhood youth. 

ETC contacted the local probation office and the court with whom it had worked for years on the

community service assignment parts of alternative sentences. It was trying to strengthen those

relationships as a recruiting mechanism for the project. They knew that 120 eligible youth had

returned from incarceration at a TYC facility, but the probation officers were not referring the

youth to ETC. Part of continuing conversations with the TYC leadership led to an agreement

that TYC would require probation officers to make referrals to U-Turn. The staff judged that the

most effective recruitment strategies up to spring 2001 was word of mouth. Some youth had

walked into the center, hearing that ETC would help them find jobs. ETC staff did not believe

that it would have difficulty in serving the 400 youth envisioned by the contract.

Project 17 was a local effort to provide intensive services to youth returning from incarceration

who were 17 years old. Knowing that if they got into further trouble they would be tried as

adults, the city was trying to forestall continuing criminal activity. The list of Project 17 youth

was being reviewed for eligibility under the YODP guidelines as a recruitment effort and way to

leverage services across programs.

8. What types of training, employment, and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Both Houston’s ETC and GCT used an extensive application and assessment process. Each

youth was assisted in developing a personal plan. Education and work readiness training were

always a part of the plan. Both academic and vocational education were required by GCT.

Developing a project database had been delayed by the process of moving to a Texas-wide

information reporting system for the WIA program. When the system was in place, YODP was
D-21

not a category in the system so records continued to be kept separately by partners and reported

to the project manager monthly. Table 1 reports the statistics gathered by the current information

reporting system. It reports the eligibility of youth for both YO and U-Turn clients. The

services reported in the table, however, are for YO and U-Turn co-enrollees only because the

system did not track Project U-Turn. Services delivered are understated because the 33 U-Turn

clients were not included in the service delivery database.

Table 1. Project U-Turn Status as of June 14, 2001

OUTCOMES

Enrollment Goals 500

Enrollment: 81 YO + 33 YODP 114

Case Management/Assessment 114

Referred for Service 25*

Community service 0

In School 0

Enrolled in GED Classes 35*

Completed Work Readiness Training 30*

Completed Education 5*

Job Search/Placement Activity NR

In Subsidized Employment 0*

In unsubsidized Employment 11*

Exited the Program NR

Entered the Military NR

Entered Job Corps NR

Incarcerated NR

 * Refers to co-enrolled youth only.
D-22

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were the

intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Through PAYS, Project U-Turn clients were able to access a wide variety of collateral services.

Teen parents, for example, could be referred to St. Luke’s (Episcopal) or Catholic Charities for

assistance; youth needing substance abuse intervention could receive a voucher to exchange for

services. The new community center housing a youth One-Stop center also included recreation

and arts facilities and programs in which the youth could participate without cost. 

Clients often were helped to find transportation. Work clothing expenses were paid for with

Project U-Turn funds. Clients who were parents were assisted with child care while they

completed their individual programs or as they were starting employment.

GED classes were available through ETC, but were funded through other sources. For the few

youth who asked for specific vocational education certification, the project paid for tuition and

other fees.

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

HW conceived PAYS (Partnership for At-risk Youth Strategies), a city-wide strategy for youth

employment using the funding from its YO grant and other sources. Four permanent youth OneStop centers were envisioned as part of that strategy, and one of them was in operation. The

staff of Project U-Turn was expected to be assigned to these One-Stop centers after the YODP

grant so that experienced staff would be available to youth offenders in each of the target

neighborhoods.

The new vendor system appeared more flexible and more sustainable than the former practice of

contracting out to one agency for varieties of service and oversight activities. HW staff believed

that it would be better served by using multiply funded vendors with on-going programs rather

than developing dependent relationships with a few vendors.

HW staff anticipated that it would continue to prepare proposals for funding the youth offender

employment activities. The PAYS partnership was also expected to prepare proposals as a

collaborative effort. 

The pattern of co-enrolling youth in several programs, based on eligibility, was expected to

continue to leverage formula funds, such as WIA and some juvenile justice grants funding, as

well as to make better use of YO funding. The expanding nature of the PAYS network was also

seen as a way to leverage services without exchanging funds. The Boy Scouts have been offered

space in the youth One-Stops, rather than funds. The Scouts would bring another set of activities

to project participants without an expenditure of project funds.
D-23

In the judgement of several Project U-Turn staff members, the continuing allocation of state

juvenile justice funds for employment and training depended on the ability to demonstrate that

Project U-Turn and its ancillary supports would reduce recidivism. State RIO employees noted

that 60% of the youth returning to the court system were unemployed. The state planned to work

more closely with the project staff to assist youth returning to Houston from boot camp to enroll

in Project U-Turn. Staff would meet with youth before their release. With U-Turn services,

plus the specialized aftercare services (mental health, gang reduction, drug treatment and

intensive supervision), the state hoped that recidivism could be reduced.

The intensive case management would probably be the most vulnerable service, if the YODP

staff cannot secure new grant funds. The typical size of case loads would prevent management of

clients, yet partnerships will likely continue. 

The partners had identified common interests and ways to leverage each other’s resources. The

common stakes for all the partners were high enough for them to continue the collaboration and

to find the means to do so. HW had used the collaborative model as the basis for its

reorganization.

Once grant funding ends, HW plans to remove the restriction to youth offender services based on

neighborhood lines. The experience with demographic shifts demonstrated that the approach

needs the flexibility to move services to youth to where they were most needed.

Houston was a resource-rich site that had been frustrated in its efforts to put Project U-Turn on

an operational footing as it juggled the larger shifts in organizational structure, staffing and

strategies. HW seemed to have chosen strong partners who were energetic in making the project

successful, and it had moved to a new partnership structure that provided access to a broader

range of services for youth. The project had not yet had time to demonstrate the effectiveness of

its approach or of its services.
D-24
D-25

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for

Philadelphia

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

Philadelphia’s Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) was awarded to the Philadelphia

Workforce Development Corporation (PWDC), formerly the Philadelphia Private Industry

Council. The city’s YODP originally was named “Learn and Earn;” it was subsequently

renamed “Youth Connect.” The project evolved considerably from its initial design, including

youth it planned to serve and the services it planned to offer.

Philadelphia’s economy was strong and diversified, but the situation for under-educated youth

was very difficult. Job openings at good wages demanded more skills than many inner-city youth

had. Many entry-level jobs with career potential for which these youth were eligible were in the

suburbs. But most youth lacked transportation to reach them. 

Philadelphia reported youth arrests at 8,900 in 1999, 400 more than the previous three years.

There were typically 5,000 youth a year under court supervision, with another 1,000 returned to

court on bench warrants; 250 youth were generally referred to court for abuse and neglect.

About 2,500 of convicted youth received alternative sentences; these were judged to be a good

fit for the YODP. 

A major concern for the Juvenile Court staff had been the lack of good aftercare. There were

2,000 youth per year released to aftercare. Before their release, many had received good

educational programs at the facilities where they had been incarcerated. When they came back,

however, they often had not received meaningful aftercare. From studies done by the court, most

youth sent to school on their return to the community never arrived for class or dropped out after

a few days. The court estimated that fewer than 10% of youth returning from incarceration

completed high school. Typically they returned to criminal activity.

Originally, the PWDC passed the YODP funds to the School District of Philadelphia (SDP)

system for the Communities in Schools (CIS) and to the Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN).

Both of these are nonprofit organizations that offered non-teaching services to youth in the

school district. The SDP focused its Youth Offender program on four high schools, one in West

Philadelphia and three in North Philadelphia.

Staff at the school district’s Central Discipline Office assigned youth returning from

incarceration or referred to the office for disciplinary infractions whom they thought would

benefit from Youth Connection services. They were referred to one of two in-school alternative

classrooms in these four schools. 
D-26

One alternative classroom called TOPS (Transitional Opportunities Promoting Success ) offered

youth, who were under 18 years of age and who had earned fewer than 10 credits toward their

high school diplomas, a standard high school curriculum in a self-contained classroom. The

other, called Twilight classes, was offered to youth over 18 who had at least 10 credits toward

graduation. Through its Community-in-Schools (CIS) organization, the SDP also offered some

job development and work readiness training services. 

Several limitations about this arrangement surfaced during the project’s first year. Youth

referred by the courts rarely arrived in the TOPS and Twilight classes. CIS, lacking work

readiness and job development experience, was unable to prepare youth effectively for work.

The schools were unprepared to provide for youth during the summer months when schools were

not in session. One partner, who was responsible for offering recreational and other support

services, did not provide them; and PWDC was responsible for a project it knew little about and

over which it could exert little control or oversight.

Early in the project’s second year, PWDC hired a project manager who oversaw the entire

operation and began an information reporting system to track the progress of project participants.

The SDP continued to offer the TOPS and Twilight classes in the four designated schools, but a

new organization with job development and employment training experience was contracted to

provide these services. 

The Philadelphia Family Court hired a probation officer to ensure that youth it had referred to

the project actually participated in it. The main limitations of this arrangement were that the

employment training and job development contractor did not perform this role, and arrangements

for youth through the summer were lacking.

In the third iteration of the program model, PWDC took over responsibility for case

management, work readiness training, placement and follow-up. PWDC contracted with two

community-based organizations to work with youth participants. These organizations were

Aspira and the Philadelphia Anti-Violence/Anti-Gang Network (PAAN).

The SDP became able to assign school-referred and court-referred youth to the TOPS or

Twilight classes in whichever of the 22 comprehensive high schools was best for the youth.

Youth who had dropped out of high school, or who needed only a few credits to graduate, were

referred to the Adult Evening Program at the Community College of Philadelphia or its

extension at Edison High School to earn their diploma or prepare for the GED exams. 

Aspira, an organization founded to provide academic, counseling and leadership support to

Puerto Rican and other Hispanic youth and their parents, provided counseling, work readiness

training, internships, and summer work experiences for project youth. PAAN had extensive

experience with court-supervised and gang-involved African American youth. And, it provided

a computer-based learning program for youth at risk of dropping out of school, gang intervention

activities, a boys support program (“Gifted Young Men”), and other outreach and advocacy

activities for gang-involved youth or youth at risk of joining gangs.
D-27

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

Philadelphia’s proposal was written by a school district staff member, who had no further

connection to the plan once it was submitted. Because it needed to be submitted through an

employment and training agency, the then-called Philadelphia Private Industry Council (PIC),

prepared the proposal. The pattern in Philadelphia had been that all youth employment and

training funds received through the PIC were turned over to the SDP for implementation, so it

had not developed in-house expertise on youth employment. The SDP did not have an

established operating relationship with either the courts or police. 

When the project was funded, principals of the four high schools named in the proposal met and

redesigned the project. Initially the plan had been to establish an academy for returning youth

offenders with special services and supports, as well as the high school curriculum. The four

principals funded, instead, TOPS and Twilight classrooms in their high schools as part of their

drop-out prevention program. Some youth may have been returning from incarceration, but the

classrooms were available for any youth being reassigned through the school district’s Central

Discipline Office or assigned to them by the principals themselves. 

PWDC had assumed an active leadership role for the project by fall 2000. It hired a project

manager, and it assumed responsibility for case management, youth monitoring, some work

readiness training and some job placement by winter 2001. CIS continued to pay for four TOPS

teachers until the end of May 2001. Financial arrangements between the project and SDP for the

Twilight teachers had never been finalized in a contract. PWDC contracted with Aspira and

PAAN, an operating unit of the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, during winter

2001.

Until its second year, the project lacked an operating relationship with the court and probation

office. Family Court then hired a project coordinator with project funds, a former probation

officer, to connect the YODP-funded classrooms to its Probation Department. After

presentations to probation officers and other Family Court staff, more youth were referred to

Youth Connect for project services. The project coordinator monitored youth attendance at

school and at work placements for several months before illness caused her to take an extended

leave of absence. 

PWDC formed a 25-member advisory council in spring 2001. The council included

representatives from Aspira, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, Family Court (both

judges and professional staff), Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, Juvenile Defenders

Office, PAAN, Philadelphia Safe and Sound, Red Cross, SDP, Temple University, and Urban

Works.
D-28

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services? 

The main arrangements for Youth Connect were initially through the city’s school district. But

over the life of the project PWDC assumed the major role for both oversight and service

delivery.

The main contractor initially was Communities-in-Schools (CIS), a 501-(c)-3 nonprofit agency

that provided non-teaching services to the SDP. The school unions did not have rules about the

hiring and use of non-teaching personnel, and CIS was established to provide educationally

related services to the school district that were not covered by union agreement. When CIS’s

roles and responsibilities became unclear in spring 2000 PWDC took on responsibilities for

project management.

PWDC had contracted with Educational Data Systems, Inc. (EDSI) during the project’s second

year to provide case management, work readiness training, job development, placement and

follow-up. By moving work readiness and employment training responsibilities from CIS to

EDSI, the staff intended to access employer networks, work readiness curriculum, and career

development data bases that CIS lacked. EDSI had received several such contracts at one time,

however; and proved unable to devote the staff to the YODP as agreed upon. PWDC

subsequently hired four case managers and a job developer who assumed responsibility for these

tasks.

PWDC had a contract with the Family Court for a project coordinator, a probation officer

responsible to connect youth with the program. She was to be the primary case manager for

Youth Connect. As part of her responsibilities, she established eligibility of project participants

and she followed up on non-attendance and other problems that occurred between the youth and

service providers. Her case management and liaison responsibilities were assumed by PWDC

case workers during her extended absence from work.

PWDC also had intended to contract with Safe and Sound of Philadelphia for recreational and

other support services for project participants. Since Safe and Sound did not perform these

activities in the project’s first year, PWDC began a process of finding these resources within the

city departments. But these support services were still not available to the participants through

the project by spring 2001. Safe and Sound was also intended to convene the advisory council

for the project, but PWDC subsequently performed this task as well.

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

The YODP provided: intake, assessment, referral to academic programs, work readiness training,

job search and placement, some work experience opportunities and some mentoring
D-29

opportunities. Which organization offered these services varied over the project’s history.

Providing work readiness and job placement services had been the most difficult to implement

consistently. Special supports, such as driver’s education classes and transportation passes, were

also available. PWDC initiated an incentive program, rewards for consistent attendance at

school or work.

PWDC eventually provided all intake and enrollment processing, regardless of the recruiting

organization. Youth referred to the SDP for TOPS or Twilight classes were in formal classroom

settings, and the school district’s standards determined the assessment, curriculum, instruction,

and schedule. 

Formal work readiness training was shared by PWDC and Aspira. Aspira also provided work

experiences and community service opportunities while PWDC provided unsubsidized job

search and placement services. Aspira developed 200 summer job placements, not enough for the

number of interested youth; but the Youth Connect would have priority in getting one of these

slots. PAAN provided mentoring, anger management and mediation training at Aspira. It made

recreational opportunities and neighborhood “Peace Fairs” available to youth in neighborhoods

near their office.

Case managers met with youth alone or in groups and attempted to meet with families in their

homes. Some youth, however, were met in the courthouse or in a library near their homes. Job

Fairs were generally at PWDC; the job developer attempted to match youth interests and job

opportunities.

PWDC was implementing ADVOCIT, an information reporting system that provides consistent

data and reports for all its programs. Implementation, however, was only partially complete in

spring 2001. Records from the project’s first year were not available, although some youth in

the PWDC database were from the first year’s recruiting. The school district kept traditional

records according to SDP standards, but it did not track participation, grades or graduation rates

of Youth Connect participants.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

PWDC was in the heart of downtown Philadelphia at the One Penn Central Building. It was

accessible by public transportation from all parts of the city. PWDC operations occupied several

floors in this building; it was simply and functionally furnished. 

Aspira was in a newly renovated school building where it operated a charter school that went as

far as the sixth grade during the 2000-2001 academic year. The building was bright and airy,

full of children’s art work and bright posters. It was in a neighborhood of residences and small

businesses, many with signs in the Spanish language. 
D-30

PAAN was in a one-story, renovated, former manufacturing plant in a neighborhood of neglected

and abandoned manufacturing plants. It was near residential neighborhoods from which youth it

served came. Its offices were bright, welcoming and functionally furnished.

Family Court was in the city’s main courthouse, which was built in the grand style that included

marble floors, staircases, and large murals. It was an older building with small and simply

furnished offices.

The four schools to which youth were originally referred were all well-designed and sturdily

built. They were in neighborhoods with substantial gang activity, which discouraged attendance

by youth from other parts of the city. Youth participating in the project eventually were referred

to any one of the city’s 22 comprehensive high schools or to the Adult Evening Program at

Edison High School or the Community College of Philadelphia. There were also night classes

offered at Ben Franklin High School under contract with the community college.

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

PWDC hired four case managers and a job developer. All were experienced professionals with

four of the five years of experience in case management or job development. One case manager

supervised the service delivery team. She answered directly to the project manager who reported

to the head of PWDC’s youth programs. The project manager was hired from another

Philadelphia organization with goals and activities similar to those of Youth Connect. While the

service delivery team met to coordinate their work and to report to their supervisors, the team did

not receive formal training. Project partners also coordinated their work, but there was not a

cross-partner training program in place.

CIS arranged for certified high school teachers to move from their regular teaching schedules at

the four target high schools into either TOPS or Twilight classrooms. TOPS teachers taught the

youth all day in self-contained classrooms; the materials they used was based on the standard

SDP curriculum. Twilight teachers, who had a full class-load in the regular schedule, taught in

the after-school program, which covered four quarters during the regular school term. Teachers

prepared Twilight courses as six-week modules in their subject areas. The curriculum met SDP

requirements for graduation. There was continuing discussion of the difficulty in orienting these

teachers to the needs of the target population.

Aspira and PAAN did not hire anyone for the Youth Connect project. The staff of Aspira, both

men and women, spoke both English and Spanish; the staff of PAAN consisted primarily of

African American men.

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

Youth were recruited mainly from Family Court and Aspira. A PWDC case manager spent every

Wednesday at Family Court to connect with youth who were assigned to the project as an
D-31

alternative sentence. Youth who came to Aspira for assistance were referred to PWDC for

enrollment. Each day one case manager was assigned to handle telephone referrals, and

generally that day’s intake became part of the case manager’s case load.

Enrollment grew significantly once PWDC case managers and the project coordinator from

Family Court were hired. Enrollment increased from 160 participants in October 2000 to 535 in

May 2001. Case loads for managers were nominally high, although active case loads were about

30 each. Youth who failed to attend project activities and whom case managers were unable to

contact were dropped from the project. Youth who were re-incarcerated also were dropped. All

youth remained on project rosters, however.

8. What types of training, employment, and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Table 1 reports the status of Youth Connect participants as of June 2001. The ADVOCIT

information reporting system reported only basic information, such as, name, social security

number, school attending, ethnicity, age, address, parole officer’s name, and case manager’s

name. The data in Table 1 are from this report or from case worker and job developer reports.

The 286 youth who exited the program were youth who completed an application, but then

declined services. Aspira subsidized summer employment was to begin in summer 2001; there

was no record of other subsidized employment.

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were the

intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Case managers described their roles as advocates for project youth and their families. They

attended court hearings with them, visited their homes, were contacted by probation officers, and

contacted other service providers.

One Family Court judge assigned youth specific tasks, such as opening a bank account,

depositing 25% of weekly wages into the account, bringing the bank account deposit book for

court appearances, and writing an essay about the youth’s goals and a “Plan B” in case goals

were not achievable. The PWDC staff planned to develop a parallel system for non-courtinvolved youth with the Philadelphia Credit Union. 
D-32

Table 1. Youth Connect Status as of June 1, 2001

OUTCOMES

Enrollment Goals 320

Enrollment as of June 1, 2001 535

Case Management/Assessment 452

Referred for Services 47*

Community Service NR

In School 397

Enrolled in GED classes NR

Completed Work Readiness Training 184

Completed Education NR

Job search/placement activity 200

In subsidized employment NR

In unsubsidized employment 30

Exited the program 286

Entered the military 0

Enter Job Corps NR

Incarcerated 16

The PWDC staff initiated an incentive system. If the youth brought a pay stub after a month of

working for the same employer, the youth received a month’s “Transpass” that permitted travel

on any public conveyance for a month. PWDC planned to make a deposit in the Credit Union

for any youth who was willing to save part of his/her earnings.

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

PWDC retained sufficient unexpended funds to continue operating for 9-12 months after the end

of the project on May 31, 2001. WIA funds for youth have been passed directly to the

Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN), and there were no immediate plans to reconsider this

allocation. PWDC did not foresee a collaboration with the school district, even though it could

offer its expertise in job placement and its network of employers interested in hiring youth.
D-33

PWDC policy held that services for youth should be delivered in neighborhoods and not directly

through the PWDC. The One-Stop center at PWDC was for adults, and the five planned

satellites were to go into community centers and churches in key neighborhoods. Some work

readiness services might be available to youth at a satellite center.

Staff believed that the sources of future funds would need to come from grants or organizations

related to the court. The advisory committee was established partly in hope that the court would

recognize the particular niche Youth Connect filled.
D-34
D-35

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for

Richmond, CA

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

The Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) was awarded to RichmondWorks, the City

of Richmond Office of Employment Training, which was called Youth Economic Employment

Service (YEES). Richmond, the largest city in Contra Costa County, California, and part of a

region called the East Bay, was a city of almost 94,000 residents and 35,000 households. It was

the smallest of the Category 1 sites. 

Richmond is geographically isolated from surrounding cities; it is on a peninsula separating San

Francisco and San Pablo Bays; Interstate Highway 80 separates it from the rest of Contra Costa

County. During World War II, Richmond attracted workers from all over the country to work in

the shipyards where “Liberty” ships were built. After the war, the shipyards were closed and the

local economy struggled for years to recover. Hilltop Mall, a major regional shopping center,

“sucked the last few retail stores out of downtown Richmond,” according to one Richmond

worker. Chevron and local, state, and federal governments provided most of the employment

within Richmond itself. 

Richmond is, however, re-gentrifying. In recent years the burgeoning economy of San

Francisco, Oakland, and Emeryville (East Bay center of biotechnology firms) brought both new

industry and new residents to the city. Richmond has 32 miles of beautiful shoreline, and

developers are building high-priced housing and boat marinas to take advantage of the beautiful

water and bay vistas. These sections are somewhat isolated from the rest of city, and the

orientation of the new residents is to friends and jobs away from the city. This seemed to be in

contrast to the tightly knit community in Richmond’s long-established neighborhoods.

The city is ethnically mixed: 44% African-American, 14% Hispanic, 36% White, 12% Asian and

Pacific Islander. The African American community dates back to the 1940s when many families

came from southwest Louisiana to form generations of strong neighborhood links. 

In 2001, finding jobs in Richmond was not a problem; there was more work than the project had

youth to fill. Employers were open to hiring YEES youth once they were deemed work ready.

A generation of unionized construction workers was approaching retirement age, and the

technology industry that was fueling the growth in the East Bay was looking for employees. The

service sector in the region also was strong, so there were low-skill as well as high-skill

openings. Transportation was a problem for youth in North Richmond, which was less well

served by the public transit systems.
D-36

The city’s neighborhoods were primarily well-kept single-family homes. The YODP target

population, however, lived in multi-family residences; some were public housing projects and

some were private apartment complexes. The public housing complexes were new or being

refurbished, and the other apartments were well-maintained and pleasant in appearance. 

YEES originally targeted neighborhoods in North Richmond to complement the Safe Futures

grant activity in South Richmond. North Richmond was marked by poverty, high rates of high

school dropouts, family instability, and homelessness. Over the course of the project, however,

YODP youth came from all over the city.

The county had experienced a reduction in violent youth crime, as had much of the nation. The

target neighborhood that proved to have the deepest problems was North Richmond. Part of

North Richmond was in the city and part was an unincorporated area of the county. The sheriff

had to drive through the city to get to the county portion, and the area was out-of-the-way for

city police as well. Staff reported few regular patrols by area police. Male social workers

reported that it was a dangerous area for them to penetrate and that new male case workers

needed to be introduced to males on key street corners by someone who was trusted before they

attempted to go into the neighborhood to recruit youth for YEES. 

The youth culture also was an inhibiting factor. Staff reported that some youth were prisoners of

the area in which they lived, especially in North Richmond. Staff believed that they wanted to

“get out of the life;” they wanted to take jobs outside the city or neighborhood, but that they

were socialized to patterns of their neighborhood. Staff reported that North Richmond youth who

enrolled in YEES had more problems adjusting. In general, their attention span was too short to

focus on learning and work activities; and they were proving to be the hardest to place in jobs. 

Work readiness was a key employment problem, and project administrators reported feeling

pressured to bring participants to a level of work readiness faster than was possible. A strong

welfare-to-work program brought older economically disadvantaged residents into entry-level

positions in the local workforce. Employers also were finding that in general they were more

stable, work ready, and eager to learn than many youth. 

Many employers needed workers, however, and they often were not asking if the youth had been

in trouble. What they did want to know was if the youth would show up on time, work

consistently, and display a good attitude. There were also educational problems for youth who

seriously wanted to work. Employers at the nearby Hilltop Mall held a forum for Christmas

employment. Richmond’s Office for Employment and Training, youth division, YouthWorks,

sent them some youth who did not read well. As a result, the employers sent them back with the

report that they were good kids, but they could not do the job.

Political support was strong for the project. The mayor, council, Workforce Investment Board

(WIB), and the WIB youth council were very interested in youth employment. Community-based

organizations (CBOs) also were engaged with the project and wanted to expand the possibilities.

Schools participated by referring youth to the project and by accommodating out-of-school youth

at the Adult School that operated at the Sierra School. 
D-37

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

Interested CBOs planned the YEES project. The City of Richmond called its partnership an “old

wealth” partnership because North Richmond Youth Services Bureau (YSB) and Opportunity

West (OW) had worked together over the years. YSB focused on tutoring and support activities

for youth offenders and other disadvantaged youth in North Richmond; OW focused on

community restitution and case management of youth in alternative sentencing programs. They

had worked together on the Safe Futures grant project, too. The new tie for this partnership was

with the city’s Employment and Training Office, RichmondWorks (RW). The effort was to

provide the transition of youth into steady employment. Intensive case management and other

services were designed to facilitate that. The YODP-funded proposal was written by YSB and

OW, and RichmondWorks submitted it. 

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services? 

The original YEES partnership consisted of nine partners:

C RichmondWorks (RW) and its youth arm, YouthWorks,

C Youth Services Bureau (YSB),

C Opportunity West (OW),

C Community Youth Council for Leadership Education (CYCLE),

C International Institute of the East Bay (IIEB),

C Literacy for Every Adult (LEAP),

C Police Activity League (PAL),

C The North Richmond Neighborhood House (NH),

C The Richmond Chamber of Commerce, and

C YouthBuild.

The original intent of the YODP partnership arrangement was that each partner would be

responsible for its own part of the service delivery functions. In addition, primary case managers

were to ensure that youth received the planned services from the various service providers.

During the first year, however, some partners were not delivering their services according to
D-38

their contracts, and it became clear that none of the CBOs wanted to take responsibility for those

who were not performing. In April 2000, RichmondWorks took over responsibility for YEES

and realigned the partnership, keeping for itself several service responsibilities formerly

contracted out. 

During the project’s second year, YSB, Opportunity West, Neighborhood House, CYCLE, PAL,

LEAP, and YouthBuild received contracts to continue YEES activities. All the contracts, except

YSB, had been cut by 20% to pay for case managers the city had hired. The Chamber of

Commerce and the International Institute of the East Bay did not continue in the second year.

The chamber’s role had been to place youth in unsubsidized employment, but there were no

youth ready for the jobs. The IIEB had not delivered any of the agreed upon services. During the

second year, neither CYCLE nor PAL offered services. The lead person on the project at

CYCLE left the organization and was not replaced. The lead teacher at PAL was limited by an

on-going physical ailment, and the new PAL building was not ready for occupancy. 

During the project’s second year, YouthWorks, the youth employment arm of RichmondWorks,

took on responsibility for recruiting, case management, work readiness, job development, job

placement and follow-up services to most clients. YSB continued with case management,

tutoring and support of first-year clients and of older youth who were more seriously involved

with the court. OW activity was limited to community restitution workshops and it was no longer

responsible for placing youth in subsidized employment. Neighborhood House had not taken on

the case management functions intended during the first year, but took on a case load of 15

clients in the second year, including several from North Richmond where its headquarters was

located.

The Literacy for Every Adult Project (LEAP) was an arm of the city, partially funded by

RichmondWorks and partially by the Richmond Library. LEAP continued to provide literacy

services to youth too old or unwilling to return to school. YouthBuild continued to provide

vocational education in the construction trades and GED preparation to a small number of

project youth.

The strengthened relationship with the West Contra Costa School District had led to a link with

the Sierra Adult School. The school provided an experienced teacher to assist YEES youth in

preparing for the GED; she participated on a voucher system that paid a stipend for each referred

youth.

The city reported that it wished it had not had to take over operation of the project, but it found

that contracts had not been observed and services had not been delivered. The leadership of

RichmondWorks believed that the current structure of the program was sustainable, and that the

CBOs may stay engaged through a new voucher program for ancillary services. By keeping the

program centered in the city, the city would have the reports of all youth and services to which

they had been assigned in a standard format that was also compatible with WIA reporting

requirements. 
D-39

The community-based partners were angry, but resigned. They believed that the youth needed

more help from organizations that operated in their neighborhoods, and that they would need to

look for other grant funds to continue their work. YSB had submitted its proposal to be a

provider under the new voucher system, and YouthBuild had submitted new proposals to HUD.

OW appeared to have dismantled its restorative justice program activities.

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

Richmond services differed by program year. During the project’s first year, the following

organizations provided these:

C YSB provided intake, assessment, development of the individual plan, tutoring for

the GED, substance abuse and personal counseling, removal of barriers to

engaging in program activities (like needing bus tokens to attend); 

C Opportunity West provided the eight sessions of the restorative justice

curriculum to groups of youth and made the placements for subsidized work

experience, generally through jobs in the City’s Public Works Department;

C CYCLE worked with a group of younger teens studying the court system as a

preparation for a Teen Court (which never materialized), studying the

environment and engaging in other learning activities aimed at prevention of gang

activities and criminal behavior;

C LEAP provided tutoring to youth who were severely hampered by low

educational achievement (reading below seventh grade);

C PAL offered computer tutoring for low-achieving youth, but no youth took

advantage of the program. The plan had been to make a stronger connection in

Year Two between the youth and PAL by having the case manager go with the

youth to the PAL site.

C YouthBuild offered GED preparation and training in the construction trades to

eleven youth; three completed the program and were working.

During the project’s second year, the YEES network provided the following services: 

C Intake, assessment, development of individual service plans, work readiness and

job placement for both unsubsidized and subsidized work was provided to new

clients by YouthWorks, except for those new cases that probation and parole

officers specifically referred to YSB for case management; 

C Youth had the Community Service/Restorative Justice experience with

Opportunity West until May 2001.
D-40

C LEAP continued to provide tutoring for youth whose academic achievement was

several years behind his or her age-equivalent grade in school (less than seventhgrade achievement);

C From fall 2000 until May 2001, Neighborhood House provided case management

and support services to 15 youth; 

C YSB staff provided intake, assessment, development of the individual service

plans, and case management for new clients referred to them; they continued case

management for first-year clients. 

All case managers, whether from YouthWorks, YSB, or Neighborhood House, worked together

on work readiness and youth recreational and leadership activities. Staff reported some of their

clients needed mental health and substance abuse services. The substance abuse specialist who

had worked on the project with YSB during the project’s first year moved to a new job in the

second year.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

YouthWorks was situated in what was once retail space in downtown Richmond, an area of the

city that was viewed as gang-neutral. Project offices were simply and functionally furnished.

Case workers and the job developer for YouthWorks were on the second floor; the office was

dark and all the staff shared the same room. YSB was in the YMCA building in the Coronado

neighborhood; offices were new, bright, and inviting. 

YouthBuild offices were in yet another commercial office space in downtown Richmond, but the

instruction was at Gompers High School, which was not well-maintained. Neighborhood House

was in a split-level former home in a residential neighborhood of North Richmond. It was not

easily accessible by public transit, so the case worker provided transportation to local youth for

events outside the neighborhood.

RichmondWorks was housed in a large two-story building on the main thoroughfare in

downtown Richmond. Youth went there for work readiness classes that required training room

computers. It was bright, busy, and welcoming. 

LEAP was in a small, crowded room in the same building as RichmondWorks. Although the

YEES staff wished LEAP classes were offered elsewhere, youth continued to come to this place

because the instructors were reluctant to pack and carry their materials and supplies.
D-41

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

During the first year, RichmondWorks hired a job developer and YSB hired a coordinator and

three case managers. One factor that dissolved the original plan was that neither Neighborhood

House nor IIEB hired case managers for their part of the work. None of the other partners needed

to hire staff to provide the YEES project services. All but one of the YSB staff had left the

project before the end of project’s first year. These were replaced with more experienced case

workers. All of these new case workers remained at the end of the second year, but the one holdover from the first year had left and was not replaced. 

The veteran case manager, assigned by Neighborhood House in North Richmond to manage 15

youth cases, completed her service at the end of the second year. She was reported to be

effective in bringing North Richmond youth out of the neighborhood and engaging them in

youth activities. She reported that her assignment had been to serve as their big sister for a year

until they were in a better place. Eleven had jobs by the end of the year; one had run away from

home; and two had been arrested. She returned to the Neighborhood House projects directed at

younger North Richmond children that attempted to prevent crime and provided assistance for

them in school.

YouthWorks hired three case managers for the project’s second year; the workers remained at

the end of the second year. The staff of RichmondWorks and YouthWorks were city employees

at the time the grant was awarded to the city and they continued with the project. 

The YSB staff reported that the grant was of such short duration that employees they hired for

the grant began looking for permanent work almost from the start. One question to

RichmondWorks was whether they hired staff for the second year, hoping for greater stability.

Staff reported that was never a consideration, even though city workers were usually transferred

to another position at the end of a grant. 

The YEES staff spent much of the first year’s training trying to resolve their differences in

terminology and operation. Such terms as “case management” and “work readiness” meant

different things for the youth development staff and for the employment and training staff. The

project developed the beginnings of a handbook, but that project appeared to have been dropped.

Project staff did not meet together for training on a regular basis by the second year. The city

had an annual training plan for each staff member, but training focused on employment and

training issues and not on the special considerations of the demonstration project and its

integrated services model. During an interview with case workers and the job developer the

evaluator found that staff members did not understand the components of a Model Communities

project.

Informal training occurred, however, among case managers from partners at the biweekly

meetings of the Core Team. Led by a veteran case manager, active files were reviewed, plans

were made for collaborative efforts, and difficulties were analyzed as a way for all to learn.
D-42

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

The project’s staff reported during the evaluation site visit in May 2001 that it had just enrolled

its 200th client, its target number. Youth were substantially recruited through referral from

parole and probation officers; YEES staff estimated that about 90% of the youth had been

referred by the court. Most youth in the program were 16-17 years old with an age range of 14-

23. Most were out-of-school youth, and the project was trying to move them to a more stable

situation. Some youth who appeared in danger of dropping out of school were referred by the

West Contra Costa County School District. A few youth came by self-referral on the project’s

reputation for getting youth jobs.

8. What types of training, employment, and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Specific services offered to YEES youth were described under Question 4. Youth were all

offered intensive case management and access to work readiness training and job search and

placement assistance. The staff tried to keep youth in school or get them back into traditional

school, if possible. LEAP services were offered to youth attempting to earn a GED but whose

reading levels were below 7th grade; the Sierra Adult School also offered GED classes to which

the youth could be referred. An experienced teacher at Sierra School taught youth preparing for

the GED on a voucher basis.

The YouthWorks director reported that having all youth enrolled through the city during the

second year had eliminated many problems. Youth could see the whole program at the time of

enrollment; they were assigned to case managers within a few days rather than a few weeks as

happened during the first year. Case managers helped the youth get their enrollment package

together more quickly (14 documents needed to be gathered to complete enrollment and start

services). Some youth in the first year had taken jobs before they had completed work readiness

training, and there had not been a concerted effort to keep school-age youth in school. Now the

youth needed to demonstrate academic improvements and to complete work readiness before

getting job placement services.

Beyond improving coordination of services for youth by having them on city rolls, core team

meetings continued every other Thursday. One experienced YSB case manager facilitated the

meeting of case managers; common efforts were coordinated and any youth’s name could be

raised by any case manager who was aware of a situation that needed attention. Difficulties

were brought to these meetings as a way for all to learn.

The status of Richmond participants in YEES by May 2001 is reported in Table 1.
D-43

Table 1. Status of YEES Participants in May 2001

OUTCOMES

Enrollment Goal 200

Enrollment as of May 14, 2001 177

Assessment and Case Management 153

Referred for Services 148

Community Service 107

In School 62

Enrolled in GED Classes 63

Completed Work Readiness Training 98

Completed Education NR

Job Search/Job Placement 68

Subsidized Employment 79

Unsubsidized Employment 49

Exited the Program (Moved,

Incarcerated)

33

Entered Military NR

Entered Job Corps NR

Gangs were still considered a problem, especially in North Richmond. One gang was broken

when 20 gang members were arrested, but partners still believed that North Richmond was

under-served, isolated and a dangerous part of the city.
D-44

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were the

intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Some youth had major transportation needs. North Richmond especially was a problem because

it was not easily connected by public transit to downtown. Bus tokens and transportation by case

managers were important collateral services offered project youth. 

Youth who needed work clothes or funds to join the high school ball teams or cheer leading

squads were able to receive help through the YEES grant. Leaders among the youth were taken

on overnight retreats to places such as the Marin Headlands. Recreational trips were rewards for

good attendance and progress in the youth’s plans. As a reward, youth also were given gift

certificates to buy Christmas presents. Weekends and evenings were a focus of these extra

activities. Getting youth exhausted during their unstructured time, as one project official

reported, was the best way of keeping them out of trouble.

Several logs reported that case managers met at the homes of youths and that they checked in

with parents when the youth were in school. Some case managers reported that they tried to

convince a youth’s parents or guardian about the need for the youth to work and stay in school.

Case managers also checked with school counselors to see how youth were progressing. Case

managers accompanied youth for court appearances and assisted their parents navigate through

the court system. They also helped youth get their driver’s licenses.

The YEES staff became concerned by the increase in the number of young women being referred

to the project. In their judgment, most of these had relationships with young men who were in

trouble, rather than instigators of trouble themselves. YouthWorks scheduled a “Woman to

Woman” conference for the fall 2001 that was to be developed by young women themselves.

The conference was to focus on self-esteem, healthy relationships, and strategies to avoid

leaving home, dropping out of school, or turning to prostitution and crime.

The career exploration class met six times: from 4-6 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays for three

weeks. The curriculum was revised for the project’s second year based on feedback from firstyear participants. The curriculum covered career interests, work behavior, completing

applications, resume preparation, pay and earnings (deductions), attire, time and attitude

management. Sessions involved using self-paced career interest software, role playing

interviewing techniques and work situations, completing actual applications and resumes, and

reviewing the SCANS (Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills) competencies.

There was a plan at the end of the second year to recommend youth to work experiences that

matched their preferences that surfaced during their career exploration activities. The city was

moving to project-based learning in subsidized jobs. If a youth reported wanting to be a rap star,

for example, the recommended work experience might be at a music store. This approach was

used to keep t he youth from being discouraged from following her/his dream. Youth would

be
D-45

required to complete an academically relevant project as part of the work experience, and the

employers would agree to help them develop a training activity. 

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

Richmond was awarded a continuing year of funding by DOL. The project’s goal was to move

the project from partner-contract relationships to partner-voucher relationships. Vendor

applications had been made widely available with the goal of having multiple opportunities for

youth to receive services from organizations and agencies in the community. 

The voucher system was seen as one way to use funds more directly to meet youth needs, such as

providing funds for mental health and substance abuse treatment. The RichmondWorks

assumption was that if funds were not tied up in subcontracts, more would become available to

meet individual youth needs. The hope was that the effort would bring more CBOs into the

network and keep existing partnerships together. This approach also would empower more

grassroots organizations to provide services in their neighborhoods. In the end, a broader

network would provide a way to build toward sustainability.

The youth council of the Workforce Investment Board, which had been in place for almost a

year, decided not to provide job training and placement to 14 and 15 year olds, unless there was

a special need. The program would have two foci: first, the year-round effort with in-school

youth and, second, services to out-of-school youth. The latter would be coordinated by Sierra

School through a contract arrangement. Special services would be offered through vouchers,

and enrollment of all youth (and tracking the services they received) would be maintained by the

city.

After DOL funding ends, RichmondWorks plans for all the city’s youth to go to One-Stop

centers being designed around the community for employment and training assistance under

WIA funding. RichmondWorks was planning to put One-Stop satellites for adults (17 years and

older) in four or five locations in the city with community partners, while the flagship One-Stop

center would remain at the RichmondWorks Building. The city was looking for churches, public

housing sites, or other community service locations. Community partners would not be paid

anything but, perhaps, be offered some janitorial assistance by the city. Locations selected so far

included: Hilltop Mall, Iron Triangle, and Parchester Village. When the PAL building is ready,

it would serve as a satellite as well. 

Youth who are 17 years old and older would have the following services available near their

residences through the satellites:

• Typing a master application and resume;

• Literacy assessment; and

C Job search training.
D-46

They could be moved to more intensive services without searching for a job first, such as

academic services or project-based learning for specific skills. Vocational education would not

be available until they received marketable skills and got a job. They could then apply for a

better job and better training. All RichmondWorks case managers were trained to know all the

options available. 

YODP provided more intensive services for case management and job development, but the

RichmondWorks staff believed that it had all the skills necessary to serve this population as it is;

staff members worked with their families, and they could work with their youth.
D-47

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for

Seattle

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

Seattle’s Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) was awarded to the Seattle-King

County Workforce Development Council (WDC). The project’s target area was in West Seattle,

primarily in an unincorporated King County area called White Center, south of Roxbury Street

and southward to the Highline area of Seattle and the City of Burien and west to Tukwila. 

The YODP was called Project New Start, and it targeted primarily a community of recently

immigrated Southeast Asian families and of a growing number of Hispanics families. Other parts

of West Seattle had been receiving youth services through a Safe Futures grant, but this area had

no employment services for youth offenders or other youth.

What drew King County’s attention to the target area in West Seattle was its chronic economic

instability, lowest school test scores in the city or county, and the highest youth crime and school

drop-out rates. The county reported that the Highline area experienced a poverty rate of almost

52%, the highest concentration of poverty in the county, according to “The King County Phase II

Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan”(March 2000). Low- income residents were attracted

by the relatively low rents (averaging $630/ month in 1999); yet the cost of living required a

wage of $15 an hour for a family of four in 1999. Most White Center residents could not afford

to buy a home in the area without a livable wage.

Seattle’s economy is diversified and strong; among the publicly held firms that generated more

than $1 million in revenue in 1999 were Boeing ( aircraft manufacturing), Microsoft (software

development), Nordstrom (clothing), Weyerhaeuser (timber products), Starbucks (food),

Amazon.com (books), Puget Sound Energy (utilities), Alaska Air Group (air travel), Expediters

International and Airborne Freight (international freight), Safeco (insurance), Costco,

(membership retail), and Washington Mutual (banking). Seattle is a day closer to Asia for

shipping than any other U.S. port and is a main distribution point for the state’s food and fiber

products. Less well known, Seattle is a leader in research and development in advanced

bioinformatics, genomics, telemedicine, medical equipment, and environmental engineering.

White Center’s economy itself consists primarily of small, family-owned establishments. The

neighborhoods are made up of modest single family households and a very large (733 units),

multi-family housing project owned by King County called Park Lake Homes. Park Lake

Homes bordered on Roxbury Street and was well-kept to the visitor’s eye; yet most of the youth

served in the New Start project come from Park Lake Homes. It is notorious for crimes,

especially theft and drug dealing, according to the YODP grant proposal.
D-48

Of the 2,154 residents of Park Lake Homes, the county reported that 66% were Southeast Asian

or Pacific Islanders and 64% of the residences consisted of at least some household members

born outside the United States. In all, 67% of households reported a language other than English

was used in the home. Many Asian residents were of Cambodian ethnicity. Forty-four languages

were spoken in the area’s schools.

The unincorporated White Center area is squeezed between two incorporated cities’ police

departments, and police and sheriff deputies found it hard to assess what the actual youth and

crime culture was like. Statistics gathered for a proposal to the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for a Gang Free Community (August 30, 2000) reported a

178% increase in gang-related crime in West Seattle, most noticeably in the Highline area that

was part of the target neighborhood for New Start.

There have been difficult relationships between police and youth. During the first evaluation site

visit, the evaluator watched as police scolded several youth for standing on the sidewalk near the

project center, even though they were doing nothing wrong. The staff reported that police

arrived during one of its activities and had all youth lie face-down on the floor while they

searched for a youth they had come to arrest. Area residents petitioned for a community police

substation in White Center, a petition that was granted. A King County Sheriff’s deputy and a

community police officer (who was Cambodian-American) were placed in White Center and

were widely reported as improving community-police relationships. Both provided referrals and

assistance to the New Start project.

In its proposal for New Start, Seattle estimated there were 80 gangs and 4,000 gang members.

On the basis of the gang threat, Seattle had prepared a Safe Futures proposal that brought

services to some youth in West Seattle, west of Interstate Highway 5 and south of the West

Seattle Freeway. The executive director of Safe Futures, which was separately incorporated as a

nonprofit agency, reported that gang activity had declined since Safe Futures began operation.

Safe Futures was, however, oversubscribed with more clients than it had anticipated; so the

decision was made by the Seattle-King County Workforce Development Council (WDC), then

the local Private Industry Council (PIC), to write the YODP proposal to bring services directly to

the White Center and Burien area, west of Interstate Highway 5 and south of Roxbury Street.

Gangs were described by case managers as generally 12-15 members in size and of the same

ethnic make-up. Typically, inter-gang rivalry had been between two gangs of the same ethnic

group, but newly arrived Hispanic youth formed gangs that challenged Southeast Asian gangs.

While there was substance abuse and drug dealing among the Southeast Asian gangs, they

tended to be involved more with car thefts. Hispanic gangs were more deeply involved in drug

dealing. The number of Hispanic youth in the target population was growing, and the New Start

staff thought that it was important to work with both Asian and Hispanic youth together through

YODP as a way of building relationships that transcended their ethnic identities.

Many gangs, however, were organized as identity groups, and there was not much intergenerational gang development. That is, as the youth matured, they went on to other things in

life rather than maintaining a gang lifestyle and recruiting younger youth into it.
D-49

“The King County Phase II Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan”(March 2000) reported a

major decision not to build another residential youth facility, but to develop a more carefully

nuanced gradual-sanctions program that began with earnest prevention efforts. The plan

described a process involving tens of agency and community-based organization representatives

to reduce crime, disproportionality, and incarceration among the county’s youth. The lack of

services for youth and reports of crime and drop-outs led to pressure on the WDC to do

something in the White Center area, according to staff. This area of the county had not received

many county services; and even after the New Start project was announced, local businesses and

residents were not convinced it would be implemented.

Once funded, the project continued to receive support from the county leadership. The county

executive and several Superior Court judges have come, for example, to events at the project

center. Project New Start was featured by name in the King County Master Plan and in the

county’s proposal to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for a

Gang Free Community. New Start was also added to the King County Website.

The WDC changed markedly since the beginning of the project. When it became a Workforce

Development Board, it no longer provided services. Two-thirds of the staff were let go since

spring 2000, and most had gone to work for the county or a nonprofit organization. The WDC

formed a youth team to implement Workforce Investment Act (WIA) strategies initiated by the

youth council, and the New Start was considered a model for how other youth initiatives should

be structured. Administrative responsibility for the New Start project moved among the various

WDC youth employment staff members. In spring 2001 it returned to the responsibility of a staff

member who assisted in preparing the original proposal. One member of the WDC staff

remarked on the high morale of the project staff as demonstrated by how well the project

operated during the year or more that it took for the PIC to reinvent itself as the WDC.

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

Seattle’s planning effort was focused on the, then-called King County-Seattle Private Industry

Council (PIC). Staff reported that the PIC and the County Community Services Division were

under pressure to do something for the youth in White Center because of the demonstrated need

and the lack of any youth services in the geographic area from either public or private sources.

The PIC worked with the staff of the County Workforce Training Program (WTP), Safe Futures

and Pacific Associates, with which it had previously worked, and submitted the proposal

without other collaborators.

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services? 

The WDC contracted with the King County Work Training Program (WTP), a part of the King

County Department of Community and Human Services, and with Pacific Associates, a private
D-50

job placement firm. The WTP sub-contracted, in turn, with Safe Futures, King County Superior

Court, and the Metropolitan YMCA. Pacific Associates was under contract for education, work

readiness, placement and follow-up with youth 18 years old and older. King County WTP and its

subcontractors served younger youth, generally 14-17 years old. These contract relationships

worked successfully and were expected to remain intact. 

The King County Superior Court (KCSC) found two veteran case workers in the Project New

Start headquarters. The court shared the cost of the rent which made it possible for the project to

occupy the entire second floor of the headquarters building. Many court-supervised youth came

to the headquarters, but these case workers also needed to serve the youth in the southern part of

the County who lived too far away to come to the building for services.

The Highline School District became more engaged in the project partnership over time. The

Southwest Family Services organization, provided a tutor during the project’s first year to

prepare out-of-school youth for the GED exams, and she has been in the New Start headquarters

building. During the project’s second year, the School District gave school credit to youth who

completed the project’s work readiness program as part of the district’s school-to-work

curriculum. 

Through another grant, the district located an alternative school on the first floor of the building.

This program was to bring youth, achieving several years below their age-appropriate grade, up

to grade level so that they could return to traditional school in class with their contemporaries. A

number of New Start youth benefited from this program that was intended to prevent youth from

dropping out.

Several opportunities were available for youth with specific interests. YouthBuild received

several referrals for construction training and Opportunities Skyways accepted at least one youth

to train for aircraft maintenance and repair training. Both programs assisted the youth in

completing the GED preparation. Youth with specific vocational interests were also referred to

the Southwest Seattle Community College, which was near White Center.

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

Seattle’s New Start operated as almost two separate programs. Safe Futures and KCSC offered

services to younger youth while Pacific Associates provided parallel services to older youth. 

The one exception was that the Metropolitan YMCA offered its “Teach Change” course, a work

readiness and leadership development project, to younger youth while Pacific Associates

provided all work readiness and personal support services to the older group. The emphasis of

the Safe Futures/KCSC was on building relationships and earning a high school diploma or a

GED. Youth were encouraged to spend time in the White Center site, asking questions, getting

help, and staying off the streets. Pacific Associates, working with older youth, encouraged youth

to earn a GED as they were getting work experience. The staff of all the service delivery

partners were located in the New Start headquarters in White Center.
D-51

Few of the younger youth held unsubsidized jobs because they were generally 14-15 years of age

when they were recruited. The work experience planned for these youth consisted of group

projects that paid a stipend. Safe Futures staff believed that the work of the grant was to build

relationships so that out of care for the community and each other, youth would become or

remain law-abiding. Safe Futures:

C developed a graffiti abatement project for summer 2000 (painting murals in bus

stop shelters, decorating trash boxes, repainting store walls),

C planned a mural painting for summer 2001 that would have an academic

component in art for high school credit; and 

C planned a trail development program for summer 2001 that would also offer an

academic component in environmental studies for high school credit.

These projects kept the youth together, offered them stipends, and built relationships with the

community. The school district planned to have a teacher from Evergreen High School work

with New Start in preparing these projects for academic credit.

The staff recognized, however, that some of the younger youth were turning 16 and needed jobs

that paid more than the stipends. These youth received a 10-week work readiness course during

the school year for which the school district offered high school credit as part of its school-towork curriculum. The work readiness gave the youth a structured activity for the winter months,

continued the bonding activity, and prepared some youth for moving out more on their own.

Pacific Associates offered older youth basic skills education, pre-employment work readiness,

job search and job placement assistance. The emphasis was on getting these older youth into

jobs as quickly as possible because many already had family obligations and needed to have

established independent living situations. Pacific Associates arranged for apprenticeship,

vocational education, and support services; but these were wrapped around the work schedules.

Pacific Associates also assisted the Safe Futures and KCSC staff with placement of younger

youth in jobs as they turned 16.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

A two-story white office building with its own parking lot was the center for the New Start

project in the White Center area of West Seattle. The manager from WTP and the staff of Safe

Futures, KCSC, and Pacific Associates were all on the second floor of this facility. It was simple

and functional; youth seemed at ease coming and going during site visits. There were offices, a

computer room, a greenhouse that was used for developing murals and other art projects, a

classroom for GED classes, and a conference room. The whole central area of the second floor

was “hanging out” space for the youth. The location was walking distance from the local schools
D-52

and Park Lake Homes, and it was gang-neutral. Everyone seemed pleased by its convenience and

the youth’s ease with it.

YouthBuild, to which some of the New Start youth were referred, refurbished the building as one

of its work experience projects. They painted and re-carpeted the second floor.

During the project’s second year, the school district located an alternative school on the first

floor of the building. This grant-funded program aimed to bring youth’s academic achievement

up to their age-appropriate level and then help them transition back to the traditional high school.

Some New Start youth benefited from this alternative arrangement. The grant was for one year,

so it might not continue unless other funds were identified.

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

The New Start project contracted for services with Pacific Associates and with WTP, which subcontracted with Safe Futures, KCSC, and the Metropolitan YMCA. This group was managed by

a former case manager from the County Office of Community and Human Services. He was an

experienced case manager and this was his first administrative position. 

Pacific Associates shared a job developer position with New Start and another project, and it

hired two case workers, each of whom worked on New Start part time. Safe Futures hired two

case managers and a community mobilizer — all Cambodian-Americans. KCSC assigned two

veteran staff case managers. A case manager, who filled in for one of the KCSC case managers

while she was on maternity leave, was added permanently to the New Start project toward the

end of the second year. All case managers and the job developer worked as a single team, and

there had been no turnover in staffing at the service delivery level. 

The staff reported that they interacted all during the day; they also met every other week to

review the project process and achievements. The project manager from WDC believed that it

was one of her functions to bring the staff together to reflect on the progress of their efforts. It

was during these cross-agency project meetings during the first year that New Start Vision and

Guiding Principles were worked out, in what staff referred to as a very painful process. Staff

reported that they developed a common vision and worked out differences of process peculiar to

each organization. 

The entire full-time staff from WTP, Safe Futures, Pacific Associates, and the YMCA attended a

training session for “Street Soldiers,” a program in San Francisco to teach youth how to deescalate the violence of their language and actions. It served as the basis for revising the “Teach

Change” curriculum. In addition, the staff received several technical assistance training sessions

arranged by Research and Evaluation Associates, one on basic case management and the other

on bi-level case management. 

During the second year, staff did not meet for training regularly, although partners met every two

weeks. The summer planning did, however, engage case managers as well as the partners in the
D-53

semi-weekly meetings. Superior Court offered occasional training opportunities that New Start

case managers attended; one was on youth’s transition from probation to the community.

The cross-agency training had been valuable to the staff. Safe Futures case managers explained

how to work with Asian youth; the Pacific Associates staff members provided access to

employers and ways to match youth and work; and the King County Superior Court staff taught

the others the intricacies of juvenile court processes. 

Leadership of the project at WDC and of Safe Futures changed during the project. The original

administrative project manager (as distinct from the project manager from WTP), left the

organization. The founding director of Safe Futures left to work for the city. Both were replaced

by veteran members of their respective organizations.

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

Youth arrived at the New Start project from a number of sources. The Safe Futures community

mobilizer and the Safe Futures case managers connected the opportunities of the New Start

project with neighborhood youth and with the Asian business community. Their strategy was to

identify older youth who were leaders, knowing that if these youth enrolled in the project their

friends, younger siblings and kin would enroll as well. Depending on their age, case managers

assigned the youth to either Pacific Associates or Safe Futures. 

KCSC received its youth from the court, but the director of the Community Services section of

the court screened the youth recommended by the court before they were assigned to the project.

He wanted to be sure that the youth did not have problems too serious for the unstructured

nature of the project: too violent or too seriously dependent on drugs or alcohol to participate

actively. The final judges of the appropriateness of the assignment were the case managers.

They had to decide if they could manage another case, if they could serve the youth where ever

he/she lived in West Seattle, and if the youth’s background was appropriate for the project.

Pacific Associates received its clients through Safe Futures or KCSC. The original assumption

was that the youth would be fairly evenly divided between older and younger youth, but the

number of older youth in the program was much smaller. 

Although youth had not always attended the sessions planned for them, apparently most were

regular about remaining in contact. The assumption was that the youth were enrolled in the

project for the length of the grant, even though they may have been more deeply engaged with

the project at certain times than at others. The only youth dropped from enrollment rolls were

those who had moved out of the area. Some youth did not reside in the county’s target

neighborhoods; but if they had significant involvement in the target area, attending school for

example, they were allowed to enroll. 

The enrollment goal had been met by spring 2001. There was a concern about the size of the

case loads the case managers were tracking, even though some moved to a level of follow-up
D-54

contact rather than intensive interaction and management. Middle school youth and others, who

self-referred hoping for assistance in finding work, were made welcome to come by and were

informed of work readiness, tutoring classes or other activities in which they could participate.

There was not an effort to enroll them as full New Start participants; the staff reported that most

were friends and relatives of participants.

8. What types of training, employment, and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Seattle’s reports reflected the philosophy of the Safe Futures program — that it was important

for the younger youth, who predominated in their project, to put off entry into the labor force

until age 16 and older. The project had supplied group service opportunities that built ties

between the youth and the community rather than individual work experiences as preparation for

the work world. They pointed with pride to the fact that none of the summer 2000 graffiti work

had been marred. They also reported that a woman attending a street fair, at which the youth

were volunteering their services, commented that the previous year she would have been

intimidated by their presence, but not so after seeing their community involvements. 

All youth were given work readiness training. Those who were 14-18 years old were given a

preliminary employment training program until they were ready for an individual job; then they

were given a six-to-eight week intensive work readiness experience. The Teach Change course

was also considered as a work readiness opportunity, and four Teach Change courses were

offered over the two years. Three were funded under the grant and the fourth was funded

through grants made to the YMCA. Pacific Associates provided a four-week program as part of

a 90-day assessment and planning process for older youth. Their clients were expected to be

working as soon as a job could be found, and the assessment and other referrals for service

occurred while they were in the workforce.

Pacific Associates had the most developed youth employment network. The staff was also the

most active in remaining in contact with the employers after placement of youth. By the second

year, Pacific Associates staff were moving more of the younger youth into their first part-time

jobs, virtually taking over the job search and placement function for the whole project. 

Pacific Associates did not provide subsidized work placements while KCSC had a welldeveloped subsidized work experience network, most in nonprofit or government settings, such

as, Seattle Youth Garden Works, libraries, community centers, and school districts.

An Aggression Replacement Training (ART) course had been offered to youth for whom anger

management was an issue. The staff was pleased with the course, but attendance by youth was

difficult to maintain. 

The deputy sheriff and the community police officer reported that the activities of New Start

were having an effect on the amount of trouble the youth were getting into. The deputy thought
D-55

that they were getting into the same kinds of trouble when they were on their own, but the

project kept the youth so busy that they had much less time on their own.

“The King County Phase II Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan” set “not building another

juvenile correctional facility” as a goal. Two staff from the Superior Court were developing an

outcomes evaluation of the New Start project in an effort to gain on-going King County support

for it as one effective graduated sanctions strategy for keeping youth out of residential

correctional facilities. As a preliminary step, they compared data on a sample of the New Start

youth 10 months before the project started and 10 months after it started. For 31 youth, in the 10

months prior to enrollment in New Start:

C The average number of referrals to the prosecutor per youth was .94;

C The average number of convictions per youth was .61;

C The average number of admissions to detention per youth was 1.26; and

C The average number of days in detention was 18.6.

In the 10 months participating youth have been enrolled in New Start:

C The average number of referrals to the prosecutor per youth was .42;

C The average number of convictions per youth was .23;

C The average number of admissions to detention per youth was .74; and

C The average number of days in detention was 8.9. 

While the data were suggestive, the comparisons involved two snapshots of a small number of

project participants. The youth were being compared with themselves, so it may be possible that

the reductions in their court involvement were based more on their growing maturity than on

results of the demonstration. The group assigned to this effort, the Juvenile Justice Evaluation

Work Group, planned to gather additional data to provide comparison group analysis and to shed

more light on the reduction of risk factors and the addition of protective factors in the youths’

lives. 

WDC maintained records on the New Start project for all the partners; their report, as of June 30,

2001, is provided in Table 1.
D-56

Table 1. Status of New Start Participants in June 2001

OUTCOMES

Enrollment Goal 166

Enrollment as of June 30, 2001 200

Assessment and Case Management 200

Referred for Services 81

Community service NR

In School 128

Enrolled in GED Classes 17

Completed Work readiness Training 85

Completed Education NR

Job Search/Placement Activity NR

In Subsidized Employment 52

In Unsubsidized Employment 61

Exited the program (moved) NR

Entered Military NR

Entered Job Corps NR

Incarcerated 12
D-57

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were the

intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Seattle found that it was important to offer services to the families of project youth. The case

managers found themselves explaining the American culture to the youth’s parents and the

Cambodian culture to the youth. One case manager explained that the Cambodian teachers and

intellectuals were among the most oppressed in their home country, so recently immigrated

Cambodian adults lacked formal education. It was difficult for them to understand the demands

of U.S. schools on their children and the expectations schools had for parental involvement. The

staff reported that the project’s emphasis in helping the youth with school was resulting in better

grades; they were reluctant to have anything interfere with this progress. 

Counseling and other specific individual needs were paid for on a fee-for-service basis. Tutoring

was provided at the center Mondays through Thursdays after school; some work readiness

exercises were also given on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. The Teach Change program

was taught on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday afternoons. On Thursday afternoons during the

first year, there was a class in traditional Cambodian dancing; the girls performed at school, at

the center, and in the community. 

Hispanic and African American youth did not “hang out” at the center the way the Southeast

Asian youth did. It was pointed out that they came from farther south in the target area, so they

came for specific activities, but not for informal conversation or mentoring.

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

Seattle was interested in continuing services to the White Center community, and members of

the partnership have enjoyed working with and learning from each other. King County was

reported to be having an especially difficult 2000-2001 financial year; state voters had repealed

the registration fee for automobiles in the previous year, a major revenue source for county

programs. They were relieved and delighted when they received an additional year of DOL

funding under the Letter Competition for additional funds. Part of the evaluation effort described

earlier was an effort to demonstrate that the New Start project was saving the county funds by

reducing the youth’s court involvement, detention days and likelihood of needing residential

placement. The goal would be to include the project as a pilot effort within the county budget

and begin to add other neighborhoods around the county as the model proved its worth. One

indicator of political success was that $30 million was cut from the 2001-2002 county budget to

address the financial crisis, but nothing was taken from the alternatives to detention program

planning.

The Human Services Recommendations Report for 2001-2003, moreover, describes the

“Continuum of King County’s Roles in Youth Services” (page 37) from prevention of

delinquency to intensive intervention. The planned response to youth concerns is anticipated to
D-58

be based on models working in the community and built on infrastructures of inter-agency and

inter-organizational partnerships. The entire county apparatus is being refocused on

comprehensive community approaches to providing youth services needs in an integrated and

comprehensive way.

The transition to make WIA youth funds effective was described earlier in the report. New Start

was serving as an organizational model for other youth programs, another way to sustain the

New Start effort. The county was also in the process of qualifying for Annie Casey Foundation

funding for reducing youth violence. The foundation had financial difficulties of its own

following a year of low returns on its investment portfolio. This may yet, however, prove to be

another source of funds to continue New Start efforts.
E-1

APPENDIX E

Category III Final Report Summaries
E-2
E-3

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for 

Bakersfield, California

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

Bakersfield’s Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) operated in Kern County,

California’s third largest. The county consisted of an unusual blend of urban, suburban, and

rural settings that ranged from small towns to metropolitan Bakersfield. At the time of the

demonstration, about 330,000 residents lived there, including about 48,000 youth between 14

and 24. 

Project officials reported that the county tended to have high crime and unemployment rates. Of

all youth living in the county, an estimated 70% lived at or below the poverty line.

The context of the project, which was named Youth GOALS, generally remained unchanged

over the two-year grant period. There were a few exceptions, however. In October 2000, for

example, project officials reported that the severity of crimes committed by youth had increased.

By May 2001 crime had peaked and declined somewhat.

Still, police reported a total of 42 homicides in Bakersfield in 2000, with 80% of them occurring

in the city’s Southeast region. Of these, 20% were committed by youth under age 25. In

Bakersfield alone there were about 15,000 juvenile offenders. Officials also estimated that 36

different street gangs with 4,000 members operated in the Bakersfield area. 

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

A community organizer convinced the Employers Training Resource (ETR) to apply for the

demonstration grant. The project was to target incarcerated youth and those who were at risk of

court involvement. The youth were to be between ages 14 and 24 and living in metropolitan

Bakersfield.

Several representatives then met to plan and prepare for writing the proposal. The organizations

included the Bakersfield Police Department, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, Kern County

Probation Department, Department of Human Services, and Kern High School District. Students

from court and community schools, parents, and other community leaders also participated in

planning for the grant.
E-4

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services?

Youth GOALS officials believed the project would strengthen linkages among several agencies

by providing job referral and placement services for offenders. More specifically, grant officials

identified these agencies as part of what they called a “beginning network:” Bakersfield Police

Department, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, Kern County Probation Department,

Department of Human Services, Employers’ Training Resource (ETR), Kern County Mental

Health, Kern County Superintendent of Schools, and Kern High School District.

Project officials planned to use the grant to “expand and connect” existing programs that served

the target population and to reduce recidivism by providing clients with aftercare services.

Services were to include case management, life skills training, continued basic skills training,

and monthly job fairs. Funds were to be used to increase the number of personnel, provide more

modern curriculum materials, and expand ongoing activities and events that were customized to

the needs of youth at risk of court involvement.

Programs that were to partner with the demonstration project included:

C STAR Academy, which provided services to court-ordered youth, including

combined academic and social skills development training;

C Crossroads, a residential project for youth, which used boot camp strategies to

teach self-sufficiency and discipline;

C Female Treatment Program for offenders, which included schooling and job

placement training activities to promote successful re-entry of female offenders

into their community;

C Retreat from the Streets, a three-day camping retreat for youth at risk of court

involvement;

C Camp Keep “Leadership Summits,” which offered youth at risk of court

involvement a one-week residential stay in the mountains and/or on the coast;

C Police Assistance League, which provided after school activities and sponsored

recreational and tutorial services;

C School Community Violence Prevention Task Force, which provided public

service forums and interacted in classrooms by providing anti-alcohol, drugs,

tobacco and gang involvement sessions; and
E-5

C Gang Risk Intervention Project, which operated within public schools and offered

projects that targeted youth at risk of becoming involved in gangs.

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

The project initially focused its efforts on building partnerships. By spring 2001, however, it had

successfully transitioned to what officials called a “balanced approach” that also stressed serving

clients with some basic services, such as counseling, orientations to the workplace, and job

placements. Youth GOALS at the end of the grant period also was working more closely with

established agencies to provide youth job referral services, GED preparation training, and mental

health services. 

This approach was largely the result of contacts the project made with 38 community-based

organizations through monthly meetings of the Southeast Neighborhood Partnerships. Agencies

attending these meetings included: AmeriCorps, Dedicated Dental, Kern County Mental Health,

Kern County School District, the Safe Schools Unit, Kern County Network for Children, Kern

Family Health Care, Clinica Sierra Vista, the county Housing Authority, and Mercy Outreach. 

The project also continued its efforts to build relationships with a number of schools, including

the STAR Academy, the Adult School, Vista West High School, Auburn Community Learning

Center, South High School, and the Police Activities League, which provided recreational

activities for youth. By May 2001, the project also was attempting to build partnerships with

One-Stop centers in Bakersfield, which increasingly served as a referral agency. 

According to project officials, the information sharing that occurred at these meetings allowed

the project staff to become more knowledgeable about their clients and to find additional

services for them. During the last year of the grant period, for example, the project staff learned

through the meetings that churches in the target neighborhoods provided a myriad of services.

Unfortunately, however, they generally were available only to members of the churches.

Although the project began to focus more on referring clients to other agencies it also continued

to provide them some direct services. These included, for example, training to help clients

prepare for job interviews. The training attempted to make clients more knowledgeable about

how to dress for interviews and how to prepare resumes. Discussions about personal hygiene

also were held. To help clients prepare for job interviews, project officials planned to purchase a

video camera to tape mock interviews. The project also provided clients bus passes for

transportation to and from job interviews. And, it directed clients to job fairs and workshops.

Project officials also invited collaborative partners to attend a training session that was held in

August 2000. In all, 12 agencies attended the session, which included topics on building and

maintaining effective partnerships, how to engage the community, and how to reach at-risk youth

and parents. Project officials planned to hold additional seminars. 
E-6

By May 2001, the evaluator noted that:

C the project staff was still considering providing clients a tattoo removal and

transportation services. Some project clients, however, had been referred to other

agencies operating these services;

C the project and the Kern County Superintendent of Schools had signed a

memorandum of agreement that provided six computers to the STAR Academy;

C the parents of clients continued to have little or no involvement in the project,

although some parents themselves had received help with resume writing and in

finding a job; and

C a project advisory board still had not been formed.

According to the evaluator, project officials came to realize they should have worked harder to

establish and then maintain partnerships and linkages with other agencies earlier than they did.

They also said that they should have started the project by better focusing on building

partnerships with agencies that already were providing services.

Project officials believed that the project had succeeded in improving information sharing among

various organizations. They said that because the project had received additional funds as part

of its one-year extension from DOL, Youth GOALS would be able to continue participating in

community meetings. This would help the project develop and build even stronger collaborative

partnerships in the future.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

Facilities for the Bakersfield project were in Southeast Bakersfield, an area that had high crime

and poverty rates. The facility, however, was a distance from some areas served by the project

and arrangements had to be made to transport youth to and from the facility. Another challenge

for participants traveling to the facility was that it was in an area were gangs were active. As a

result, some gang members hesitated to travel to the facility because it was in rival territory.

By October 2000, project officials were considering relocating project offices to an area of

Bakersfield that was gang-neutral. Officials at the time reported that there had been drive-by

shootings and an increase in gang activity near the facility. By spring 2001, however, project

officials had decided that the project would remain at the site because they considered it vital to

the welfare of clients. Officials also told the evaluator that gang activity in the area had abated

somewhat and that the staff had started taking precautionary safety measures. Staff, for example,
E-7

had begun arranging meetings with clients at various sites around the city to avoid possible gang

clashes.

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

At the beginning of the project, ETR designated one of its full-time employees as job developer

and day-to-day manager of Youth GOALS. The job developer had experience managing

incarcerated youth and had been trained as a job developer and instructor. The job developer

also had participated in a three-week course on the operation of JTPA programs as well as other

seminars on job training, work opportunity tax credits, and bonding.

In June 2000, the project hired a new employment counselor to serve as a community liaison.

According to project officials, his expertise as a parole officer proved an asset to the project. His

knowledge about the juvenile justice system helped open doors.

In October 2000, a third member of the team was hired as a case manager. She had experience

as director of JTPA programs and had worked with employment and training programs. She

developed several data collection programs that tracked clients and provided demographic and

other information. The programs also included several computer-generated forms, including a

Youth GOALS application, a resume worksheet, a completed resume, job referrals, and a contact

sheet for follow-up appointments and telephone calls.

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

Referrals to the project increased significantly as the project matured. They came mainly from

juvenile probation, the public school system, Kern County Mental Health, adult probation, and

as walk-ins.

By January 2000, 30 participants had enrolled in the project. Ten months later the number of

participants had reached 108. By May 2001, enrollment in the project had grown to 427. Of this

total:

C 298 (57%) of the clients were males and 129 (43%) were females;

C all participants were between 14 and 24 years old;

C 78 (22%) were black; 174 (49%) were Hispanic; 80 (23%) were white;

C 72 (17%) of clients were receiving some form of public assistance;

C 25 (23%) of clients were either pregnant or parents;
E-8

C 190 (64%) of the males and 50 (39%) of the females were involved with the

juvenile justice system. Their offenses ranged from the less serious such as

vandalism, theft, tagging, and curfew violations to the more serious, including

burglary, assault and battery, possession of a loaded fire-arm, grand theft auto and

drugs (possession and sales);

C 174 (41%) of the 427 clients held either a high school diploma or GED. Of the

remaining clients, a majority attended either alternative schools or a court-ordered

school.

C Most clients came from areas where gangs were active. Of the 427 clients, only

23 admitted that they were affiliated with a gang. Of the 427, 204 chose not to

respond when they were asked about gang affiliation.

8. What types of training, employment and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Although much of the evidence was anecdotal, Youth GOALS received good reviews from

school teachers, workers at One-Stop centers, employers, other agencies staff members, and

clients. A teacher at the STAR Academy, for example, told the evaluator she found the project

effective and vital. 

According to project officials, of 427 clients 94% completed resumes. Most have received

training on improving their job interview skills. In addition, many clients have been registered

with the CalJobs statewide job search Internet site. 

Project officials also reported that by October 2000 75% of all participants had been referred to

jobs with an average of five job leads per participant. On average, 124 referrals were made each

month to various service agencies throughout the Bakersfield area. Clients were sent to

educational programs, youth employment programs such as the public schools’ Work Experience

Program, counseling centers, health centers, tattoo removal programs, and housing agencies.

In September 1999, ETR, the project’s fiscal agent, reported that seven of 39 clients enrolled in

the project had been placed in jobs. In September 2000, ETR reported 19 placements in jobs.

By May 2001, ETR reported 51 had been placed. 

Several barriers limited the successful participation of youth in the project. According to project

officials, these included family and living situations, probation, incarceration, pregnancy or

parenthood, a lack of educational attainment and work experience, learning difficulties and a

lack of suitable work clothing.
E-9

Analysis of demographic data by project staff in general showed:

C of project clients who dropped out of school, most dropped out in the 10th and 11th

grades;

C many clients could not read or write;

C many clients, because of schooling difficulties in their early years, were incapable

of completing the academic requirements needed to receive a diploma; 

C many clients lacked soft skills; and

C many clients had transportation problems and found it difficult getting to training,

even with public transportation.

In addition, the evaluator found that challenges facing the project included:

C operating in a turbulent and unsafe location;

C finding ways to adequately prepare participants for jobs;

C determining appropriate times for meeting with youth; and

C finding incentives to get, and keep, young people motivated to attend training.

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were

the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

In October 2000, the evaluator reported that clients received no collateral services directly

through the program, although they were referred to community agencies on an as-needed basis.

The evaluator also concluded that providing clients with recreational activities would be difficult

to organize because of gang activity in the target areas. 

One outcome that resulted from increased collaboration with other agencies was that Youth

GOALS began working with the Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance Program to assist clients
E-10

who were eligible to have their juvenile records expunged. The project, when appropriate,

provided letters attesting to a client’s character. 

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

According to the evaluator, the project gained a foothold as an established community agency

during the grant period. More than anything else, the evaluator reported, this would enhance the

possibility that Youth GOALS would continue into the future after demonstration grant funds

ended. The many contacts that project officials made with various agencies would only

strengthen the possibility of this. According to one project official, the project was “now seen as

non-threatening and providing a true service.” 

In October 2000, it appeared that the lack of funding streams posed an immediate problem for

the project staff. The evaluator noted then that staff positions were funded through grants and

that there were no other funds to support the project after the demonstration grant ended. This

situation was alleviated somewhat with the one-year extension of the demonstration project,

including $150,000 in additional funds. Project officials in spring 2001 also continued to search

for additional funding sources. In addition, a senior administrator at ETR assured the evaluator

that efforts to reach the target population would continue even without demonstration funds

because the job developer and counselor were full-time ETR employees.
E-11

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for 

Clifton, New Jersey

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

The Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP), which was named Job Ready, operated in a

densely populated and troubled urban area in New Jersey’s Passaic County. In all, about

170,000 residents were crammed into eight square miles that constituted the City of Paterson, the

project’s target. 

Paterson, which has the distinction of being the nation’s first industrial city, is also one of the

state’s poorest cities. As in many other large urban centers, the city’s industry and quality of life

started to decline steadily in the 1960s.

By 2000, the city’s unemployment rate was more than double that of the state’s. Poverty among

those under 18 stood at 27% and about 43% of Paterson’s households were headed by females.

A large number of the city’s poor lived in five large public housing developments.

At the time the demonstration project operated, Paterson had a large ethnic population: 44%

were Hispanic and 39% were black, in comparison to 18% who were white. The city also was

experiencing an influx of immigrants from the war-torn Balkans.

The city’s schools reflected many of the problems associated with a high poverty rate. About

75% of students qualified for free or reduced lunches. In 1998 the state took over the city’s

school system because of a high failure rate and poor student performance on standardized tests.

Well into 2001, Paterson’s economy continued its decline. Lucent Technologies, a company that

previously had added jobs, had begun laying off workers. Unemployment also was increasing as

were drug cases in juvenile court. According to the chief of police, many of the city’s young

people had turned to selling drugs to bring in income for their families. The Federal Drug

Enforcement Administration also identified Paterson as a regional hub for illicit drug trafficking.

There were, however, a few encouraging signs by spring 2001, possibly the result of efforts to

reduce juvenile delinquency. Since 1998, the city reported a 28% decline in its juvenile crime

rate. Also reported were a 6% decline in the city’s school drop-out rate; a 31% decline in

Passaic County’s juvenile custodial commitments; and a 65% average curfew compliance rate.

Of 6,300 adults on probation, most fell into the 18-to-24-year-old category. And, officials

estimated that 39 gangs with 175 members operated in the city. 
E-12

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

The Passaic County Probation Department identified the YODP grant and approached the

county’s Workforce Development Center, which agreed to become the project’s sponsor and

lead agency. To plan for the grant, several meetings were held with representatives from various

agencies, the prosecutor’s office, a mayor’s task force, and the Board of Education. 

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services?

The Passaic Vicinage Probation Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey was to manage the

community collaborative effort that would provide job readiness, education, and employment

services to male and female juvenile and young adult probationers 14-24 who were either

unemployed or underemployed. The project was to build on several existing programs. These

included those sponsored by Paterson’s Alternative High School, the county’s Workforce

Investment Board summer jobs program, the Village Initiative, the Violation of Probation Drug

Court, the Comprehensive Enforcement Program, and the One-Stop Technology Center. 

Job Ready’s goal was to reduce recidivism and gang participation by providing services for up to

300 youth on probation. This was to be done by helping the youth find job and training

opportunities that would enable them to become economically self-sufficient as well as pay their

court-ordered financial obligations. Probation officers and judges were to refer youth to the

project. 

A main component of the project was a 20-hour after-school job readiness workshop at the

Paterson Adult School. Clients were to be instructed in how to search for jobs; how to prepare

for interviews; how to prepare a resume; and how to develop good work habits. If clients needed

further education or other vocational training, they were to be referred to appropriate training

facilities. Clients also were to be paid a $5 stipend for every hour they spent in the workshop.

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

Job Ready’s lead organization was the Passaic County Workforce Development Center, which

passed management responsibilities to the Passaic Vicinage Probation Division. Throughout the

pilot, two assistant chief probation officers shared supervisory tasks of the project. The project’s

day-to-day operation was run by a coordinator hired specifically for the task.

The Village Initiative, a two-year-old collaboration of agencies to combat juvenile delinquency

and gang membership, served as a conduit between the project and community leaders.
E-13

Initiative members came from the courts, law enforcement, schools, Workforce Investment

Board, the state Attorney General’s Office, and other state and local agencies. 

Since September 2000, project officials also had formed alliances with several development

agencies, including the CASA workforce development program, the St. Paul Community

Development Corporation, and the New Jersey Development Corporation. Although these

alliances were informal, the project coordinator reported she found them helpful. The partners

have helped the project coordinator plan events such as job fairs and teen summits for clients. 

The Village Initiative and St. Joseph’s Hospital also have partnered to provide project

participants health care services. 

In July 2000, the partnership with Paterson Adult School ended and two teachers hired for the

project departed. In all, four classes for about 170 participants were completed during spring

and summer. By summer 2000 all funds for the teachers had been expended. The teachers also

were reluctant to continue the program, even if additional funds had become available, because

they experienced problems maintaining discipline in classes. According to the evaluator, it also

appeared that the teachers became overloaded because they had to continue teaching their

regular adult classes, which mostly were for high school dropouts and pregnant teenagers.

 

In retrospect, and according to the project’s coordinator, it appeared that better partnerships and

linkages could have been formed, if connections between Job Ready and the Village Initiative

had been put into place at the project’s outset. It also appeared that project outcomes could have

been enhanced, if Job Ready had teamed with several existing programs run by the probation

department. These programs included:

C a six-week summer recreational program for juveniles on probation and others

seeking to get away from their environments. The program, which was 13 years

old, sought to reduce gang violence and take drug dealers off the street;

C Safe Haven, which was part of a community policing grant. Through this

program, police and the Board of Education provided activities for troubled youth

at a neighborhood school until 10 p.m. each day;

C Volunteers in Education, a cooperative effort between the Family Court and

Probation Divisions. In this program, adult volunteers assisted with the

rehabilitation and monitoring of youth on probation. 
E-14

The evaluator also noted:

C originally project officials planned for Lucent Technologies to provide some

collateral services, but this did not occur;

C at the start of the project there was no gang advisory board;

C the Mayor’s Taskforce on Crime and Delinquency met regularly to address

Paterson’s growing drug trade; and

C project officials believed the Paterson Adult School was critical to early project

gains and that clients benefited from services resulting from the linkages among

partners created by the project. 

Throughout the grant period, the project faced several barriers that impeded progress toward

reaching its objectives. These included a three-month delay in starting, a lack of support from

potential employers, unanticipated personal problems and hardships of clients themselves, staff

retention, and inadequate data collection methods, which caused confusion and discrepancies in

reports. Also, the school component finished earlier than was expected, partly because of a

shortage of funds and partly because of discipline and academic issues involving clients. And,

the resignation of the job developer left only the project coordinator to manage more than 170

clients. 

The evaluator noted several additional barriers hampered the project:

C Staffing. There were too few project staff members to adequately handle the

number of clients enrolled in the project.

C Space. There was insufficient space for counseling and instruction of clients in

groups.

C Tax Incentives. The project staff was unsuccessful in convincing employers to

use the federal tax incentive program. As a result, some clients may have been

denied opportunities to work.

C Educational Opportunities. Clients often failed to take advantage of educational

opportunities. Many failed to learn to read and to obtain their GEDs. In some

instances, clients were unable to get a driver’s license because they could not

read.

In retrospect, it appeared that assisting clients prepare for jobs — and then helping them find

jobs — was a major challenge that increased over the life of the project and with the rise of
E-15

Paterson’s unemployment rate. By May 2001, the evaluator concluded that project outcomes,

perhaps, could have been enhanced by: 

C closer attention to building personal connections with clients and then

maintaining the connections;

C retaining, and building, stronger linkages with educational institutions,

community and business organizations; and

C better use of social services that already were in place to serve young people.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

Job Ready’s offices were housed in the Probation Building where adult probation officers

worked. Project offices also were near juvenile probation offices. The facility’s location was

ideal in several ways. It was in the heart of downtown Paterson and within walking distance of

the Paterson Adult School and the Passaic County Workforce Development Center. It also

provided project officials an opportunity to connect with participants through the probation

offices of the adult court. As a result, project officials were able to counsel clients as they

reported to their probation officers.

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

To help accomplish its goals, grant funds were to be used to recruit and fill four and one-half

staff positions. The positions included, a coordinator/counselor to handle administration and

work with probationers (full time); a job developer/counselor to work directly with clients (full

time); two part-time teachers from Paterson schools to teach Job Ready classes; two part-time

teachers aides to work with students; and a part-time secretary/student assistant. The two fulltime hires, who received no training, were hired less for their expertise and experience than for

their potential — “on what we anticipated that they could bring to the program,” according to

one probation official who supervised the project. 

Several staff changes occurred over the project’s course. The job developer/counselor who was

hired for the project left in September 2000 and was not replaced. In addition, the project did not

replace teachers from the Adult School after they left. As a result, the project coordinator had to

carry project responsibilities alone and without adequate help. In spring 2001, at the time of the

third evaluation site visit, the coordinator was absent on maternity leave. 

Throughout the project, the probation department also experienced what appeared as a

debilitating attrition among its 40 probation officers. In September 2000, there were eight vacant
E-16

positions in the drug court and five vacancies in the juvenile department. The officers had left

for higher paying jobs with the state and neighboring cities. The remaining four probation

officers involved directly with the project managed case loads that each averaged about 55

clients.

The project coordinator said she depended heavily on the officers to serve as the “muscle”

behind the demonstration project. But as a result of attrition in their ranks, the officers were not

always able to adequately track project clients to ensure that they, often as conditions for parole,

attended training, counseling sessions, and job interviews. 

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

Most referrals to the project came from probation officers, although judges assigned a few

clients. Client offenses mainly involved drugs, robbery, and breaking and entering. By spring

2001, there were 234 clients registered with the project. Of these, 198 had been enrolled in

training. The project’s enrollment goal was 300. 

8. What types of training, employment and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

The project included these aspects of workforce development best practices: individual needs

assessment; career awareness and counseling; job exploration; expectations of high skills

standards; regular evaluation of client progress; facilitation of additional schooling and job

placement; and active participation by employers.

The project made several attempts to connect with employers, including sending 1,000 flyers and

writing, calling, and visiting prospective employers. As a result, some employers hired clients.

These include United Parcel Service and several small businesses. A project official, however,

said that the project’s efforts “did not necessarily come to fruition.” Some clients chose “other

options” or failed to follow through on job leads. Employers, according to the project

coordinator, had mixed feelings about hiring project clients who had been in trouble with the

law. Some employers, nonetheless, were convinced to interview clients and consider them for

jobs. 

One project official believed that collaborating with One-Stop centers had been helpful. The

centers shared job leads with project officials and invited clients to job fairs. The evaluator,

however, reported that the project never connected with the area’s largest employment network,

apparently because it could not afford to share some services with the other organizations in the

network. 
E-17

By spring 2001, 170 clients had attended the four Job Ready classes that were held at the

Paterson Adult School. Students attending classes were paid $5 for each hour they attended

classes. Successful completion of classes required 20 hours of training. Of those who had

attended Job Readiness classes:

C 25 (13%) had obtained employment;

C 10 (5%) had completed their education, receiving either a high school diploma or

GED;

C 24 (12%) had returned or remained in school; and

C 18 (9%) had been incarcerated.

In September 2000, the evaluator noted that an important task for the project coordinator was to

identify and develop job opportunities for clients. Through an alliance, Workforce Development

agreed to save 20 jobs for project youth. The jobs involved work on a county road crew for 35

hours a week at $5.50 an hour. In all, nine clients were hired. 

In addition to the alliance, the project coordinator called on businesses in hope of finding clients

jobs. Her efforts generally did not pay off, however. In some cases, companies offered to hire

clients only for menial jobs at low pay rates. Other employers, who the project coordinator

hoped would play major roles by hiring clients, refused to promise they would hire them.

Employers told project officials they had large numbers of qualified applicants for only a limited

number of jobs. In September 2000, the evaluator concluded that it appeared that the project

coordinator was forced to deal with bias and discrimination by employers toward project clients,

too few job opportunities, and the failure of employers to keep promises to hire project youth. 

In another effort to find jobs for project youth, the project coordinator arranged for students to

attend a Rotary Club session to network with business people. Although 10 youth were invited,

only three attended. Since then, however, a Rotary Club contact agreed to conduct mock

interviews with participants and to provide volunteer opportunities for clients at Rotary events. 

In September 2000, the project coordinator also reported that the project faced barriers involving

the clients themselves. She said involvement of parents in the project had been “nonexistent”

and that clients had told her they did not want their parents involved in their lives. Probation

officers also voiced frustration with clients and said that many have not been motivated either to

work or attend classes.

The project coordinator relied on probation officers to put what she called “muscle” behind the

project. If clients were not held accountable by probation officers, they missed appointments

with potential employers. On some occasions, probation officers served as escorts. One

example of this was when the project coordinator took a group of clients to a mall to apply for
E-18

jobs. Another was when Job Ready workshops were being held. During the classes, officers

observed clients and ensured that those on probation attended training.

After clients finished their probation, the officers often lost contact with them — even though

the officers believed the clients still needed counseling. A lack of resources, according to

officers, prohibited them from tracking clients after their probation ended. 

As the project coordinator had done, probation officers also identified more personal factors that

worked against project youth. These included the breakdown of families, lack of positive

parental support, parental criminal activity, lack of educational attainment, drug problems, poor

living conditions, hunger, illness, the lack of transportation, and lack of motivation. Interviews

with clients during evaluation site visits appeared to confirm these points.

Organizational issues and competition from similar agencies and organizations to provide youth

similar services also impeded the program’s efforts. The project staff, because of its small size,

was unable to give clients adequate attention, especially time for counseling. The project

coordinator noted that “if we had twice or three times the staff, we’d make a difference.” She

also said that the project should have included a larger school component to address clients’

educational needs.

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were

the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Several “Teen Summits” were held for participants. The summits were in locations accessible to

the youth, including the gymnasium of the local community college, a community center, and a

church. Topics discussed at the summits involved teenage sexual activity and AIDS awareness;

the importance of letting young people have their say on issues; and how youth could go about

finding jobs. About 50 youth attended each summit, perhaps mainly because officers required

their attendance. Project officials confirmed this, reporting that a few clients “showed up on

their own.” Other community activities attended by clients included a family picnic sponsored

by the Paterson Village Initiative.
E-19

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

In January 2000, the evaluator reported that linking the project to the successful Village

Initiative “provides a higher potential for the continuation of the project.” The evaluator also

reported that the project’s strong ties with other agencies, including the Adult School, and the

county’s Workforce Development Center, would enhance the potential for its continuation. By

spring 2001, however, the project had severed its ties with the Adult School, and had just begun

connecting with the county’s Workforce Development Center.

In September 2000, the evaluator reported that project officials believed that the program was

worthwhile and recommended that it become a “special component” of the overall juvenile crime

prevention effort — although several changes were needed, especially more funding, if it were

to succeed. Project officials at the time also believed that the project’s focus should be on job

readiness training and that five to 10 probation officers were needed to manage the large number

of clients. In addition, the officials said that more efforts were required to address the “special

needs” of clients who were not in school, who were uneducated, and who were unemployed.

By spring 2001, the evaluator noted that these structural changes to the project had not begun to

take place. It also was uncertain whether the project could be continued, considering that

demonstration funds had been expended and DOL had not refunded the project. The evaluator

also noted that other funding constraints and pressing matters, such as the challenge of hiring

probation officers, also had pushed project continuation toward the bottom of the county’s

priority list.
E-20
E-21

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for 

Knoxville, Tennessee

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

Several encouraging contextual developments occurred during the course of Knoxville’s Youth

Offender Demonstration Project (YODP), which was called Project NOVA (New Opportunities

for Vocational Advancement). In fact, since the initial evaluation site visit was made in

November 1999, significant physical changes occurred in the city’s enterprise community, which

also constituted the project’s target area.

This blighted inner-city area, where about 48,000 residents lived — nearly one-third of the city's

population — was starting to experience a construction boom and increased attention from

community leaders who appeared determined to overcome years of neglect. For decades, the

area suffered from high poverty (40%) and high unemployment (12%) as well as high crime,

educational underachievement, and increased gang activity. By April 2001, the neighborhood

buzzed with construction activity that signaled positive change.

Several churches, as well as non-profit organizations and public agencies that included the

Police Department, had set up shop in the project’s target area and were working to prevent and

reduce crime. Volunteer and non-profit groups such as Habitat for Humanity also had begun

ambitious programs to refurbish and build new housing. One project aimed at troubled youth,

YouthBuild, went out of business, however. Several other organizations, nonetheless, provided

after-school programs for youth who were at-risk of criminal involvement. And, Pellissippi

State Technical College and Knoxville College also showed increased interest in the community

and established or strengthened programs they operated there. 

Soon after the project began, an old public housing development was torn down. In its place was

being built new transitional housing units for families that were to become homeowners. The

development was part of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development’s Hope Six grant program.

These efforts, especially if considered collectively, appeared to indicate that change was in the

air and that the target area would become more stable and safer and, therefore, more attractive to

live in.

There were mixed changes in Knoxville's crime situation, however. Although assignments of

juveniles to training school declined, there was a 25% increase in negligence cases involving

children. Following national trends, the city's crime rate in general leveled off, although violent

crimes, especially murder, increased somewhat. Officials estimated that 90% of Knoxville's 247

gangs operated within the enterprise community. 
E-22

Over the course of the project, the demonstration gained increased support from local politicians,

community, and industry leaders. Project officials believed that the support would build even

more as the project matured, became more financially stable, and as word of its successes spread

throughout the Knoxville establishment and broader community. 

In spring 2001, the mayor had about three years left to serve in his term. Project officials

believed this would help ensure continued support for the project as well as for revitalization

efforts within the target area.

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

Planning for Project NOVA was initiated by the Knoxville/Knox County Community Action

Committee (CAC). Other major public partners that were consulted or brought into the planning

stage included Knoxville’s Community Development Corporation (KCDC), Knoxville Police

Department, Knox County School District, Knox County Juvenile Court, the Metropolitan Drug

Commission (MDC), and the Office of the District Attorney General. The organizations

collaborated with several other community partners. Youth and parents were not involved

directly in planning for the grant.

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services?

CAC was to have fiduciary control and general overview of Project NOVA. The project was to

be organized and managed by employees from the Truancy Center, a KCDC component.

According to the grant application, Project NOVA was to provide a framework for recognition,

intervention, and treatment of youth at risk of court involvement. In doing this, Project NOVA

would serve as a common entry point for youth living within the city’s enterprise community.

After clients were screened and assessed, counselors were to refer them to treatment providers

and grass-roots organizations in the Knoxville community. To accomplish these tasks, the

project proposed to use an existing network of available services and to build the network by

expanding capacity and enhancing coordination. 

During the planning phase, project officials did not believe that enlisting the help and support of

employers would pose a problem, even though many clients were offenders. In fact, officials

pointed out in their grant application that the county Sheriff’s Office and its Office of

Community Alternatives to Prison Program had agreements with 154 employers, both inside and

outside the enterprise community. “These employers have committed to hiring employees with

arrest and prison records,” according to the grant application. 
E-23

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

On January 1, 2001, Project NOVA staff members relinquished their Truancy Center duties to

the city’s Police Department and began devoting all of their time to the project. KCDC

continued to manage the project, while CAC retained fiduciary control and oversight

responsibilities.

By spring 2001, it did not appear that this change had affected client recruitment significantly.

Proximity to the Truancy Center allowed the project staff to maintain ties with police and

recruiting from the truancy program remained strong. In addition to the Truancy Center, the

project was receiving referrals mainly from the school system, courts, and neighborhood

networks in public housing developments. The project manager estimated that 10% of referrals

also came from community service agencies. 

Beginning with the inception of Project NOVA, the project staff recruited a variety of public,

private, and non-profit partners. Before it received its demonstration grant, the Truancy Center

already had in place existing agreements and arrangements with other agencies and organizations

to provide services to youth. In all, about 30 agencies and organizations were listed in the

Project NOVA grant application. These included primarily resources for substance abuse

counseling, after school/mentoring programs, conflict resolution training, alternative

sentencing/community service, alternative school/education, and job training. 

Partners supported the project in various ways and degrees. A local One-Stop center provided

Project NOVA clients some help in finding jobs and with job readiness training. An adult

education/career specialist from the One-Stop, who also represented Pellissippi State, spent three

mornings each week with project clients. Boys Clubs also provided some vocational readiness

training, such as resume writing, interview skills, and how to dress for success in support of the

project. Both Pellissippi State and Tennessee Technical College actively marketed and offered

GED courses to project participants.

In November 1999, it was unclear whether the Drug Court, one of the project’s original main

partners, would continue to participate in the project. The evaluator at the time noted that

uncertainty existed, although the Truancy Center and Drug Court had signed a memorandum of

understanding. By October 2000, participation of the Drug Court in the project was virtually

non-existent. Of 132 referrals reported at the time, for example, only one had come from the

Drug Court. By spring 2001, the Drug Court had been disbanded as a result of a judge’s order.

The program manager served on the youth council of the local Workforce Investment Board and

the Knox County Safe Policies Group, whose members also included the Chief of Police, Sheriff,

Superintendent of Schools, Chief Judge of Courts, and directors of 12 other organizations. A

project case manager also served on the group. Membership in these groups ensured that the
E-24

project had high visibility and opportunities to build partnerships with other groups and

organizations involved in community youth matters.

A key component of the project involved finding clients work. As a result, the project staff

focused on securing commitments from employers to hire qualified youth who were enrolled as

clients. Although the staff preferred placing clients in jobs with long-term potential, they did not

object to placing them as workers in jobs that required only limited skills and education, such as

those at fast food restaurants. Sometimes, they pointed out, these jobs lead to long-term

employment, especially if clients continue to progress with their education, gain experience, and

if they enter a supervisory track. According to staff, employers, through frequent contacts and

other dealings, learned to appreciate the NOVA staff’s professionalism and trust it to screen out

applicants who were not suitable for certain jobs.

By spring 2001, the project had 30 participating employers, among them: Odom Construction,

National Linen Service, Lay Packing Co., Modine Manufacturing, University Health Systems,

Kroger Stores, Custom Foods, Ft. Sanders Regional Medical Center, Days Inn of America, and

Interim Personnel. 

There were problems placing clients in jobs, however, according to the program’s manager.

Some employers required at least a GED and many clients, who had long-term suspensions from

school, were ineligible to enroll in GED courses until they completed their suspensions.

Suspended clients often were placed into jobs while waiting for their suspensions to end. This

situation meant that putting some clients through training, including GED courses, and into jobs

took extended periods to accomplish. Another problem the project manager noted was difficulty

in getting public schools to release students who probably would have benefited more by

enrolling in the project than by remaining in school. 

A real project strength was the active involvement of its advisory board. Board members, who

mainly represented local industry, various public and non-profit agencies and colleges, came

together monthly to share information and ideas on how they could improve the level of services

provided clients. Board members represented Pellissippi State Technical Community College,

the National Linen Service, Knoxville Community Development Corporation, Knoxville Police

Department, the Board of Probation and Parole, Odom Construction Co., Tennessee Technology

Center, Juvenile Court, Knox County Schools, the Metropolitan Drug Commission, and

Knoxville Career Center. Goodwill Industries also joined the board. This was especially

noteworthy because Goodwill’s programs serve low-functioning children, which was the

condition of many project participants. By spring 2001, two school system representatives, two

parents, and a project youth also had been recruited for the board. 

The advisory board was more active in spring 2001 than it was in November 1999. Board

meetings generally were well attended, which on face value at least indicated that partners

wanted the project to work. Board members elected a Knoxville police officer, who worked in

the department’s gang unit, as board president. At the September meeting she briefed board
E-25

members on the city’s gang situation and also explained the various markings, signals, and

clothing that different gangs used.

Throughout the project’s course, the staff worked hard to expand Project NOVA’s reach and to

serve additional clients. In November 1999, the evaluator noted that the task of designing an

integrated network of services was still being developed and that no interagency agreements had

been reached, with the exception of a memo of understanding between the Metropolitan Drug

Commission and the Truancy Center. By spring 2001, the project had in place memorandums of

agreement/understanding with all its partners, according to the project manager.

Since 1999, the project made important strides in other ways. Shortcomings noted by the

evaluator in November 1999 were corrected as the project staff developed confidence and the

project became more stable. In October 2000, the evaluator found a knowledgeable and

competent staff that appeared engaged with project clients. In addition, project staff members at

the time also were attempting to build partnerships with potential employers and other public and

non-profit organizations. By spring 2001, local Job Corps recruiters and two Job Corps sites in

the Knoxville area had become active in the project.

Since 2000, the project received almost $370,000 in grant funding from various sources, which

allowed it to expand its organizational capacity so it could reach additional clients. By spring

2001, project officials were in the process of hiring additional personnel (three full-time

equivalents, or FTEs), which would increase the staff to a total of seven FTEs. The addition of

two case mangers was necessary, according to the project manager, because each case manager

was handling about 90 clients. 

Of special note were the partnerships the project developed with Pellissippi State and Knox

College. The colleges were to provide computer support and software in support of a HUD antidrug program that provided the project about $125,000 in grant funds. Project NOVA in the

summer of 2001 planned to hook up about 110 units of the 188-unit Ridgebrook Apartments

with “wireless” computers that were either donated or purchased through the grant. This would

allow project clients to engage in self-directed study and job searches while remaining at home

to care for their families. Knox College, which had a one-year $40,000 contract with Project

NOVA, also was to provide four students to run the computer system and also tutor middle and

high school students in a new classroom. Pellissippi State was to provide GED software to the

clients. 

By spring 2001, project officials estimated that Project NOVA had reduced recidivism by

providing youth with alternatives to unproductive behaviors. This was done through a

comprehensive continuum of services that offered clients a safe and structured approach for

exploring new opportunities. The project’s original goal was to reduce recidivism by 20% in the

target population. Of clients who were managed by the project since November 1999, officials

said only 12.3% had been rearrested. 
E-26

In addition, the staff anticipated there would be a 15% reduction in gang membership as a result

of the project. The staff also reported that establishing strong partnerships with local business

had allowed them to place 36% of 18 to 24 year-old clients in jobs.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

Proximity of Project NOVA to its target area was adequate. The project’s main office was on

the lower level of the L.T. Ross Building off Western Avenue. Space was shared with the Knox

County School’s Transition School and the Truancy Center, which was run by the Police

Department after January 1, 2001. On the building’s upper level were the Community Action

Committee’s (CAC) main offices where many services were provided to the public.

The project backed up to a large public housing project in the enterprise community, Ridgebrook

Apartments. This meant that many youth who were at risk of court involvement had easy access

to project services. It was uncertain, however, whether having project offices in the Ross

Building, where the Truancy Center also was located, discouraged some potential clients from

volunteering to participate in Project NOVA. To enter the building, clients had to first check in

with a uniformed officer at a front desk. 

Project NOVA, community-based organizations, and social service agencies at the Ross

Building generally were accessible by public transportation. Project officials reported, however,

that some clients often either refused to use it or did not know how to use it. 

As a result of the staff expansion, the project’s classroom in the Ross Building, where GED

instruction was conducted, were displaced. By spring 2001 the classroom had been relocated to

Ridgebrook Apartments. The new classroom accommodated up to 20 students at a time and

abutted the new neighborhood network computer lab.

The new classroom was used throughout the day for various activities. From 9 a.m. until noon,

Monday through Friday, Pellissippi State provided clients with basic skills instruction or GED

preparation. From 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. the classroom was used for pre-school children and then,

from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., for tutoring of middle school and high school students. While enrolled in

the project, clients received life skills, literacy, parenting, citizenship and employability skills

training as well as English as a Second Language and other workforce development activities. 

In the spring 2001, the project also established an office in the Knox County Juvenile Court and

Services Building, primarily as a means to handle youth who were involved in gangs and other

criminal activities. Project officials also planned to offer assessment services and some case

management there.
E-27

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

Staff members were recruited through advertisements in publications. Applicants were first

screened and then interviewed before they were selected by a panel. The selection process

appeared adequate and effective in ensuring that staff members were well qualified and well

suited for the project.

By spring of 2001, the project had the full-time equivalent of four and one/half employees (a

project director, three case managers, and two interns who were college students). In the

summer of 2001, and after receiving additional demonstration grant funding from DOL, the

project planned to add two and one-half positions, including two case managers, to handle a

larger number of clients.

The project experienced only limited staff turnover. A case manager resigned in February 2000

and was soon replaced.

Project staff members were well educated, trained, and had considerable experience that

complemented their project responsibilities. The program manager, who had been involved with

youth issues in various agencies since 1985, for example, designed the Truancy Center in 1997

and put it into operation in 1998. 

The three case managers also had experience dealing with needy youth. One case manager, for

example, had worked in post-secondary vocational education for more than 20 years, teaching

cosmetology, GED, basic skills courses, and welding classes. Before joining the project in

August 1999, she worked as an administrator at Tennessee Technical College.

A second case manager joined the Truancy Center in February 1999. She had been involved in

social work and teaching since 1978 and had worked several years teaching in family group

homes. A third case manager, who joined the Truancy Center in February 2000, had worked in

the mental health field, specifically in alcohol and drug abuse treatment, since 1995. She had

experience as a case manager in both in-patient and out-patient facilities. 

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

Referrals to Project NOVA come from several sources, including the Truancy Center, the public

school system, courts, and neighborhood networks. The Truancy Center, however, was the

primary referral source of youth 14-18 years of age. 

Recruitment of clients also occurred sometimes by word of mouth. Youth attending GED or

other training through the project, for example, sometimes encouraged their peers to join the

program, according to project staff. 
E-28

The number of youth identified as gang members increased from 247 in November 1998 to 330

at the end of 2000, according to project officials. Of those involved in gang activity, about 90%

lived within the enterprise community. In all, about 70% to 75% of youthful offenders in the

county lived there. In addition, Project NOVA officials reported:

C only 2% of the project’s clients remained active in gangs once they became

clients; and

C as many as 70% of project participants were identified as youthful offenders who

were at high risk of joining gangs and engaging in related criminal activities.

 

In October 2000, the project staff was tracking or managing 132 clients, compared to about 40 in

November 1999. By spring 2001 the number had increased to 207. Project staff believed that

with additional case managers and support staff the project could manage as many as 400 youth.

Staff members reported that they received a steady flow of inquiries about the project from

youth. Interest in the project grew during the project’s course, even though it received little

publicity or media coverage.

In spring 2001, project officials said that they would not actively market Project NOVA until

funding decisions had been made as to whether the project would receive additional funds from

DOL after the grant ended. At the time, the program manager said it would be unfair to recruit

youth into a program that would end in less than a year and before they could complete training

or receive adequate services. With the announcement that the project would receive additional

DOL funds as well as other grant funds, however, the project in the summer of 2001 planned to

recruit and accept additional clients.

Before they became clients, youth were screened for suitability for the project. Those who had

committed violent acts were accepted on a case-by case basis, but generally were excluded from

participating in the project. A standard for enrollment was that a youth not pose a threat to other

clients or the staff.

According to the project’s original design, the Knoxville Drug Court was to serve as an

important project partner and as a primary mechanism for funneling clients into the project. In

the spring of 2001 a judge ordered that the Drug Court be discontinued. 
E-29

8. What types of training, employment and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Project NOVA served as a common entry point for potential clients. After youth were assessed

for their potential as participants — and if they volunteered to participate in the project — they

were assigned to a case manager, who then developed an Individual Action Plan for each of

them. As part of this process, which took up to three weeks to complete, case managers

identified the needs of youth and then referred them to other agencies for help. Most referrals

were for vocational and educational training. Clients also were referred to other agencies to help

them handle personal problems, including drug abuse and family difficulties.

It appeared that the three case managers, despite handling large numbers of clients, took great

pains to understand each client’s needs, problems, and goals. A review of case management files

in October 2001 gave an indication of the intense level of interaction that counselors had with

youth. Case files, for example, showed that case managers frequently transported clients to job

interviews and classes and prodded them to attend classes and other appointments. The

counselors also helped clients try to resolve family and other personal problems. 

Case managers indeed played a crucial role that went beyond simply assessing, classifying, and

referring clients. The program director believed that an important role of the counselors was to

keep youth from becoming lost in the system while providing them a safety net. They did this by

constantly monitoring and reevaluating youth as they proceeded through the project. They

closely tracked client progress and monitored whether they attended training and followed their

Individual Action Plans. When potential problems were noted or “sensed” case managers

responded quickly to take corrective action to get clients back on track. This extraordinary effort

ensured, according to the program manager, that there was some kind of intervention “before

disaster occurs.” 

As a conduit for 14-17 year olds, Project NOVA provided comprehensive psycho-social

assessments and case management of youth who became clients. Once in the project, each

client’s progress was tracked for two years using links to juvenile and county courts, and regular

reports from referring agencies. 

Clients were watched closely for signs of bad attitude and whether they suffered from

depression. If case managers suspected youth of being drug abusers, suffering from depression,

or struggling with family problems they were referred to other agencies for help.

The local One-Stop center provided clients training in resume writing, job skills training, and

vocational counseling. Project clients also received educational and vocational services from

Pellissippi State and the Tennessee Technology Center. 
E-30

Project clients had access to a youth sports program conducted through a partnership between

KCDC and the City of Knoxville. Clients had access to a variety of recreational and sports

activities, which project officials said enhanced their socialization skills and personal

development and served as a violence prevention effort. Although the program was available to

any young person between five and 16, it targeted those who lived in public housing.

A review of data provided by the project showed that of 207 clients who had enrolled in the

project:

C 74 (36%) had been placed in unsubsidized jobs;

C 3 (2%) had joined the military;

C 24 (12%) had joined the Job Corps; and

C 6 (3%) had entered college.

 

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were

the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

When necessary, counselors worked with other agencies to help clients overcome barriers to

jobs, including obtaining appropriate work-related clothes. Frequently, however, counselors

took it upon themselves to help youth obtain birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and other

essential documents.

Project officials said they found little interest among employers for the Federal Bonding Program

or the Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program. A common complaint was that the programs

required too much paperwork, according to project officials.

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

In the spring of 2001, there was a mild degree of uncertainty about the project’s continuation.

By summer, however, the project had received additional demonstration funds from DOL as well

as two major grants worth more than $200,000 through the local Workforce Investment Board. 
E-31

The grants appeared to ensure that the project would continue and grow while project officials

continued their search for additional funding sources.
E-32
E-33

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for

Minneapolis, Minnesota

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

Residents of neighborhoods targeted by the Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP)

were largely working class. More than half also were members of minority groups, including a

large number who had immigrated from Asia, Africa, and Mexico. More specifically, of the

49,000 residents who lived in the neighborhoods targeted by Fresh Start, the name of the

demonstration project: 32% were black, 9.7% were Native American, 11.5% were Asian/Pacific

Islander, and 3.7% were Hispanic. 

Throughout the demonstration project, the unemployment rate in the target areas remained about

20%. Hardest hit were unskilled youth from economically disadvantaged families and

immigrants who have not yet developed adequate English-language skills.

Compounding the situation was the movement of many large Minneapolis employers to the

suburbs, which left behind mainly fast-food and service-related jobs for unskilled workers.

When good-paying jobs were created in the downtown area, however, residents were not

necessarily hired to fill them. According to city reports, non-residents held 60% of full-time jobs

in Minneapolis. By May 2001, the economy, although still considered robust, had declined

marginally. 

To improve the job situation in struggling neighborhoods, city leaders pinned their hopes on

three major projects in the city’s revitalization plan. They believed that the projects would

produce more than 7,000 jobs when they were completed.

As was the case generally across the nation, many good paying jobs in Minneapolis required

well-educated and skilled workers. According to statistics compiled by the city, 89.6% of Native

American students, 65.6% of black students, and 62.7% of Hispanic students failed to complete

ninth grade.

The drop-out rate among minority groups steadily increased with the growth in the number of

students from minority groups attending public schools. In 1990, for example, children of color

constituted 40% of students. By 2000, that figure had increased to 70%. To combat the drop-out

problem, the city initiated new mentoring programs that attempted to connect middle and high

school youths with professional role models. Mentors also maintained contact with youth

through email messages. 
E-34

On the surface, the appearance of the demonstration project’s main target neighborhoods gave a

deceptive picture of their actual state of being. Compared to some neighborhoods in many other

large cities, the areas where the YODP operated appeared neat and well maintained. It also

appeared there was a shortage of affordable housing, which especially affected low-income

families.

Beneath the facade of orderliness existed many of the same endemic problems involving youth

that have troubled poor areas within other large cities. These included high unemployment,

crime rates higher than national averages, and increased gang activity — including among

recent immigrants. In all, project officials estimated that 80 gangs with about 4,500 members

operated within the city. The officials said, however, that since the city began the project the

crime rate had declined. This included a 53% decrease in the gang-related murder rate since

1998 when 13 deaths were reported. Officials attributed the drop to increased prosecutions of

gang members and efforts of the anti-gang strike force.

Since 1999, the city has taken several actions that may have helped reduce crime. These included

combining the principles of restorative justice with vigorous community action. Also, the city

implemented several initiatives, including a general education program in schools, an alcohol

education program, an anti-fire-setters program, a truancy intervention program, and a safeschools initiative. The city also incorporated work/service into schools and was planning to

establish a juvenile assessment center. 

The political climate in Minneapolis throughout the grant period remained stable and generally

unchanged. The mayor, like many other city and state organizations, supported efforts to

improve employment opportunities for youth who were at risk of court involvement while also

taking action to reduce juvenile crime and improve housing and education. The city has had a

history of strong citizen participation and of developing public-private partnerships to create and

implement citywide initiatives. In 2001 voters approved a significant increase in the amount of

funds going to youth programs run by the Department of Parks and Recreation.

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

The city government's Minneapolis Employment and Training Program (METP) took the lead

and organized efforts to apply for YODP funds. More specifically, the city’s youth programs

coordinator talked with potential partners to build consensus for the project. Greatest support for

the project came from within the juvenile justice system, which also became the primary source

of client referrals. Additional support came from community-based organizations, prospective

employers, and school organizations. Although parents and youth were not included in planning

for the grant, they were brought into the project once the youth council of the Private Industry

Workforce Council was reformatted to meet requirements under the Workforce Investment Act.
E-35

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services?

The City of Minneapolis, according to its application, planned to use its grant to create linkages

"that will strengthen the efforts of prevention and recovery services for youth offenders and gang

members, as well as, those youth who are on the fringes of both of these groups." In addition to

supporting local gang suppression activities, the city planned to enhance services that already

were provided through existing — and generally strong — employment and training, recreation,

conflict resolution, youth intervention, and court diversion programs. 

The city also planned to create services that complemented its existing alternative sentencing and

community services options. To do this, it proposed developing a structured set of activities and

services that would support 14-24 year olds in the targeted neighborhoods and lead to their

successful long-term employment at good wage levels. Doing this was to help prevent

involvement of youth in criminal activities and to reduce recidivism.

In planning for the project, METP solicited advice and help from about 10 organizations and

public agencies. These included the public schools, churches, the Community Alternative

Probation Supervision Program, correctional facilities for youth, and other organizations that

provided services aimed at youth who were at risk of court involvement.

After it received its demonstration grant, the city planned to identify and select an agency

through a competitive Request for Proposal process as subcontractor to manage the project’s

day-to-day operations. The city envisioned that its subcontractor would hire two community

employment specialists and a job development specialist to work with METP to provide clients

with: 

C Transitional services for youth prior to their release from correctional facilities:

The specialists were to help develop release plans with probation and social

workers to ensure that the smooth transition of clients back into the community;

C Employment and training services: Specialists were to complete an Individual

Service Strategy for each client and assess pre-employment and work maturity

competencies. Appropriate training would then be scheduled;

C Job placement and support: Specialists were to place youth in appropriate jobs or

internships, depending upon their eligibility; and

C Educational services: Specialists were to complete an Individualized Learning

Plan for each client and establish short and long-term educational goals. They

also were to help place clients in educational programs and link them with

volunteer mentors. 
E-36

When the city applied for the demonstration grant, it identified 23 businesses it said were willing

to hire youth offenders. Some of the larger employers the city cited included: J.C. Penny’s,

Nodquist Sign, Print Star, Bell Manufacturing, Shapco Printers, Winslow Printing, Stremel

Manufacturing, and Warning Lites of Minnesota.

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

To manage the demonstration project, METP selected The Employment Action Center (EAC) as

its subcontractor. EAC was well suited to manage Fresh Start’s day-to-day operations because it

operated similar programs aimed at helping youth prepare for employment and find jobs. EAC’s

organizational apparatus also was in place. In all, similar EAC programs reached about 700

youth by providing pre-vocational services and by helping them find jobs. EAC also operated

similar adult programs that provided employment services to about 1,400 adult men and women

a year.

Despite the agency’s history of running these kind of programs, project officials early on found

recruiting clients for Fresh Start difficult because the demonstration project had not established a

track record in the community among probation officers. The project’s staff worked hard to

overcome this barrier, however.

In January 2000, Fresh Start officials reported there were five primary partners who referred

clients to the project: Red Wing Correctional Facility, Project Support, Hennepin County

Juvenile Probation, the Minneapolis Diversion Program, and the County Home School. By

October 2000 the number of partners providing clients had increased to eight. Active partners

project officials listed at the time included: Operation DeNovo, Project Support, Hennepin

County Truancy, the Amicus Jump Program, Red Wing Correctional Facility, Hennepin County

Probation, and the Juvenile Detention Center. By May 2001, project officials also listed South

High School, 180 Degrees, and Volunteers of America Alternative School as sources of clients. 

A strong link between Fresh Start and the traditional school system also was slow to develop. In

general, project officials believed that the schools did not value the services provided by the

demonstration project. Project officials, nonetheless, stressed that public schools were

“cooperative” and that they sometimes worked with school social workers to identify youth who

might benefit from Fresh Start.

The officials also reported that they hoped to build deeper relationships with schools, especially

alternative schools, as the project matured. During the project, the Hennepin County School

District operated six alternative schools, but most were run by community-based organizations.

The schools were small, with 100 to 200 students, and enrolled students from kindergarten

through 12th grade. 
E-37

By October 2000, project officials and officials at the Hennepin County Home School, a

medium-security facility, also were considering how they could develop a partnership. The

school’s corrections unit supervisor was seeking help from EAC to create a core curriculum of

basic readiness skills for offenders nearing completion of their sentences. The corrections unit

supervisor at the time said that if the curriculum were instituted in the school a major challenge

would be to educate and convince facility workers that their responsibilities also included

serving as job coaches and helping provide detained youth with job readiness skills. EAC

officials also planned to train kitchen staff members who supervised youth working in the

facility.

In addition, the facility’s corrections unit supervisor supported implementation of a quasiapprenticeship program for young men sentenced to the school. He believed that this kind of

program, in which offenders would be allowed to work outside the facility for certain periods

each week, would serve as a “decompression period” and help youthful offenders transition back

into their communities more successfully.

By May 2001, Fresh Start officials still were attempting to build partnerships with additional

employers of project youth. During the demonstration project, several employers had hired

project clients, including Arby’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Adecco, the city’s airport facility,

Marsden Building Maintenance, Maximum Maintenance, Valvoline, DWS, United Parcel

Service, and GFI. The list of business partners participating in the project, however, was much

smaller than the list of 23 businesses the city identified in its grant application as willing to hire

youth offenders.

Establishing firm partnerships with potential employers did not appear to be a critical task for the

project, however. In general, the city’s low unemployment rate made many employers,

especially those that experienced high turnover rates and that needed unskilled workers, eager to

hire workers from any source they could find. Firms that struggled with high turnover included

janitorial services and fast food restaurants. It appeared, however, that employers requiring

skilled workers outside the downtown area remained largely absent from the list of potential

employers that were willing to hire Fresh Start participants. 

Despite a generally tight labor market the project faced several other barriers placing clients into

jobs. These included:

C the unwillingness of some employers to hire youthful offenders. (Some

employers, however, were not aware of the offender status of some clients they

hired and did not consult with project counselors for follow up when problems

arose, which then apparently made them more reluctant to hire project clients.);

C poor skill level and lack of educational attainment by project clients to perform

adequately on the job; and
E-38

C the unwillingness and lack of interest of some clients to be placed in jobs. Project

staff reported that some clients, especially those who had been mandated to the

project, were not interested in finding jobs.

Despite these kinds of issues, project staff, nonetheless, tried to reach prospective employers and

convince them that Fresh Start could serve as a quasi-employment agency. In promotional

literature, EAC explained that Fresh Start could qualify and screen candidates who were

motivated to work. In addition, community employment and job development specialists could

match clients’ skills to employers’ job needs. The service was touted as free “to BOTH the

employer and the candidate” with foundations, corporations, government, and United Way

picking up the tab for the placement services that were provided. The project, according to one

brochure, would help employers reduce hiring costs. Specific benefits to employers listed by the

agency included: access to qualified candidates, job retention services, support for Minneapolis

Youth, and the federal bonding and tax credit programs.

Project officials also have used One-Stop centers, which for several years have actively

publicized their services. As a result, officials pointed out, project clients were generally

familiar with the services offered by the One-Stops, including placement into summer youth

programs and subsidized private-sector jobs. To identify and help youth who were interested in

finding jobs, project officials also worked toward establishing contacts with alternative schools

and probation officers.

In addition to Fresh Start, Minneapolis, which project officials described as “a caring

community,” had many employment and anti-poverty programs that also sought to help youth at

risk of court involvement. Fresh Start counselors used some of these services for their clients.

As a result of having so many services and programs available for youth, however, there was

some “friendly” competition for clients among the various agencies and groups. The following

were some of the community organizations listed by METP that offered youth various

opportunities and sponsored programs that helped them stay out of trouble: 

C Prevention: Police Athletic League;

C Diversion: Boy Scouts Viking Council, Walker United Methodist Church,

Community Alternative Probation Supervision Program, Project Turnaround,

County School Support; and

C Prevention and Intervention: Minnesota Youth Intervention Programs

Association, including City Inc., Minneapolis Youth Diversion Program, YWCA

of Minneapolis, Project Support, Operation DeNovo, La Opportunidad Inc.,

Citizens Council, and Minneapolis American Indian Center. 

In May 2001, project officials noted that they had made several changes and improvements to

the project since it began:
E-39

C renaming the project “Fresh Start.” A brochure developed to promote the project

did not focus on the offender status of clients;

C adjusting the criteria for successful termination in educational activities that

allowed a shorter time-frame; and

C offering non-monetary incentives (tickets to basketball games, etc.) for clients

who attended school regularly, maintain their employment, and meet regularly

with their mentor. 

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

METP selected EAC to manage the Fresh Start project in part because EAC’s offices were

situated within one of the grant’s target neighborhoods. EAC’s offices, which initially were on a

main street that had good bus service and across the street from a large well-used park, were

easily accessible to clients. 

In early 2001 EAC moved its operations to a larger and more-modern facility several miles away

from the old offices. The new office was on the fringe of the main target neighborhood. It

remained accessible by bus to the target population. The larger facility also allowed clients to

access multiple services in one location. Access for youth living in neighborhoods on the city’s

northside, however, was not as good. EAC officials also noted that the new facility operated in

an area of the city that was “gang-neutral,” although the neighborhood was considered to have a

high-crime rate.

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

The Fresh Start project coordinator was a former police officer who also had more than 10 years

of experience in programs involving young offenders and youth at risk of court involvement. He

replaced the original project coordinator in July 2000 when she resigned to take a similar job

with another agency. Another staff member, an employment specialist, left her job in May 2000

and was replaced by a recent college graduate who had about 20 months of full-time experience

working with youth sex offenders while she attended college. Another employment specialist

joined EAC in January 2000. Before then, she worked eight months as a case worker at a

treatment center for the mentally ill. These three employees were still with the project in May

2001.

Each of the two employment specialists, who were recruited by EAC through newspaper

advertisements, managed about 75 client cases. Both also were certified offender employment

specialists, having completed courses through the National Institute of Corrections to earn their
E-40

certificates. They planned to take career development facilitator courses worth six college credit

hours. 

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

Fresh Start required that participants be youthful offenders or classified as youth at-risk of court

involvement. Participants had to live in the targeted neighborhoods and be between 14 and 24.

These requirements were somewhat flexible, however. Project officials claimed that they would

not refuse to serve youth who lived outside of targeted neighborhoods, if they sought help.

Indeed, one 13-year-old had enrolled in the project. There also were no income requirements for

youth to participate in the project. 

Clients were recruited from a variety of sources. The most important sources, however, were

juvenile correctional facilities. Other agencies and organizations that provided clients included

the Project Support mental health facility, group homes, the city’s truancy team, traditional and

alternative schools, and Operation DeNovo, a juvenile diversion program. 

Several months after the project began, the city designated Fresh Start as a diversion program.

As a result, the project received many referrals from juvenile and drug courts. Of the 82 case

files maintained by project officials in October 2000, 59 (72%) youth were classified as

offenders. By May 2001 there were about 130 clients, both court and other referrals, enrolled in

Fresh Start. Project officials predicted that the number would increase gradually as the project

progressed.

Several youth joined the project as a result of word-of-mouth publicity. Project officials called

this form of recruitment, in which friends joined the project in pairs, “hidden referrals.” In a

sense then, according to the officials, the clients themselves had become important partners. 

EAC prepared literature aimed at attracting youth as well as prospective employers to Fresh

Start. In recruitment materials, Fresh Start explained to youth that it had the tools to help them

achieve their educational and job goals. More specifically, Fresh Start could help them get a job,

get a GED, return to high school, enroll in vocational/technical school, build self-esteem,

develop job retention skills, and obtain bonding.

The expansion of referral sources that occurred beginning in 2000 had a positive effect on the

project. Project officials believed it had become easier for them to find clients who were

motivated to work and who were eager to participate in training and educational activities that

were offered.
E-41

8. What types of training, employment and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Most youth entered Fresh Start at various points in their involvement with the juvenile justice

system. Some came from prevention and early intervention programs while others entered the

project as part of the terms of their probation. Project officials believed that gang activity had

peaked in Minneapolis and, therefore, did not actively target gang members for the project.

When a youth was accepted into the program one of the two employment specialists conducted

an assessment to determine the youth’s readiness for employment. As part of the in-take process,

clients also were assessed for their ability to complete forms properly. Service and educational

plans were developed. After the assessment process was completed, the youth were referred to

different programs and training modules, either inside or outside the project. (Case managers

told the evaluator that they believed that the assessments were too long and tedious and should

be refocused in a way that would help them more accurately pinpoint a client’s likes and

dislikes. This would help case managers better direct clients into the right kinds of training for

jobs.)

Although no particular component or module was required, almost all youth attended two

workshops taught by development specialists. One workshop focused on developing work skills

and the other on developing maturity. If they needed special job-related services, such as tattoo

removal or work-related clothing, they were referred to other agencies that could help. Fresh

Start also provided clients with GED training.

After clients completed soft-skills and life-skills workshops, the employment specialists

attempted to help them find jobs, that is if they met age requirements. The project provided

clients with counseling and career workshops to help them learn how to make career decisions,

build self-esteem, prepare for work by developing an education and employment plan and

resume, find jobs, and retain their jobs. In addition, the project provided clients workplace

mentors, access to job banks, and follow up services. The employment specialists believed,

however, that clients generally needed more job readiness training than they received through the

project. 

Clients were offered three educational opportunities, if they had not completed their educations.

They either could return to school, enroll in an alternative high school, or enroll in a Fresh Start

GED program. 

Project officials identified several barriers that impeded the successful implementation of the

project’s training and job placement components. According to counselors, many problems

involved the youth themselves, specifically their low test scores and low educational attainment.

Compounding these problems were other problems associated with poverty itself. These
E-42

included an acute housing shortage within the city that encouraged increased mobility in the

target neighborhood. Project officials said that the housing shortage in the target neighborhood

had the invidious effect of destabilizing less-affluent families.

Anecdotal evidence suggested that it was somewhat difficult for employment specialists to place

project youth in jobs. According to the specialists, many youth faced transportation problems

and found it difficult to travel to workplaces, especially to the suburbs where better-paying jobs

were more plentiful. In addition, the skill levels required for many better-paying jobs often did

not match the abilities and skill levels of Fresh Start clients, especially those who had not

finished high school, who functioned at the elementary-school level, or who lacked adequate

English-language skills. Counselors noted that many clients read at the elementary school level

and could not pass tests required by some employers. 

Another problem involved the mixing of school with work. Counselors noted that many fulltime students found it too difficult to do both. Although they were not required to hold jobs,

counselors reported that some participants were not motivated to seek work or to even agree to

work, if they were accepted for employment. This sometimes occurred even when employers

offered youth better-than-average wages. Indeed, notations by case workers in case files

indicated that some youth failed to appear for interviews or failed to show for work after they are

hired. To prevent these kinds of problems, case workers said they had to spend time calling and

reminding the clients about their interview appointments or to show up for their jobs. Case

workers also spent time transporting clients to interviews and training sessions, taking them to

get a driver’s license, and in general prodding them through training and the employment

process. 

There were other barriers to placing clients in jobs. Many clients, especially those moving to

Minneapolis from other states, lacked proper documentation such as birth certificates, which

slowed and frustrated efforts to find employment for them. Counselors, for example, noted

difficulties in obtaining birth certificates from Chicago, which refused to accept personal checks

from persons other than those requesting them. Most of these youth, however, lacked checking

accounts. 

Project officials also noted that cultural norms, especially for new non-westernized immigrants,

sometimes conflicted with American work norms. Some Somalis immigrants, for example, were

Moslem and strictly adhered to requirements that they pray five times daily. 

Despite these kinds of problems, counselors by May 2001 noted that recruiting and retaining

clients had become much easier than during the project’s early days. According to counselors,

youth had started to seek out the program and were sticking with it through training. Counselors

also noted that the project was earning a good reputation among employers, who also showed

increased eagerness to hire its clients.
E-43

Project officials concluded that there were adequate opportunities for youth to find jobs — that

is, if they wanted to work. For the most part, employers supported youth-oriented programs such

as Fresh Start although they did it mainly as “silent partners,” according to project officials.

Counselors began with the premise that jobs for clients could be found, although the project had

received no blanket commitments from employers to hire youth from the project. 

One employment issue that affected the project marginally, however, involved whether project

officials should disclose information about convictions of clients to potential employers. Several

clients, who did not disclose convictions on applications and subsequently were hired, were fired

once their juvenile criminal records were discovered through background checks. The city

attorney, in advising project officials on what to do, recommended that the officials not disclose

convictions as part of the process of finding employment for clients. The city attorney, however,

recommended that the officials inform clients that failure to disclose criminal information on an

application sometimes could be grounds for dismissal. “With that information the participants . .

. can make an informed choice when faced with the prospect of indicating whether they have a

criminal record on an application,” the city attorney explained. 

Project officials attempted to track clients who secured jobs. They did this at regular intervals

for one year. Doing this proved difficult and the project staff counted on probation officers to

maintain contact with youth.

Of the 82 cases that were managed in October 2000, records at the time indicated that 22 clients

were employed. Salaries ranged from a low of $2.75 an hour to a high of $12.50 per hour. Most

wage rates, however, fell between $6.50 and $8.15 an hour. By May 2001, records showed that

of 151 clients enrolled in the project:

C 59 (39%) were employed in unsubsidized jobs;

C 22 (15%) had been dropped for non-participation;

C 3 (2%) had completed their education; and

C 2 (1%) had either returned or remained in school. 

Project officials believed that the project itself served as an anti-gang effort. Specifically they

pointed to its focus on employment and education, which also had the effect of keeping youth

busy and constructively occupied. They also believed that the project was valuable because it

created a network in which peers could intermingle in a positive way. And, the project provided

mentors to serve as positive role models for those youth who were employed.
E-44

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were

the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Minneapolis clients were referred to other agencies for problems involving substance abuse,

family difficulties, and personal counseling. When necessary, counselors also worked with other

agencies to help clients overcome barriers to jobs, including removal of tattoos and obtaining

appropriate work-related clothes. Frequently, however, case managers took it upon themselves

to assist participants obtain birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and other essential documents.

Project officials said they found little interest among employers for the Federal Bonding Program

or the Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program. Common complaints were that the programs

required too much paperwork.

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

EAC’s parent organization, Resource Inc., was a large well-established non-profit organization

that offered many different services throughout the city. Fresh Start officials used EAC’s

contacts and networks to nurture support for the demonstration project. Indeed, because EAC

worked hard to integrate Fresh Start into its already well-defined organizational framework,

EAC officials believed that continuing major components of Fresh Start would require only a

minimal amount of additional financial support. In anticipation of continuing Fresh Start after its

one-year extension and funding from DOL ended in 2002, however, EAC officials had applied

for additional funding through several sources.

The city also was working closely with EAC to find ways to continue the project, once

demonstration grant funds ended. According to the city’s youth programs coordinator, one

promising source of funding was the local Workforce Investment Boards. In addition to the

YODP, EAC had a WIA contract to provide year-round services to youth who were at-risk of

court involvement. City officials believed that with some modifications Fresh Start could be

funded through WIA either as a stand-alone project or merged with other EAC programs. EAC

planned to compete with other projects for WIA funds in 2002. The city’s youth programs

coordinator also believed that EAC had a good chance of being funded, based on its track record

with Fresh Start and its other project involving youth at risk of court involvement. 

The city had in place what appeared to be an effective continuous improvement mechanism. It

required quarterly evaluations and yearly monitoring of projects it subcontracted to vendors.

Each quarter EAC was given a letter grade for its performance based upon outcome indicators

specified in the participant plan and statement of work the organization submitted with its RFP

for demonstration project funds. This was reviewed by the METP director and submitted to the
E-45

City Council. Each year, METP was required to fully audit case files and records kept by all

vendors. METP also periodically conducted a random verification of 20% of the case files.

In addition to the formal feedback mechanism that was in place, METP’s director also was

required to conduct informal discussions with all of METP’s vendors about once a year to

identify where changes and improvements in programs were needed. In the case of Fresh Start,

this was done in November 2000. 
E-46
E-47

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for 

Pensacola, Florida

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

The demonstration project, which was named Building Success, operated in Florida's Escarosa

Region, or the state's western panhandle area that rests along the Gulf of Mexico. The project

was operated by the Office of Juvenile Studies at the University of West Florida as a subcontract

from the local Workforce Investment Board — Escarosa Regional Workforce Development

Board, Inc. (ERWDB). Although the area’s unemployment rate averaged only about 4% from

1999 to 2001, about 80% of families living in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties were identified

as economically disadvantaged. 

Tourism and a large military presence greatly influenced Pensacola's economy. During the

period the YODP operated, about 30% of workers in the counties were involved in service

industries; 22% in retail trade; and 20% in local, state, and federal government, including the

military. Planners predicted that as this part of the state continued to grow there would be an

increased need for workers to fill construction, maintenance repair, and related occupations. 

From 1992 through 1997, the number of Santa Rosa juveniles charged with violent offenses

increased 13.3%. By 2001, the overall crime situation appeared to have leveled off. As was the

case in many other cities in the late 1900s, Pensacola experienced a decrease in violent crimes. 

Project officials, however, noted that during this period the city experienced a marginal increase

in the presence of gang activity among Asian ethnic groups, which constituted a fast-growing

segment of the area's population. 

In general, however, gang activity did not pose a serious problem to the Pensacola community. 

Strong anti-gang efforts by law enforcement officials in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties drove

much of the gang activity underground, which paradoxically made it more difficult to target gang

members for inclusion in prevention programs, such as Building Success. 

Leading efforts to revitalize and rebuild the demonstration project’s targeted neighborhood,

which also was an enterprise community situated in the inner-city, was the Greater Pensacola

Front Porch Community Initiative. The grass-roots organization sought to empower residents

and find solutions to the community’s socio-economic problems.

Indeed the Front Porch community operated in a troubled area. According to 1990 census data,

the community was comprised of about 13,000 residents who fell mostly into the low-income

strata. The per capita income of the community was $9,429 compared to the $33,900 per capita

national average. Unemployment in the area was about 6%. 
E-48

Pensacola officials and leaders generally supported the Building Success project, according to

project officials. Community-based organizations offered some support for the project’s efforts

to reach youthful offenders and youth at-risk of court involvement. One promising partnership

the project developed in 2001 was with a charter school in the target area.

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth? 

The Office of Juvenile Studies (OJS) at the University of West Florida was the original

proponent of Building Success. OJS approached ERWDB, the local Workforce Investment

Board, and asked it to apply for the grant. Supporting partner organizations were those serving

on the ERWDB. No formal planning board was established specifically for the project and there

was no involvement of parents or youth, although they participated in focus groups that helped

project planners identify needs and target some issues.

In planning for the project, OJS and ERWDB reached out to several agencies and organizations

to serve as referral sources. These included the Children’s Services Center, Department of

Juvenile Justice, and the OJS Advanced Aftercare Services. The two lead partners also

established contact with Communities in Schools (CIS) as a potential resource for fiscal

management information and services.

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services?

According to its grant application, the ERWDB sought demonstration grant funds to complement

"an established innovative national demonstration model (Advanced Aftercare) that provides

aftercare services for juvenile offenders who are returning to the community from residential

juvenile justice commitment." Linking Building Success with Advanced Aftercare program, was

to serve as a means to "break the cycle of recidivism" for youthful offenders and ensure

long-term success, according to the grant application. More specifically, the project proposed to:

C Link established aftercare services with labor programs supported by the

ERWDB;

C Enhance school-to-work initiatives for clients; and

C Enhance long-term employment opportunities at wage levels that offered

meaningful career potential.
E-49

The project was divided into several phases, including start-up, planning, implementation and

monitoring, and evaluation and adjustment. The project’s start-up phase was to begin in January

2000; the implementation phase was to commence in August.

Building Success officials proposed that youth enrolled in the project receive services in two

increments. During the first increment, youth were to get school-to-career planning,

employability training, entrepreneurship education training, and pre-apprenticeship job coaching.

As part of this increment, public schools in coordination with Pensacola Junior College were to

provide "enhanced access to long-term education and training opportunities facilitated through

the local school-to-work initiatives . . ."

During the project's second increment, youth were to receive individualized services and job

placement. Job coaches were to assist clients who were either attending school or who were out

of school. These clients would be eligible for summer employment and school-year work

experience opportunities sponsored by employers in the Escarosa Service Delivery Area. In

support of this, the project was to provide:

C community service volunteer placements through Advanced Aftercare;

C career job placement and job coach assistance to out-of-school youth; and

C long-term placement assistance and monitoring to clients through field placement

advisors.

When project officials applied for the YODP grant they stressed that they already had identified 

building trade employment opportunities to support the project's training services and long-term

employment goals. They noted that private sector commitments had been obtained in

construction, maintenance repair, services, and related manufacturing. In addition, they reported

that the state had assured them that the project would receive assistance through the Florida

Building Code Commission to help them secure additional commitments from building trade

associations and the Florida Home Builders Association.

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

The Office of Juvenile Studies (OJS) was the lead agency and managed the day-to-day operation

of Building Success, although ERWDB retained broad oversight of the project. Throughout the

project OJS served as the primary motivating force and facilitator for engaging the broader

Pensacola community and bringing partners into the project. The project director, a tenured

faculty member of the University of West Florida, also served on the youth advisory council run

by the ERWDB. This put him in contact with potential partners and gave Building Success high

visibility. 
E-50

In 2001 project officials worked toward improving the project’s relationship with local public

schools, although with only marginal success. According to project officials, public schools for

various reasons, including those that were political, demonstrated low tolerance for troublesome

youth. As a result, suspensions of difficult students from schools tended to come swiftly.

The project had little success placing youth released from commitment facilities into programs

that operated through public schools. These included, for example, the Youth Employment

Training Program (YETP) and the Summer Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP). A

major problem was that many released juveniles either were not permitted to return to their high

schools where the programs operated or they were not permitted to enter into the training

programs, even if they were allowed to return to school. Youth who fell into certain categories

also generally were not allowed into the programs, if their categories had a high dropout rate. It

appeared that program administrators feared that the federal government would cut funds for the

program, if completion rates fell below 80%. 

There were some limited successes with public schools, however. The Santa Rosa County

schools provided accounting services for the project, including issuing checks to project

participants for the profits they earned from sale of the products they produced. And, access to

public school records of potential project participants became more open to project officials

trying to identify youth who might benefit from Building Success. Project officials also looked

toward building stronger relationships with alternative and charter schools, rather than regular

high schools, to find potential project participants. 

In September 2000, the evaluator noted that project officials had experienced some successes in

strengthening linkages and partnerships with other area agencies, organizations, and industries. 

In addition to its partnership with the Santa Rosa County Schools, Building Success established

partnerships with:

C Southern Hardwoods, a private Pensacola firm, which supplied surplus

hardwoods to clients who produced doll house furniture and small pre-school

furniture for sale to child care centers as part of their entrepreneurial efforts;

C Home Depot, which provided clients with wood and provided some training

within its sites;

C Habitat for Humanity, which partnered with the project to produce bird houses

that were then sold; and

C Northwest Florida Homebuilders Association, which provided project officials

access to job sites and employment leads for clients. The association also

publicized the project in newsletters that were sent to members. 
E-51

Noticeably absent from the project’s partners were Pensacola churches, which in many other

communities, such as Knoxville, Tennessee, developed strong aftercare and other programs for

youth. According to project officials, many Pensacola churches were conservative, advocated

harsh punishments for offenders, and generally were reluctant to establish programs aimed at

troubled youth or that attempted to rehabilitate offenders. Project officials also reported they

approached Junior Achievement about building a partnership, but the organization was unwilling

“to go outside their cloister” and become involved with Building Success that, unlike Junior

Achievement, served mostly youth from less-affluent families. 

Project officials, nonetheless, said that they believed that the level of participation by grassroots

groups, especially the Front Porch Florida Initiative, held promise. Front Porch, a large and

effective organization had set up operations in the project’s target neighborhood and taken the

lead in offering neighborhood youth mentors and providing them with community service

opportunities aimed at improving their neighborhood. 

By May 2001, two important and promising developments had occurred for the demonstration

project. First, OJS had established a new partnership with the Pensacola Academy of Success,

one of the city’s three charter high schools. About 150 students in the demonstration project’s

target area were served by the school. The charter school opened in 1999, served grades 9-12,

and sought to educate students who were at risk of not completing high school. It also sought to

provide students career guidance while providing them an applied and integrated curriculum that

demonstrated the relationship between what they learned and life experiences. Five teachers at

the school also were ordained ministers who lived in or near the community.

The school, whose student population was 67% male, also had applied for funds to become a

YouthBuild site. If approved, the school proposed to teach construction skills to 20 young

people, ages 16-24, who were from predominately low-income families and who were

unemployed. The city already had committed to providing land for construction and the county

promised to provide $40,000 worth of materials. Eventually the school hoped to provide a mass

media curriculum for other students. 

In support of the academy, the demonstration staff planned to provide the students, who also

would enroll in the demonstration project:

C assessment and referral services;

C career workshops;

C entrepreneurship education;

C vocational shop/construction trades training. OJS would provide the services of a

full-time vocational education teacher who would teach clients how to construct

homes; and 
E-52

C leadership training. This would include a challenge “ropes” course to facilitate

team-building and decision-making skills.

The second major development was the securing of an agreement through juvenile judges, state

attorneys, probation units, and public defenders that allowed youth to avoid formal judicial

processing for certain technical violations of probation. The arrangement gave non-judicial

powers to organizations providing aftercare services, such as the OJS aftercare program, to

handle technical violators in their programs without having to turn to judges. In lieu of jail, for

example, aftercare providers could order technical violators to perform community service with

Habitat for Humanity, 4-H Clubs, Animal Shelters, and churches. Project officials hoped to

include the Front Porch initiative as another option. 

Since September 2000, there have been several other developments that either strengthened or

held promise of improving Building Success. These included:

C developing a partnership with Habitat for Humanity in which Building Success

clients participated in the construction of homes for low-income families;

C receiving a contract modification from DOL to abolish the youth employment

specialist position authorized in the original grant. Project officials instead

planned to use funds designated for the position to provide transportation services

and incentives (stipends) for participants;

C receiving a one-year no-cost extension for the demonstration from DOL to

continue the project through the summer of 2002; 

C planning to better integrate Building Success with the OJS Advanced Aftercare

program. 

C planning to increase its $15 per week stipend to $20 per week for youth enrolled

in the demonstration project through the OJS aftercare program.

C developing further the entrepreneurial aspects of the project in which participants

took “ownership” of the project and ran it more like a business and shared profits

from the sale of items they produce. In May 2001, the staff also was looking at

ways to improve production and increase sales of doll house and other furniture

clients produced.

Throughout the demonstration, project officials sought to become members of organizations and

groups that offered the potential to strengthen Building Success. In addition to serving on the

local Workforce Investment Board’s youth council, the project manager belonged to the advisory

board of the Pensacola Academy, which was affiliated with the Front Porch Initiative. In
E-53

addition, the project coordinator belonged to the Juvenile Justice Council, the Chief Judges

Council, and the Gang Taskforce. She also chaired the Girl’s Initiative. In addition, the project

staff also worked to recruit employers who potentially could hire project clients. Project

officials also made presentations to the HomeBuilders Association of Northwest Florida, the

American Subcontractors Association, and the Port of Pensacola.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

Building Success was situated on the UWF campus, which was in the northwest suburbs about

10 miles from the city’s heart. Project officials had considered moving Building Success closer

to the target neighborhood, but the staff decided there were several advantages to keeping the

project where it was. The campus, for example, was considered neutral territory for gangs that

operated farther south toward the inner-city. Another advantage was the presence of a wellequipped wood-working shop on the campus. The shop, which fell into disuse in the 1990s after

the university discontinued its program for training high school and middle school shop teachers,

was made available to Building Success.

Throughout the project, transportation to the university remained a persistent problem for youth

entering the project from the Advanced Aftercare program. The situation was alleviated

somewhat by having university students transport clients to and from the campus. Participants in

the Blackwater confinement facility also had to travel about 40 miles to use the facility twice a

month for training.

The creation of a new partnership with the Pensacola Academy of Success would take the project

into the enterprise community and the project’s target area where the charter school is situated. A

new full-time vocational instructor at the school, although a project employee, would work out

of the school and serve up to 20 clients. 

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

Staff members for Building Success came mainly from within the OJS and were shared with

other programs run by OJS. The director of operations at OJS, who urged EWDB to apply for

the YODP grant, was a tenured faculty member at UWF who oversaw Building Success. To fill

vacant positions, OJS recruited through the state university system. Advertisements also were

posted on the World Wide Web and in various publications.

Several important staff changes occurred over the project’s course. The first project coordinator,

a doctoral student who worked in the OJS, left the office in August 2000 and was replaced by

another OJS employee who also was pursuing a doctorate in education. In addition to serving as

Building Success coordinator, the staff member also served as assistant coordinator of Advanced
E-54

Aftercare. The staff member spent about 20% of her time on Building Success and 80% working

with Advanced Aftercare. 

Recruiting other staff members for the project proved somewhat more difficult. After about a

year, the position of youth employment specialist was dropped along with two part-time field

adviser positions. The positions were abolished because there was little interest in the jobs,

apparently because of the area’s strong economy.

Building Success, as well as the Blackwater Career Center, a medium-security facility for

youthful offenders, and the OJS Advanced Aftercare program depended heavily upon about 15

advanced undergraduates and graduate students who worked mainly for academic credit. 

Turnover among students, however, was high and increased during times when classes were not

in session. Students served as mentors, teachers, and counselors. They often drove project

participants to and from training, and helped them get a driver’s licenses and work-appropriate

clothing. 

The project also hired a part-time shop teacher, a retired Navy chief petty officer who ran the

crafts shop at local Navy bases. The instructor also worked as a teacher at an area vocationaltechnical center. In May 2001, project officials planned to replace the part-time shop teacher

with a full-time vocational education teacher who held a teaching certificate. Project officials

were considering whether to hire part-time supervisors to assist the vocational teacher, who was

to work out of the Pensacola Academy for Success.

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

The relationship of OJS programs and sharing of their staffs ensured that the project received

clients from two reliable sources: the Advanced Aftercare program and the Blackwater Career

Center. During the project’s first year in operation, it appeared that without these two sources 

the project would be hard pressed to continue. By September 2001, a total of 12 youth had

participated in the project. At the time, five youth were participating in wood shop and project

officials planned to screen an additional five or so referrals for inclusion in the program. By May

2001, the project had enrolled 40 clients. In addition, three clients were enrolled in preemployment and educational training while five clients were enrolled in GED or other academic

educational programs.

To a large extent, project recruitment focused on juvenile justice and alternative sentencing

programs, including intensive diversion and residential commitment programs. The project also

by May 2001 had begun to recruit at local recreation centers, including one in the enterprise

community. 

The original concept for Building Success was for cohort groups consisting of 15 youth to start

their training together. But recruiting an adequately sized cohort proved difficult, so this
E-55

approach was not used. Out of necessity, project officials became more flexible and allowed

youth to enter the program as individuals and at varying times.

The original proposal also intended to take most clients from the Advanced Aftercare program. 

This approach also did not work because many aftercare youth either lacked transportation or

already worked or attended school as a condition of probation. Project officials believed that

the new partnership with the Pensacola Academy of Success, and improved integration into the

OJS aftercare program, would ensure that the demonstration project had a larger stream of

clients in the future. 

8. What types of training, employment and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

As designed, project clients went through two increments of training as they participated in

Building Success. During the first increment, youth received pre-job training that consisted of

career planning advice, coaching and training at the university’s wood shop and elsewhere. 

Youth attending Building Success from the Blackwater facility, for the most part, already had

received some elementary wood working experience at the facility as part of their training

programs. Shop equipment at Blackwater, however, was in limited supply and less sophisticated

than the equipment at UWF. Although youth from the Advanced Aftercare program and the

Blackwater facility used the same wood shop at UWF, they were segregated from each other and

attended training at different times or on different days of the week.

Project officials believed exposing Blackwater youth to the project before they were released

was important because many might continue participating in Building Success after they were

released and entered into the Advanced Aftercare program. Project officials also believed that

this type of training, as well as culinary training provided at Blackwater, would build self-esteem

and could be used to teach proper on-the-job behavior and improve the employability skills of

youth. In addition, the training would show parents that their children could succeed. This in

turn would help develop a closer bond between parent and child. 

As it matured, Building Success sought ways to provide youth additional training. By May 2001,

OJS had partnered with Habitat for Humanity. As a result, about seven youth serving at

Blackwater were spending one day a week building houses. One supervisor at Blackwater said

that youth working on the project were enthusiastic and that he had been approached by several

others wanting information about joining the Habitat project. Apparently the youth preferred

working on houses to working in the facility’s wood shop. Project officials said they hoped to

expand the program, dividing the time of two groups of youth between wood shop and on-site

construction while integrating the training with GED preparation.
E-56

Helping clients become employable posed a serious problem for project officials throughout the

demonstration period. In the case of Blackwater youth, for example, project officials estimated

that one-half were either developmentally delayed or performed below their age-appropriate

grade level. In all, project officials estimated that from 35% to 45% of youth involved in the

juvenile justice system experienced these same problems. For Building Success, that meant a

large percentage of clients had special needs because they were ill-suited to continue more

formal academic paths. Finding ways to provide adequate services that provided remedial

writing and mathematics skills was a problem faced by project officials. 

During the project’s second increment, clients were encouraged to find day jobs or to enter into

additional training programs. Placing youth in construction jobs posed a special problem,

although the project found jobs for 22 (55%). Strict employment guidelines, for example,

prohibited placing those under 18 into construction work in which they were required to operate

power tools or to work more than six feet off the ground. Employers who expressed a strong

interest in the program were concerned about possible liabilities.

It was uncertain how the local One-Stop center could assist youth under 18 who faced learning

difficulties and who wanted only to find a job. According to Workforce Investment Board

officials, state rules required that they be funneled back into academic programs leading toward

either a high school diploma or GED. As a result, the center was unable to help the youth find

employment. The dilemma for Building Success was how to help those young people under 18

who rejected formal schooling, or who had low aptitudes or skills, find jobs that offered them

long-term employment at livable wages.

Project officials participated in local anti-gang and community efforts by serving on several

councils. Staff members, for example, were on juvenile justice councils, the Chief Judges

Council, the Girls Initiative, and the Gang Task Force. Project officials also participated in

planning and implementation efforts of the Florida Front Porch Coalition that was attempting to

revitalize the enterprise community.

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were

the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

The Building Success staff attempted to help clients who had personal problems and needs both

directly and indirectly. When possible, the staff assisted clients with obtaining vital documents,

a driver’s license, transportation, community service opportunities, and appropriate work-related

clothes. The staff also counseled and referred clients for mental health and physical health issues.

Help from the project’s staff was available around the clock; staff members were on call to help. 
E-57

Building Success officials found little interest among employers for the Federal Bonding

Program or the Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program. Common complaints were that they

required too much paperwork.

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

UWF officials hoped to bind Building Success more strongly with the Advanced Aftercare, the

Blackwater confinement facility, and the Pensacola Academy for Success before the

demonstration project ended in the summer of 2002. The officials also anticipated that OJS

would receive additional grants to support the project, or at least elements of it. The staff had a

solid record of success in transforming grant projects, such as the Advanced Aftercare program,

into permanent programs through funding by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.

In addition, the new fiscal budget for the OJS aftercare program was restructured in spring 2001

to reflect OJS’s hopes for continuing the project after demonstration funds end. As a result, the

aftercare program planned to pay at least half the cost of a full-time vocational instructor who

would work with the Pensacola Academy for Success teaching construction skills to students,

who also would enroll in Building Success. 

OJS had in place an adequate continuous improvement mechanism. ERWDB monitored the

project and provided some feedback. Assessments were based on monthly reports and the

project’s management plan.
E-58
E-59

Youth Offender Demonstration Project

Process Evaluation

Final Report Summary for 

Rockford, Illinois

1. What are the characteristics of the community context of the project and how did they

impact the project development and implementation?

The Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP), which was incorporated into YouthBuild

Rockford, operated in the state’s second largest city. Rockford, which is about 60 miles west of

Chicago, is in Winnebago County. At the time of the demonstration, the county had about

268,000 residents and covered 514 square miles.

Of Rockford’s 143,000 residents, 81% were white and 15% were black. The city’s median

household income was $35,172; its unemployment rate stood at 6.4%; and its poverty rate for

ages 18 to 24 was 18%. About 40% of the city’s households also qualified for some form of

public assistance.

Project participants came from 10 census tracts that constituted an economically depressed area,

which also qualified as an enterprise community. Minorities comprised 48% of the zone’s

households that had an average income of $20,878 a year. Indeed, this was a troubled area: its

poverty rate was 37%, its unemployed rate was 21%, and its high school dropout rate topped

13%. 

Of youth between 16 and 19 years old, 20% either were not enrolled in school or lacked a job.

The education figures were particularly troubling, considering that 33% of available jobs in the

Rockford area required training beyond high school. 

Crime rates in the county reflected problems associated with urban economic difficulties.

Although the percentage of violent crimes in the county decreased somewhat after 1994, drug

arrests had increased steadily. Rockford police estimated that 28 separate street gangs with

about 1,500 members operated within the city. 

By 2001 several contextual changes had marginally affected the demonstration project.

Rockford’s economy had weakened slightly, and the local school district had proposed closing

its largest program for youth with behavioral disorders. In addition, Winnebago County had

eliminated its Juvenile Justice Task Force. Also, the county’s Juvenile Assessment Center, which

served youth under 17, also was in danger of losing its funding. 

Since 1989 the public schools have operated under a court-ordered desegregation plan.

According to the demonstration project’s program manager, the desegregation plan had a

divisive effect and had cost the city millions of dollars in legal fees. As a result, the city had to

raise property taxes and curtail some services, including those aimed at disadvantaged youth. In
E-60

addition, he pointed out, the city had neglected the truancy and dropout problems that were

endemic in public schools. There was some hope that this situation would change, however. An

appeals court planned to grant unitary status to local government in 2002, which would remove

the courts from the desegregation issue. There also were in place new school board members

and a new superintendent from Milwaukee, who said he intended to focus more on the truancy

issue and to reinstate vocational education programs, which largely had been abandoned. 

The city also had a new mayor, a former state representative, who was elected in April 2001. He

campaigned on a platform that included increased community development. The mayor also was

a strong supporter of YouthBuild, which managed the demonstration project. 

2. How did the community planning bodies or councils, charged with the ongoing task of

designing the integrated network of services, function and what was the level of

involvement and satisfaction of the stakeholders, including the parents and youth?

Officials with YouthBuild Rockford and the Rockford River Training Corporation wrote the

proposal and applied for the YODP grant. Members of 25 different groups and organizations

serving on YouthBuild’s community advisory board participated in planning for the YODP. 

By June 2001, the advisory board included as members two parents and two YouthBuild

trainees. In December 1999, the advisory board was reconstituted as a community advisory

board. Members included representatives from education, vocational training programs, the

local Workforce Investment Board (WIB), the Attorney General’s Office, the business

community, county Juvenile Justice, and local law enforcement. The advisory board also advised

the project about its efforts to become a charter school. 

3. What was the original plan for developing and enhancing partnerships, linkages,

relationships and coordination, including building on existing systems and establishing new

services, both core and collateral services?

The proposal submitted to DOL by the Rockford River Training Corporation indicated that the

YODP grant would be used to “both expand and enhance the YouthBuild Rockford services

consistent with the target population. . .” More specifically, the demonstration project was to

serve 16-24 year olds in YouthBuild who came primarily from low-income families and who

were high school dropouts.

YouthBuild, which received funds through a subcontract to manage the demonstration project

from Rock River Training Corp., a former Private Industry Council, was to target 10 census

tracts that had been designated as an enterprise community by the State of Illinois. The area was

the most severely economically distressed area in the city. 

At the time of its grant application, YouthBuild Rockford had agreements with several public

and private organizations that supported its program by providing funds or services: the City of
E-61

Rockford, Rockford Housing Authority, Rock Valley College, Rockford public schools, the State

of Illinois, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Corporation for

National Service, the Center on Crime, Community and Culture, several local building trade

partners, private employers and businesses. 

4. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to

build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network?

The project built on the strong YouthBuild structure that was put in place in 1995. It was part of

the national YouthBuild program that was founded in 1978 in New York City. At the time of the

demonstration project there were 165 YouthBuild sites nationwide. Since the late 1970s, about

20,000 young people, ages 16 to 24, have built more than 7,000 housing units for homeless and

low-income families as part of the YouthBuild effort. 

It appeared that YouthBuild Rockford, which was operated by Comprehensive Community

Solutions, Inc., was a sound choice to run the demonstration project. The organization had

experience operating a similar pilot, the Youthful Offender Program, with funds it received

through the old Rock River PICl. Of the 23 clients enrolled in that pilot, 16 (70%) completed the

project. Of the those who finished, six were placed either in jobs or educational programs. Also,

in 1996 YouthBuild Rockford was selected as an AmeriCorps site. 

The original project plan was to enroll 30-35 trainees during the first year and around 40 trainees

during the second year. During the first year, 23 students graduated and, at the time of the

second evaluation site visit, project officials were preparing to enroll another 40 for the fall

2000. At the end of the second cycle, which ended on July 1, 2001, 27 trainees had graduated

from YouthBuild. 

Major components of the YouthBuild training program included:

C Job Training. Trainees learned construction or manufacturing skills from

qualified journeymen trainers and spent 16 hours a week on the job. The project

also provided job shadowing and internship for clients. Up to 50% of job

placements resulted from internships.

C Education. After testing and assessment, trainees took classes to prepare for the

GED. Those who held high school diplomas, however, were given remedial work,

if needed, to help them prepare for work requirements. Trainees also received

employability, pre-apprenticeship, and life skills training. It should be noted that

some trainees required up to 18 months of training to become prepared for

employment.

C Leadership Development. Trainees shared in governing the program through an

elected policy council. Leadership skills were taught and clients were expected to

participate in community service activities on Fridays.
E-62

C Youth Development. Trainees were helped to achieve self-sufficiency through a

combination of personal and career counseling, support groups, cultural and

recreational activities. The YMCA provided passes to trainees and the project

had a softball team that competed in a local park league.

The main result of funds provided by the demonstration project was to allow YouthBuild to

expand its existing vocational tracks and, therefore, add more clients. In doing this, according to

project officials, YouthBuild was able to take positive steps toward becoming a charter school.

Officials believed the school system would approve charter school status by fall 2001, which

would provide $7,000 for each student who enrolled in YouthBuild. This further would

strengthen and expand the program’s existing services. 

Another benefit that resulted from demonstration grant funds was that YouthBuild was able to

detect and begin to fill gaps in services that it provided clients. Along these lines, the program’s

immediate goals included developing transitional housing, attaining substance abuse treatment

for clients, and providing job training in career fields that might lead to better-paying jobs, such

as those involving computers. Program officials also believed there was a strong need for

aftercare services, perhaps residential, for youth reentering the community from correctional

institutions.

At the time of the first evaluation site visits, the evaluator observed that the project had not made

large-scale efforts to reach out to the greater community, beyond the organizations that already

were participating in YouthBuild. The evaluator noted one major exception, however. Early on

YouthBuild established a new partnership with the Abilities Center, which was operated by

Goodwill Industries. By September 2000, this partnership had matured with the addition of a

YouthBuild cohort of trainees that was learning manufacturing skills.

The Abilities Center specialized in vocational programs for low-income and unemployed adults

with disabilities. In the case of YouthBuild, the center provided 36 weeks of manufacturing

training and computer training to project clients. Those in the manufacturing track were taught

how to operate machines that made screws, hinges and other fasteners. There was some demand

for these workers in Rockford, which throughout its history served as an important industrial and

manufacturing center. By June 2001, the Abilities Center had opened an expanded training

facility in a refurbished World War II building that tied together three Quonset huts. 

And, by that time, YouthBuild had established a new partnership with the University of Illinois

Extension Service. It also had partnered with Project Success and the “Who Am I?” program to

provide an alcohol, drug, and violence abuse prevention program for first through third graders

in public schools. The program used YouthBuild and AmeriCorps trainees as instructors to

teach communication skills to young children to help them change their self-perceptions. This in

turn helped lead to healthier family relationships and bring about cultural change. YouthBuild
E-63

also had established a new partnership with the Rockford Housing Authority and Energy Masters

International to provide training and employment in jobs involving energy conservation.

Support for YouthBuild among employers and unions was strong, according to the project

manager, who also was YouthBuild’s executive director. In all, YouthBuild successfully placed

86% of youth completing the program in either jobs or educational programs, according to

statistics compiled by the program. 

By June 2001, seven trade unions as well as businesses had provided classes and other training

for clients. Home Deport, for example, provided classes on construction and offered a job

shadowing program for clients. The project also had established a new link with the Road

Builders Service Project that trained clients who were interested in highway construction. 

In addition, companies that comprised an employers network of 150 provided job shadowing,

internships, and jobs to project clients. And, the Rockford Chamber of Commerce also provided

activities and attempted to help trainees find jobs. To encourage participation in the project,

YouthBuild each year holds an employer recognition luncheon for businesses that have given

clients jobs. The challenge for the future, according to the project manager, was for YouthBuild

to develop partnerships with companies that provide technical services.

YouthBuild officials have worked hard to increase support for the program. Since January 2000,

the program manager, and two YouthBuild graduates, have joined the local Workforce

Investment Board’s youth council. The program manager also joined the state youth council and

served as a member of a statewide coalition of YouthBuild programs and supporting

organizations that was attempting to expand the number of programs in Illinois. The result of

efforts to link the program more fully with the workforce development system was that

YouthBuild received increased funding. In 2000, for example, the program received $80,000

through WIA. In early 2001 it also had received another $169,000 grant through WIA. 

The project manager noted, however, that WIA had caused some enrollment problems for the

YouthBuild staff. Bureaucratic requirements were intense and burdensome, he said, and quite

often they did not match those of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. As

an example, the project manager explained that although HUD required only one enrollment

form for YouthBuild trainees, WIA required 14.

Several “program enhancements” were made to YouthBuild during the first two years the project

was in operation. In September 2000, the evaluator noted that enhancements included new

academic electives (Spanish and landscaping), more access to computer technology for trainees,

and additional opportunities for community service. In June 2001, the project manager was

planning to add a computer technology track to the project’s construction and manufacturing

tracks. During the summer of 2001 project officials were preparing to rework the curriculum for

the next cycle of clients that was scheduled to begin in October.
E-64

The project manager also said he was not satisfied with the GED completion rate for clients and

that during the summer retooling period the staff would look at how to improve outcomes,

perhaps by establishing stronger links with colleges to provide academic training. This was

especially important because the State of Illinois was in the process of tightening GED testing

requirements and standards.

Several promising developments occurred after January 2000: YouthBuild was awarded a

$25,000 grant from G-Tech Communications, a local company, to outfit a computer lab to link

the program with an after-school program. And, YouthBuild received $150,000 from DOL to

continue the YODP for another year. In all, it appeared that YouthBuild in 2001 would receive

about $5 million in funds and in-kind contributions from various sources. 

The project faced several programmatic barriers. The project staff had a high turnover rate,

although the project director pointed out that it was “average” compared to similar programs that

paid staff relatively low wages. There also were unique challenges involving how the

construction industry operated. Inclement weather, for example, stopped training for days and

caused coordination problems among the staff who had to find ways to keep clients engaged.

About the time of the first evaluation site visit in January 2000, there also were problems

involving the project’s incentive program (Individual Development Accounts). The accounts

served as a savings plan for clients to complete their training and reach goals such as GED

attainment, academic improvement, attendance, job or school placement. Disbursement to the

accounts ranged from $600 to $945. At the time the evaluator noted that bureaucratic, including

accountability, requirements caused delays in disbursement. This resulted in a demonstration at

the facility and threats to project officials. It also left bad feelings on the part of some students

and staff members, according to the evaluator.

5. How was the location of facilities determined and what role did location play in

facilitating the outreach efforts to gain access to and recruit the target population as

program participants?

YouthBuild was in an old electricity company transfer and maintenance station. The facility was

situated centrally in the community where the target population lived. Also operating in the

building was a food bank, where project trainees also could complete requirements for

community service hours.

A bus stop was two blocks away and the main bus terminal was within walking distance. Project

officials noted, however, that getting to the facility proved difficult for some trainees and that

taxi drivers sometimes were reluctant to enter the neighborhood where the project was situated.

In June 2001, project officials were hoping to relocate to a more modern and appealing site that

would provide better offices and classrooms and allow for expansion and job shadowing of

participants. The new location also would remain accessible to project clients.
E-65

6. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were

they?

Key project positions included: Project director, director of programs, vocational coordinator,

case manager, applied academics instructor, community service coordinator, employment

coordinator, and VISTA program assistant. Before joining YouthBuild and Comprehensive

Community Services, Inc., the YODP project director served 12 years as a probation officer in

Winnebago County. 

Two positions were added, in part, as a result of funding that YouthBuild received through the

YODP grant. These included the case manager and a program assistant. In addition, a

percentage of time from other YouthBuild staff positions supported the demonstration project.

The staff experienced some turnover during the project’s course. The director of programs was

new to that position at the time of the initial site visit in January 2000. Since then, the

employment coordinator joined the staff as a replacement hire. In addition, a former program

director who left YouthBuild for a time rejoined the staff as vocational coordinator. As a result,

the vocational coordinator became community service coordinator. In all, YouthBuild had the

equivalent staff of 15 full-time employees, plus several volunteers and temporary workers.

Staff members received adequate training to perform their duties. The program director attended

training with the national YouthBuild program and attended a workshop sponsored by the

AmeriCorps program. The employment coordinator also attended a conference in New York on

how to find jobs for hard-to-place clients. And, the vocational coordinator attended seminars on

collaborations and substance abuse training. 

The director of programs also facilitated in-service staff development training. One session, for

example, included confidentiality issues and the other discussed clinical boundaries and how to

maintain professional relationships with clients. The director of programs also planned to

address teaching techniques, crisis intervention, and other ethical issues involving clients. 

7. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population

as program participants and how successful were they?

YouthBuild used flyers as a primary means to recruit participants. In the spring of 2001, for

example, the project distributed about 1,500 flyers door-to-door and posted some on bulletin

boards in targeted areas. In addition, youth who applied for YouthBuild in previous years, but

who were not admitted into the program, also were sent information and invited to reapply. 

In 2000, there were about 65 potential trainees who attended orientation. About 100 prospective

clients were placed on a waiting list because the project could not accommodate them. In June
E-66

2001, officials said they were hoping for that number again by October when a new trainee cycle

was scheduled to begin. 

The project attempted to recruit youth who were unaware of YouthBuild because of their race,

sex, ethnicity, disability, or because they were not being served by public or private social

service agencies. This was done by placing advertisements in newsletters, church bulletins, and

neighborhood association publications. In addition, informational meetings were held and public

service announcements were run by local television and radio stations. 

During past years, according to data compiled by YouthBuild, more than 650 young people

applied for admission to the program. Of these, 76% were members of minority groups, 22%

were female, 94% were high school dropouts, and 88% came from low-income families. The

project also made special efforts to recruit young women and those with dependent children by

working with the local YWCA, a local women’s center, a local women’s shelter, and programs

through the city’s Housing Authority.

Analysis of demographic data that was available in August 2001 showed that of the 88 trainees

who had enrolled in YouthBuild:

C graduates ranged in age from 17 to 25 years old;

C 71 (81%) were black; 5 (16%) were Hispanic, and 12 (14%) were white;

C 76 (86%) were high school dropouts; and

C 39 (44%) were offenders.

8. What types of training, employment and gang suppression programs were provided to

the target population? What were the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these

programs (including the degree of responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the

difference from traditional approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Project clients were not accepted into a separate demonstration project, but became YouthBuild

trainees. According to its charter, at least 75% of trainees must come from very low-income

families, be high school dropouts who are unemployed, and live in the target area.

Before they are formally accepted, potential YouthBuild trainees participate in a two-week

orientation that serves as a trial period to determine if the program suits them and if clients are

suitable for the program. If clients are then accepted into the project, or don’t drop out at

orientation, they begin eight months of training. 
E-67

The program is five days a week and starts at 8 a.m. with physical training and other small-group

gatherings. Educational or on-the job training follow. Monday through Thursday, training ends

with closing at 4:30 p.m. Fridays, however, are half-days in which trainees participate in a

community service project. 

YouthBuild training is based on clearly defined competencies, and measurement standards,

established by the national YouthBuild program. To graduate from the program, trainees are

assessed on their ability to meet the competencies, which consider the quality of work

performed, effort, values expressed, and skills developed. Before graduation, trainees compile

portfolios of their work and submit them to a review panel to determine if they have

demonstrated sufficient progress to graduate.

In the case of Rockford, trainees were paid a base amount ($190 a week) for attending classes

and participating in work projects. The amount increased incrementally up to $220. In addition,

an Individual Development Account (IDA) was established for each trainee. Money was

deposited into the account when trainees reached certain milestones. When trainees attained a

GED, for example, $200 was put into their IDAs. Trainees could access the account for

employment, education, housing or transportation needs. 

In past cycles, students were broken into teams for construction and manufacturing training —

four construction teams and one manufacturing team in 2000. In fall 2001, project officials

planned to add a track for computer technology training.

The project limited participation of 16 year olds who, with 17 year olds, constituted about 10%

of total project enrollment. The project director believed that bringing too many younger clients

into the program created problems and affected the other efforts to keep them from dropping out

of school.

The project manager believed that YouthBuild in itself served as a gang-suppression program. It

did this primarily by keeping youth engaged and preventing idleness. 

Data supplied by the project on 88 trainees who had enrolled in YouthBuild since the project

began showed that: 

C 35 (40%) graduates held permanent full-time jobs;

C 24 (27%) had completed their education;

C 5 (6%) had entered college; and

C 2 (2%) were incarcerated.
E-68

After trainees graduated they were followed officially for three months, although this period

often was extended, especially if graduates were having job or personal problems. Graduates

also became members of an alumni association that maintained contact with them.

The project faced several problems involving clients that limited its ability to place them into

jobs. These included:

C Lack of Educational Attainment. The low educational attainment of trainees

posed a formidable barrier. Although the project experienced some success in

helping trainees obtain a GED and raise their reading and math scores, their

abilities often were still below those required for entry-level jobs.

C Endemic Substance Abuse. Some clients were released from their jobs because

they tested positive for drug use. To confront this problem, the project added a

substance abuse class that attempted to impress on clients the importance of

remaining drug free, especially if they were to hold jobs. Project officials also

were working to gain resources for assessing clients and then treating them. It

was difficult to place clients in drug treatment programs because they were full.

Of 25 referrals that the project made, only one client was admitted for treatment.

C Childcare Issues. These sometimes led to frequent absenteeism, especially

among females. Up to 25% of females enrolled in the project were parents.

C Poor Attendance and Retention. On average, the project reported that the

attendance rate for the past five years was 85%. The project’s overall completion

rate was about 60%, although 70% of those who enrolled in the project in fall

1999 graduated.

C Miscellaneous Personal Problems. Some trainees worried about having a place

to live. Some were homeless or lived in temporary housing and suffered from a

lack of parental support or faced childcare and similar family conflicts. Some

trainees also had poor health and suffered from mental illnesses and nutritional

problems. And, many trainees lacked the skills necessary to make favorable

impressions at job interviews.

C Rejection of Clients. Some unions and employers refused to hire clients because

they had felony records or lacked a driver’s license. 

The YMCA gave YouthBuild an agency membership that provided recreational services to

project participants. Such efforts, including those by YouthBuild and other churches and service

organizations such as Boys and Girls clubs, helped reduce gang involvement by young people

living in the community. Unfortunately, however, more formalized efforts at gang prevention

were generally lacking in Rockford. 
E-69

9. What types of collateral services were provided to the target population? What were

the intensity, duration, fidelity and quality of these programs (including the degree of

responsiveness to the needs of the target population, the difference from traditional

approaches, and the outcomes realized)?

Trainees had access to their Individual Development Accounts to pay for some services and fees.

In addition, the project provided uniforms for trainees that included shirts, jackets, pants, and

clothing for construction.

10. What steps have been taken to assure the continuation of the integrated services and

activities after the project funding ends and what is the likelihood of success?

The YODP was envisioned as an enhancement to the well-established YouthBuild program. By

summer 2001, it appeared that YouthBuild had met this objective and had effectively used

demonstration project funds to improve its performance. It also appeared that there was little

doubt among project officials that YouthBuild would continue operating after YODP grant

funding ended. 

Evaluation site visits confirmed that the YouthBuild staff worked hard to establish a strong

funding stream and connections with elements of the workforce development system. Since the

YODP began, the project has received two grants from HUD worth $1.3 million, $170,000

through AmeriCorps, and about $180,000 through Rock River Training. In all, YouthBuild

receives about $5 million in contributions and in-kind services annually.

The project had in place a strong continuous improvement mechanism that included standardized

reports. As a YouthBuild site, it had to meet requirements and standards established by the

national YouthBuild program as well as requirements from other local, state, and national

organizations that provided funds. Each summer, the program staff also spends eight weeks

assessing YouthBuild’s performance over the preceding training cycle. The staff then makes

program changes accordingly. 

In general, YouthBuild Rockford had strong political backing from community leaders and

officials. They appeared to appreciate its efforts to reach a needy, and somewhat neglected,

segment of Rockford’s population.