Youth Offender Demonstration Project Process Evaluation 

Final Report: Round Two 

June 30, 2004 

Lois MacGillivray, Project Manager 

Ed Miller, Assistant Project Manager 

Snehal Shah, Senior Research Analyst 

Stephen Jenks, Senior Research Analyst 

Sponsored by 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-5637 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

This project has been funded, either wholly or in part, with Federal funds from the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration under Contract Number 

AF-11762-01-30. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or 

policies of the Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. Government.

Employment and Training Administration Occasional Paper 2004-10 
Acknowledgements 

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

Demonstration Project. Special recognition is due to the leaders of the nine projects who 

participated in the process evaluation and assisted the evaluators with their time and 

insights. These were: 

• Carol Kennedy and Christopher Mendoza of the Chicago Mayor’s Office of 

Workforce Development, Chicago, IL; 

• Juanita Howard and Tom Jackson of the City of Cincinnati Employment and 

Training Division, Cincinnati, OH; 

• David Bennett of the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of 

Youth Corrections, Dani Crane, and Katherine Jost of the Tri-County 

Workforce Center, CO; 

• John Bargman, Central Iowa Employment and Training, Jerald Brantley, 

Spectrum Resources, and James Underwood, Iowa Comprehensive Human 

Services, Des Moines, IA; 

• Jerry Infantino and Steve Brockwell of Perseus House, Erie, PA; 

• Henry White of Capitol Region Workforce Development Board, Hartford, 

CT; 

• Beth Navon and Clinton Lacey of Friends of Island Academy, New York 

City, NY; 

• Richard Garland and Art Terry of YouthWorks, Pittsburgh, PA; and 

• Lois Gackenheimer, of Academy for Practical Nursing and Health 

Occupations and Katherine Burns of Probationers Educational Growth, West 

Palm Beach, FL. 

The demonstration evaluation benefited from the guidance of the U.S. Department of 

Labor, especially, Eileen Pederson, Federal Project Officer, David Balducchi, Allison 

Vitalo, Amanda Briggs Spickard, and Tara Smith. 

This report builds on the capable efforts of the evaluation team at Research and 

Evaluation Associates. These include Peggy Richmond, who served as the internal 

project monitor, consulting associate Carlotta Cooke Joyner, and administrative assistant, 

Patricia Perry. 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Background

Between 1989 and 1994, juvenile crime rates and gang activity exploded onto the public 

consciousness as the number of juveniles arrested for violent crimes (murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault) increased by 62%. 

While that trend has since declined and leveled off, the sudden peak in violent juvenile 

crime has had a substantial influence on bringing and keeping this population on the 

public radar screen. 

Not surprisingly, given these trends, the country has experienced a dramatic rise in 

juvenile incarceration rates. In 1998, 1.8 million delinquency cases were heard in courts 

with juvenile jurisdiction throughout the United States. Of the 630,000 cases that were 

adjudicated, more than one-quarter resulted in out-of-home placements. 

In Highlights of the 2001 National Youth Gang Survey (Epley and Major, 2003), 63% 

of communities with a high level of gang involvement reported that the return of gang 

members to their communities intensified the youth crime rate, particularly violent crimes 

and drug trafficking. Thirty-four percent of these communities also reported that their 

communities did not have programs to prepare youth to return to the community 

constructively. 

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) initiated the Youth Offender Demonstration 

Project to identify, prepare and place this underutilized labor force into employment that 

would break both the cycle of crime and patterns of dependency on public support. The 

task is a challenge because of the multiple needs the youth bring to the projects that 

attempt to prepare them for legitimate work. 

This report documents the implementation progress made by projects in the second 

cohort of the demonstration. 

Goals of the Demonstration 

The demonstration’s goal is to assist youth at-risk of court or gang involvement, youth 

offenders, and gang members between the ages of 14 and 24 to find long-term 

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

cycle of crime and juvenile delinquency. The demonstration’s objective is to identify 

effective community strategies that support youth in becoming work ready and capable of 

attaining and keeping employment that provides a future of economic stability and 

supports civic engagement. 

The Youth Offender Demonstration focused community efforts on infrastructure 

development, building on systems already in place in the community for serving youth. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

ii Research and Evaluation Associates

It also identified the range of services that some youth participants were likely to require, 

and provided technical assistance in meeting the challenges a community would address 

in changing the systems to serve targeted youth more effectively. 

Goals of the Evaluation 

The evaluation’s goal was to document the implementation process of the nine Round 

Two projects over the duration of the demonstration. In addition, the evaluation was to 

note achievements and challenges as project staffs attempted to deliver coordinated 

services to targeted youth. The Department of Labor anticipated that the demonstration 

evaluation would surface mechanisms other communities could replicate to serve youth 

more effectively and in a sustainable way. 

History of the Demonstration 

Congress set aside $13.1 million in DOL’s 1998 Program Year Pilot and Demonstration 

budget for programs to address the needs of youth who have been or who are at risk of 

being under juvenile or criminal justice supervision. In collaboration with the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice 

(DOJ), the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (DOL/ETA) 

awarded grants to the first set of Youth Offender Demonstration Projects in May 1999. 

Awards went to 14 entities: states, counties, cities, or nonprofit organizations. Grants 

were made for two years with the assumption that projects would need six months for 

planning and then would have 18 months for operations. 

In June 2001, DOL awarded over $8.2 million in demonstration grants to nine new 

entities. Round Two (like Round One) projects fell into one of three categories of grants: 

• Category I – Model Community Projects focused on impoverished, highcrime neighborhoods in large cities where they were required to expand work 

readiness and job placement services with gang prevention and suppression 

activities, alternative sentencing, aftercare and route counseling for 

neighborhood youth offenders and youth at risk of court or gang involvement. 

Round Two projects were located in: 

o Chicago, Illinois; 

o New York City, New York; and 

o Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

• Category II – Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiatives

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

to incarcerated youth while they were in residential confinement and work 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates iii

readiness, job placement, and aftercare/reentry services after they returned to 

their home community. The Round Two project was: 

o Colorado Department of Human Services. 

• Category III – Community-Wide Coordination Projects focused on 

smaller communities with high youth crime rates and afforded funds for local 

service providers to develop linkages that strengthened the coordination of 

prevention and aftercare services. Round Two projects were located in: 

o Cincinnati, Ohio; 

o Des Moines, Iowa; 

o Erie, Pennsylvania; 

o Hartford, Connecticut; and 

o West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Round Two projects were funded for 30 months: 24 months of operation and a final six 

months for preparing case files and electronic databases and making them available to 

DOL evaluators. 

Literature Review 

The social development strategy that is the main design element of the demonstration is 

based on the concept of risk and protective factors. Howell, Krisberg, and Jones (1995)

note that risk factors exist in multiple domains within which youth live and interact: 

family, school, peer, and community. Benson, Galbraith, and Espelund (1995) report, 

on the other hand, that protective factors, such as, a strong family and social ties (e.g., 

sports or church participation) protect youth from the risk factors that exist in their world. 

While researchers encourage communities to enhance protective factors for their 

children, improving the protective factors for youth offenders or other vulnerable youth is 

an effective strategy as well. Yohalem and Pittman (2001) encourage a youth 

development approach among vulnerable youth, focusing activities on the developmental 

goals of youth and not on their deficits. Finn-Aage Esbensen (2000) also uses risk 

factors in predicting which youth will become gang members and recommends protective 

factors for gang prevention efforts, that is, positive and attractive youth activities. 

Employment can be one protective factor for youth. Considering youth employment, in 

general, however, Robert Lerman (2000) reports that a substantial proportion of 

adolescent Americans lack the basic skills that all employers require and that the United 

States has a weak system connecting education and careers. These factors are exacerbated 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

iv Research and Evaluation Associates

for vulnerable youth, those who come from neighborhoods with high unemployment and 

social dysfunction. 

Maria Buck (2000) reviews the experience of programs directed to helping offenders to 

get jobs when they return to their communities. She cites research indicating that 

offenders who had worked or been in school are less likely to re-offend. Those who had 

jobs before leaving incarceration also are less likely to re-offend. Research examining 

successful employment programs also noted the need for broad service delivery 

partnerships. Buck observes that offenders need “intensive supervision, mandatory 

substance abuse treatment, employability training (such as basic education, vocational 

training and job search assistance), housing, family intervention services, parenting skills, 

and medical and mental health services.” She goes on to report that offenders need 

additional assistance such as computer skills to move beyond low-skill entry-level 

positions. These are features the Youth Offender Demonstration Project attempted to 

implement. 

Another aspect of the demonstration recognizes that systems change is often slow and 

difficult (Scott, 1992). Communities participating in the demonstration were encouraged 

to take a continuous improvement approach to implementing the services and 

coordinating mechanisms. DOL provided technical assistance to projects to assist them in 

making the incremental steps needed to engage stakeholders and partners, establish the 

service system, and negotiate the long-term coordinating mechanisms that would assure 

that services would be available as long as the youth needed them. 

Evaluation Methodology 

A process evaluation is a study of implementation, defined as, “the use of empirical data 

to assess the delivery of programs” (Scheirer, 1994). A process evaluation assumes that 

consistent program outcomes will not be achieved until demonstration projects have 

resolved the challenges of structuring the activities and processes to serve the youth 

effectively. Researchers have found that projects that do not meet expected outcomes 

may not have implemented planned activities or enrolled members of the target 

population, so the study of implementation is a first step to assure that the project is doing 

what it planned before examining the outcomes. 

With the emphasis on continuous improvement and organizational learning, evaluators 

chose a formative evaluation methodology. This approach is a process evaluation (study 

of implementation) that provides feedback to grantees, technical assistance specialists, 

and DOL project officers. The process evaluation approach assumed that demonstration 

grantees were willing to become learning organizations, that is, that they were open to 

organizational change even as they were in the process of supporting change in their 

clients. 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates v

Evaluation Design 

The evaluation was designed to ensure that the issues of interest to DOL were addressed 

systematically. It examined the activities of key actors, dimensions of project 

organization, relationships among partners, and environmental characteristics identified 

in the literature and from the demonstration’s first round as factors that affect project 

implementation success. 

The process evaluation designed by evaluators followed the sequence of Stufflebeam 

and Shinkfield’s (1985): CIPP model — Context, Inputs, Process, and Product. CIPP is 

a system-flow model that emphasizes tracking a program’s temporal flow through its 

components. The Department of Labor provided the evaluation team with questions that 

were then aligned with the CIPP to guide the development of the evaluation. The process 

evaluation also used a Public Management Model (PMM) developed by the evaluation 

and TA teams and DOL staff during the demonstration’s first round. The PMM served as 

a schema to gauge the progress that Round Two projects made toward achieving their 

objectives and goals. The evaluation team found that the model helped analysis and 

facilitated comparison of projects across categories. 

The following research questions combined the topics of interest both to DOL and the 

PMM. DOL prepared eight evaluation research questions: 

1. What is the context of each project and how did it influence the project 

development and implementation? 

2. How did the community planning bodies charged with the on-going tasks of 

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

involvement of the stakeholders, including parents and youth? 

3. What program components were implemented and how successful were the 

efforts to build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an 

integrated network? 

4. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful 

were they? 

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

population as program participants and how successful were they? 

6. What types of training, employment, and gang suppression programs were 

provided to the target population? What were the intensity, duration, and quality 

of those programs? 

7. 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? 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

vi Research and Evaluation Associates

8. In what ways do employment and training projects serving youth who have been 

in the criminal justice system or who are at risk of such involvement differ from 

traditional approaches to serving youth? 

Based on the development of the PMM, evaluators added two more research questions: 

9. What was the status of the management information system that collects and 

maintains data on the clients? 

10. What was the feedback system to enhance the ability of the projects to learn from 

their efforts, including those efforts that are either successful or unsuccessful? 

The correspondence between the CIPP sequence and the research questions is clear: 

• Context – Question 1 

• Inputs – Questions 2, 4, 5, 9 

• Process – Questions 3, 6, 8 

• Products – Questions 7, 10. 

The evaluation team drew upon an array of data sources at the nine project sites for both 

quantitative and qualitative data, which it used to answer the research questions: 

• Observations, 

• Unstructured interviews, 

• Systems analysis, 

• Information exchange with the technical assistance team, 

• Document reviews, and 

• Data abstraction of files. 

Each project received three evaluation visits of two days each. The purpose of the 

baseline evaluation visits was to document the status of the projects early in their 

implementation of the DOL-funded changes. The second evaluation site visits occurred 

about one year after the baseline visits. The purpose of the visits was to collect 

information about the youth enrolled, youth retention, services delivered, and the day-today project activities. Final evaluation site visits commenced near the end of the 

grantees’ period of performance, about Month 30 of the project. One purpose of the final 

visit was to document any important changes in context or organization of the projects 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates vii

that had occurred since the time of the second visit. In this visit, evaluators emphasized 

describing each project’s approach to sustaining its program after the end of DOL 

funding. 

After each round of evaluation visits, evaluators convened to debrief the experience and 

recommend changes to the field guide or visit logistics. Findings of these meetings were 

complemented by analysis of field notes by an evaluator who had not made any of the 

visits, but knew the project well from earlier design meetings. 

The analysis of data involves examining, categorizing, tabulating, and otherwise 

recombining qualitative and quantitative evidence (Yin, 2003). The evaluation team 

conducted the three fundamental analytic tasks during the process evaluation, as 

articulated by Rossi and Freeman (1993): 

• Described the project and how it was implemented; 

• Compared sites within categories to determine commonalities, differences, 

barriers, and successes; and 

• Determined whether the program conformed to its design.

Using both the qualitative and quantitative data collected, the first step of the analysis 

task was to give a full and accurate description of the actual project. A second task was to 

compare the implementation of the demonstration across sites so evaluators could better 

understand the basis of differences they observed. The third task was the fundamental one 

of asking whether the project, as implemented, conformed to its project design. 

Limitations of the Research 

This report assesses the progress Round Two grantees made in implementing their 

projects as they approached completion of the grant period. Similar to projects in Round 

One, grantees began at different places. Some added services to an existing program 

while others initiated new services tailored to the needs of targeted youth. No judgment 

can be made about the long-term success or promise of a particular service delivery 

profile at this time. At the time of the third visits, the demonstrations were continuing to 

refine and reshape the delivery of services to the youth participants. 

OVERVIEW OF THE DEMONSTRATION 

There were nine projects in round Two: three in Category I, one in Category II, and five 

in Category III. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

viii Research and Evaluation Associates

Category I 

Category I projects were located in Chicago, New York, and Pittsburgh. 

The grantee in Chicago, IL, was the Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development 

(MOWD). After some initial partners were unable to provide the intended services, 

MOWD subcontracted the service delivery aspect of the project to Goodwill Industries of 

Metropolitan Chicago, Inc., which used a network of youth service providers to deliver 

services. The target population was primarily youth 14-17 in three troubled 

neighborhoods. 

The Pittsburgh, PA, grantee was a non-profit community-based organization, 

YouthWorks. The grantee subcontracted route counseling (case management) services for 

a portion of the grant period, but brought all the services in-house after a year. Its 

remaining partners came to the YouthWorks site to deliver services. The target 

population was primarily youth offenders. 

The grantee in New York City, NY, was Friends of Island Academy (FOIA), a nonprofit community-based organization that delivered almost all the needed services at its 

office in mid-Manhattan. The project targeted youth from all over the city who were 

being released from one of the four detention or correctional facilities for youth located 

on Rikers Island. 

Category II 

There was only one project funded in Category II, the Colorado Department of Human 

Services, Division of Youth Corrections. The target facility was Lookout Mountain 

Youth Services Center, the most secure correctional facility for male youth in the state. 

The project offered work readiness services while the young men were incarcerated and 

job placement and follow-up when they returned to any of seven counties upon release: 

Adams, Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Gilpin, or Jefferson Counties. 

Category III 

There were five projects awarded grants in Category III. 

The City of Cincinnati, OH’s Workforce Development Division received a grant to 

design and develop an infrastructure of local service providers to support youth offenders 

in gaining employment. All youth were registered for service under the provisions of the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) legislation. The city anticipated that the youth services 

would become sustainable through the youth services funding stream under WIA. 

The Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (the One-Stop operator in Des 

Moines, IA received an award to provide services to both younger and older youth, both 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates ix

offenders and youth at risk of court supervision. Iowa Comprehensive Human Services 

(ICHS) provided services to the younger youth while Spectrum Resources provided 

services to the older youth. 

The grantee in Erie, PA, was Perseus House, a non-profit community-based organization 

with a history of providing services to youth offenders or wards of the court through both 

residential and day programs. It partnered with the Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies 

to provide work readiness through an 8-week experience in boat-building and navigation 

studies. The target population was primarily younger youth, both offenders and youth at 

risk of court involvement. 

The Capitol Region Workforce Development Board received a grant to develop the 

infrastructure for serving youth offenders throughout the greater Hartford, CT area. The 

project developed a database, “Hartford Connects,” that would eventually integrate the 

case files for all youth coming for employment, health, or other services. It also 

established the Youth Development Practitioners Academy to provide cross-agency 

training in youth development principles and how to make the best use of Hartford 

Connects. 

The Academy for Practical Nursing and Health Occupations received a grant to develop 

the work readiness infrastructure in West Palm Beach, FL. The academy began with a 

well-established reputation for training health care workers in the region. It partnered 

with Probationers Educational Growth and the Palm Beach County Workforce 

Development Board to offer both offenders and youth at risk of court involvement 

training for entry-level positions in the health care industry. The project provided the 

clinical training and the work readiness services, and referred the youth to the network of 

WIB-affiliated service providers for other services. 

The projects operated during a time of economic struggle. The projects, almost 

universally, operated in an environment of reduced federal and local funding, cost 

cutting, economic downturn, increased risk of terrorism and uncertainty surrounding the 

war against terror. Due to budget cuts and a weak job market, many projects found it 

difficult to garner support from employers to provide opportunities for youth 

employment. 

The projects enrolled increasing numbers of youth over the grant period, finishing with 

more than 1,800 enrollees. More of the youth were older (18-24) than younger (14-17), 

and they were 75% male. The majority (79%) were offenders. While there were youth of 

every major race, about half were black. 

Projects recruited youth through referrals from parole or probation officers, schools or 

other organizations. Colorado and New York, in particular, recruited the youth directly 

from the correctional facilities where project staff met the youth before release. 

Retention of enrolled youth was a struggle for all the projects. Some created a welcoming 

atmosphere where the youth felt comfortable spending time. All used incentives of some 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

x Research and Evaluation Associates

kind, such as, transportation cards and child care; but some established formal incentives, 

such as stipends for attendance and for reaching milestones in their plans. 

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL (PMM) 

The evaluators used the Public Management Model as a lens for viewing the progress the 

projects were making toward implementation. It allowed the evaluators to focus on the 

system-level changes that the need for cross-agency service collaboration demanded. 

Drawing on the work of Richard Nathan (1988), the PMM focuses attention on systems 

change as the first of two steps in developing knowledge of what policy changes work. 

First, Nathan asserts, assure that the systems are in place, and second evaluate the 

impacts on individuals. He goes further to say that if systems change as designed, the 

individuals are likely to improve on the targeted dimension (school achievement, gaining 

employment, etc. (Page 199). 

Workforce 

Development 

Services 

Organizational Attributes 

Reentry Services Data Collection 

and Analysis 

At the center of the graphic are the basic workforce development services available to 

all citizens through the workforce development system established under the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) of 1998. On the left-hand corner of the graphic are reentry 

services. While the services explain what the nature of the demonstration was, the 

organizational attributes describe how the successfully implemented projects managed 

the demonstration. At the apex of the triangle in the graphic are the seven organizational 

attributes of successfully implemented projects: 

• A well-conceived plan,

• Pre-existing experience between the workforce development, justice and 

health care systems,

• A strong community support network,

• Strong grantee involvement,

• Linkages among the workforce development, justice, health, housing and 

other major youth service providing organizations and services,
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates xi

• The ability to leverage resources, and

• Shared information and leadership.

The fourth element of the Public Management Model is data collection and analysis, 

which is found at the right angle of the triangle. An important realization during the 

demonstration was that projects were easier to keep on track when a good data reporting 

system alerted everyone involved in the project of the project’s status. The dynamic of 

the Public Management Model is the continuous improvement loop (the arrows in the 

schematic). The assumption of Nathan is that attention to systems improvement 

gradually improves the circumstances of persons being served. 

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL: SERVICES AND SERVICE 

DELIVERY MECHANISMS 

The core of the demonstration is finding better ways to offer workforce and reentry 

services to the target population. A finding of the Round One projects was that the 

services typically identified as workforce or reentry were not sufficient to meet the 

myriad needs of some project youth. Staff and administrators offered other services, and 

the projects tended to characterize these services by the agency that offered them. 

Services provided could, therefore, be categorized differently at the project level. For the 

purposes of this report, services are discussed by the categories of workforce services, 

reentry services, commonly shared services, and support services. 

The primary workforce development services were: 

• Work/Job Readiness – teaching workplace skills in classes, vocational 

certification classes, leadership classes, and job shadowing; 

• Job Placement – Activities to assist youth in learning about and exploring work 

opportunities, making appointments for interviews, and making the transition to a 

job; and 

• Job Retention – Follow-up activities with the employed youth and his/her 

employer to work through concerns that threaten the youth’s ability to retain the 

job. 

The reentry services as defined for grantees in the Solicitation of Grants Announcement 

(SGA) included: 

• Anti-gang activity – Both direct efforts to reduce violence in a neighborhood and 

indirect efforts to provide wholesome activities to engage the youth as a substitute 

for gang activity; 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xii Research and Evaluation Associates

• Alternative sentencing – Community activities and special restrictions (like 

curfew) assigned to a youth convicted of a crime in lieu of assignment to 

residential confinement; and 

• Aftercare – Activities and services assigned to a youth in an environment of 

graduated sanctions, both positive and negative, which are designed to have the 

youth accept greater responsibility for her/his behavior as her/his behavior 

improves. 

There are some services that are sometimes referred to as either reentry services or 

workforce development services: 

• Assessments – Screenings or careful analyses of youth attitudes, knowledge and 

behavior that are used to tailor program components to a youth’s individual needs; 

• Academic education - Basic literacy, pre-GED, GED, high school, or college 

classes that are part of the individualized work readiness or aftercare plans for a 

youth; 

• Vocational education – Specific preparation for an occupation or industry, 

including practical experience, which can be part of the individualized work 

readiness or aftercare plan for a youth; and 

• Route counseling – Assistance in realizing one’s individualized case plan 

through the workforce development and/or the justice systems. Youth offenders in 

the demonstration typically had both a parole/probation officer and a workforce 

development specialist supporting their plan. 

As the projects gained experience in the complexity of issues youth brought to the 

projects, staff integrated other services into the program that some youth in the project 

were likely to need. These could be provided through the workforce or the justice 

systems, and often partners to these systems supplied them. Such services include: 

• Substance abuse interventions – Most youth in the projects have experienced 

problems with alcohol or other drugs in their own lives or in their families; 

• Mental health – Recent research is uncovering an alarming degree of 

diagnosable mental health issues among incarcerated youth, particularly 

depression and the effects of abuse. Projects found mental health screening and 

services an important component for some youth; 

• Health – Some projects assess health as part of the orientation; health issues 

surface for others as youth miss activities for health reasons; 

• Housing – While rare, the youth who lacks a regular, fixed, adequate nighttime 

residence presents overwhelming needs to a project. Projects have needed to find 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates xiii

partners who can support youth through the process of finding such residence 

before either school or work patterns stabilize; and 

• Recreation – Projects provide either episodic events, like trips to an amusement 

park, or regular opportunities for fun such as sports leagues. 

Based on their own experience or that of the Round One projects, the project staff 

designed individual strategies for serving project youth tailored to individual needs. In an 

attempt to customize service delivery to youth participants, almost all projects used an 

individual service strategy that also incorporated a youth’s input. At the core of this plan 

was the assessment system that screened the youth for past history or continuing signs of 

educational, mental, physical, behavioral or social problems. 

Once the project and youth completed the individual service plan (ISP), the youth either 

received services directly from the grantee or was referred out to a partnering agency. 

Preparing a youth for work varied in format, duration, and intensity, with some projects 

offering hours of preparation while others offering months. Job placement and retention 

efforts were offered to some extent by all the projects, but staffs emphasized preparing 

youth for work more than helping youth keep jobs. Several projects learned through the 

grant period that youth needed more support during the early months of job placement 

than they were receiving, but they often did not have the resources remaining to allocate 

to this task. 

Few of the projects offered reentry services directly with DOL funds. Parole or probation 

offices provided aftercare, and workforce specialists supported the youths’ reentry plan 

by helping them observe curfew or other restrictions. A few projects served youth as 

alternative sentencing programs, and all the project staffs reported that their efforts to 

keep youth occupied in constructive activities constituted anti-gang efforts. Gang 

symbols and colors were banned at project activities by all the grantees. Community 

service was not generally a requirement of the projects, and many youth had met service 

and restitution requirements before enrolling in the project. 

Educational Services 

Of all the services offered through the DOL grant, educational services were the most 

generally provided to most clients. There were several reasons for this emphasis: 

• A large number of youth (45% of the total or 834) were under the age of 18. 

Their main task was to remain in class and complete high school. 

• Even those who were 18 and older needed additional schooling. Many had 

been unsuccessful in school; many had dropped out of school or had been 

suspended/expelled. 

• Even some who had received GED certificates were unable to meet 

employers’ expectations for reading or mathematics skills. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xiv Research and Evaluation Associates

Projects learned that finding youth employment was markedly easier if they had acquired 

the skills and the certification of those skills before searching for a job. 

Other Services 

All projects offered support services. A substantial proportion of project youth needed a 

substance abuse intervention, and failing substance abuse tests was an occasion of job 

loss for some youth. Mental health, transportation, and child care services were among 

the other services youth needed. 

Coordinating Mechanisms 

A major demonstration goal was identifying effective mechanisms for serving high-need 

youth. The experience of both Rounds One and Two was that no one organization or 

agency could meet all these needs effectively. Partnerships of varying intensities were 

necessary to assure access to all needed services. 

The chief coordinating mechanisms were: 

• Individual service plans, 

• Route counseling, 

• Standard forms, definitions, and record-keeping, 

• Automated or web-based management information systems (MIS), 

• Referral agreements, 

• Co-location of services or integrating/co-locating staff, 

• Cross-agency training, and 

• A team approach with coordination through periodic team meetings. 

All the projects offered at least two coordinating mechanisms: individual service plans 

and route counseling. Other projects created a sense of place and peer support by offering 

services to groups of youth in stable meeting places. While all projects had at least a 

rudimentary MIS, few used the data to identify patterns of progress or difficulty in 

tracking the pathways of youth through the project. Cross-agency training, co-location of 

staff or regular staff meetings among service providers were used by some grantees. A 

question for future research is whether having more coordinating mechanisms in place is 

better than fewer. 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates xv

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL: ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND 

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

All the projects demonstrated attributes of successfully implemented projects, but some 

of them struggled with one or more of the attributes. All the projects also made progress 

with developing data collection processes and varied in the extent to which they used the 

data for accountability, decision-making, and sustainability. These dimensions of the 

PMM were incorporated by projects differently and to varying degrees. 

The Seven Organizational Attributes 

The evaluation of Round Two projects confirmed that projects that had well-conceived 

plans implemented their plans with greater ease than those that did not. From the 

beginning of the grant period, projects were expected to include planning, not just for the 

grant period, but also for on-going operation after the grant funds were gone. As the 

projects progressed into their implementation phases, planning for sustainability became 

a more-pressing issue. 

Successfully implemented projects, whether run by workforce development or juvenile 

justice agencies, were or became knowledgeable about the culture and operating 

procedures of the other system. Those that had established good working relationships

on youth-oriented programs before the grant period gained valuable experience that made 

the implementation of the demonstration easier and quicker. Attribute No. 2 (pre-existing 

relationships) recognizes that demonstration projects had different starting points in 

partnership development. The partnership between workforce and justice systems is 

essential for addressing the needs of the target population. A community intending to 

serve the target population needs to make the development of this cross-system 

partnership an early and high priority. 

The experiences of Round Two projects reinforced the importance for projects to have 

broad-based community support. Such support was essential, if they were to succeed at 

implementation and to develop the partnerships that increased the likelihood of a 

sustainable effort. The evaluation of the Round Two projects also recognized that wellmanaged and operated projects were those in which grantees remained constructively 

involved in all phases of the projects. It appeared essential that the grantees served as the 

lead agency and provided direction and coordination for the projects, even when they 

subcontracted project responsibilities to other organizations. 

Staff of well-managed and operated projects not only had experience and knowledge 

about the workings of the workforce development and justice systems (organizational 

attribute No. 2), but they also expanded their network of partners to include other service 

systems, especially health and education to take advantage of resources available 

through those systems. To more fully integrate services, project staff also worked to 

enhance coordination among these systems. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xvi Research and Evaluation Associates

The evaluators noted that well-managed and operated projects identified and used other 

resources and funding streams to support their goals. Strong linkages and collaborative 

partnerships, which allowed organizations to participate in joint activities, also 

encouraged development of innovative approaches for problem solving and delivery of 

services within the projects. The experiences of Round Two projects reinforced the value 

for lead agencies to share both the leadership and the credit for the results of their 

programs with other stakeholders. Successful programs shared information with other 

stakeholders so that fully integrated – and effective – services were provided to clients. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

DOL established 16 data elements that every project needed to collect and report to DOL 

quarterly; in addition every organization associated with the demonstration required some 

level of internal data collection and reporting. A few projects expanded both the range of 

data they collected and the ways that they used data for other than accountability 

purposes. Projects were encouraged to use data to guide project activities and to build a 

case for sustainability. 

In general, all projects collected some individual data on project youth, usually in 

individual files used by route counselors. While grantees made progress in developing 

project-level databases, the projects did not systematically use data to support decisionmaking or for sustainability. The technical issues of designing a database were 

accomplished, but not the culture of decision-making within the partner organizations. 

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND TECHICAL ASSISTANCE 

The approach to the evaluation and technical assistance to Round Two projects included 

a formative evaluation. The formative evaluation involved sharing information among 

key stakeholders: DOL, the projects, evaluators, and technical assistance specialists. 

The evaluation of Round Two projects confirmed that successfully implemented projects 

conducted self-assessments and actively sought and accepted available technical 

assistance as part of their continuous improvement process. Successful projects also 

identified objectives they sought to reach as they prepared implementation plans and used 

them as milestones to gauge their progress. They then periodically assessed their progress 

toward reaching the objectives and took necessary corrective action when they did not. 

Technical assistance was especially important to Round Two projects because it served as 

a valuable improvement and feedback mechanism. At grantee conferences, the evaluators 

and the technical assistance team met with each project team individually before or after 

the general sessions of the day to review issues and plan for the future. 

All second round projects participated in multiple technical assistance sessions or events 

conducted by a Research and Evaluation Associates staff member or a consultant. 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates xvii

Technical assistance visits provided staff an opportunity to review each project’s progress 

and needs for additional technical assistance. During the visits, technical assistance staff 

provided projects with a summary of their observations, including feedback and 

recommendations to project managers. Often, the need for technical assistance in specific 

areas became apparent to both the technical assistance staff and the project during site 

visits. 

Another way that projects instigated a continuous improvement approach was how they 

used evaluations as tools to improve operations. Evaluators reviewed the evaluation 

report findings with the project staffs at subsequent evaluation visits, and projects 

introduced assessment practices into their on-going operations. 

Projects closed the continuous improvement loop by making significant changes in their 

operations. The projects were encouraged to keep changing their implementation 

strategies until they served youth effectively. 

On-going Struggles 

Despite these advances, projects continued to struggle, even with issues that received 

considerable attention during the project. As the text described earlier, few projects made 

the best use of project data, and many projects failed to link successfully with the local 

One-Stop workforce development system. The demonstration did not develop a 

consistent approach to the design and delivery of workforce development activities. 

Despite repeated urging, sustainability strategies were not in place for several projects 

when DOL funds were depleted. 

Many of these struggles can be traced to the difficulty of implementing the cross-system 

service delivery strategies envisioned by the demonstration. Projects had implemented 

the various services listed in the SGA, but the delivery and coordination mechanisms 

were still being developed. While Round Two projects developed data collection 

systems, few had developed the management skills to incorporate data findings into their 

stream of administrative decision-making. 

One-Stop systems (even when the grantee was a One-Stop center) were still learning how 

to serve youth better and were preoccupied with serving displaced workers. The 

economic atmosphere within which the demonstration operated made the plight of 

displaced workers a higher priority, and these workers were generally easier to place than 

project youth. 

STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH OFFENDERS AND YOUTH 

AT RISK OF COURT OR GANG INVOLVEMENT 

The report of strategies projects used to realize their goals of serving the target youth is 

divided by funding categories: Category I - Model Community Projects, Category II – 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xviii Research and Evaluation Associates

Education and Training for Youth Offender Initiatives, and Category III – Communitywide Coordination Projects. As described earlier, grant awards differed in intent and 

funding level according to category: 

 Category I projects were funded at the $1,500,000 level to expand work 

readiness and job placement services with gang prevention and suppression 

activities, alternative sentencing, aftercare and route counseling to youth 

offenders and youth at risk of court or gang involvement. 

 The Category II project was funded at the $2,000,000 level to provide 

comprehensive school-to-work education and training to incarcerated youth 

while they were in residential confinement and work readiness, job placement, 

and aftercare/reentry services after they returned to their home community. 

 Category III projects were funded at the $350,000 level to develop linkages 

that strengthened the coordination of prevention and aftercare services. 

Beside the differences by category, projects differed as to the degree the grantee and the 

community had already been delivering services to the target population. Some projects 

had years of experience serving the target population while others were initiating such 

services. Some of the partners had years of experience with each other while others 

worked together for the first time during the proposal preparation or even after the grant 

was awarded. 

Projects also differed in whom they identified as the target population. Within the age 

range of 14 to 24 years, some focused on 14-17 year olds while others focused on youth 

18 years old and older. Some projects limited eligibility to youth offenders while others 

included both youth offenders and youth at risk of gang or court involvement. Generally 

speaking, project activities did not vary much by offender status, but they varied 

considerably by the age of participants. In other words, the services the youth received 

were not dependent on whether the youth was an offender, but younger youth were more 

directed to education activities than to employment activities and older youth were more 

directed toward work readiness and employment, regardless of their offender status. 

While Round Two projects demonstrated a range of circumstances and models of service 

delivery, developing broad partnerships and attracting and retaining youth were on-going 

struggles for every project. At the beginning of Round Two, there was some optimism 

that learning from Round One projects which systems needed to collaborate to provide 

the needed services to the youth would make the second round easier. To some extent it 

did, but overcoming the entropy of a fixed way of doing things provided a challenge to 

many projects. The coordination of systems will likely always be hard work. 

Project youth have generally not felt successful within public or private social systems: 

family, school, etc. Projects were always challenged by the need to attract youth, develop 

trust, and serve them; many youth did not persevere through this process. Meeting the 

youth while they were still incarcerated jump-started the trust building process, and many 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates xix

more Round Two projects than Round One incorporated some level of pre-project 

outreach. 

Projects that knew the youth well seemed to fare better. These projects saw the youth 

often, encouraged them to participate in project activities, had activities for them every 

day, etc. Des Moines staff members found that when they began to meet the older youth 

daily, youth and staff got to know each other better and retention improved. Projects that 

paid the youth for participation or paid for reaching milestones, believed that the 

incentives kept at least some youth from dropping out of the program. 

Almost all the projects’ staff remarked at some point during the evaluation visits that 

keeping the youth busy was an important feature in itself. The youth needed the work 

readiness experience of structured time and accomplishing tasks within a specified time. 

Youth needed an alternative to “hanging out;” busy and engaging projects served both as 

work readiness and as anti-gang activities. 

Projects typically kept an open door policy to drop outs, encouraging them to pick up 

again where they left off. Staff with experience in substance abuse treatment went so far 

as to tell other project staff to expect dropouts and backsliding. It was part of the recovery 

process. 

Several projects made an effort to change the youths’ loyalties and developed peer 

support to reinforce these changes. By having the youth in one place to receive services, 

projects developed a sense of belonging as an alternative to the gang or rough crowd the 

youth had bonded with before the project. Projects went so far as to establish different 

clothing or professional identity to reinforce the new path the youth were following. 

Four projects moved the majority of clients to employment: Pittsburgh (56%), Colorado 

(51%), Des Moines (67%), and West Palm Beach (96%). Some projects served youth too 

young for full-time employment. Many older youth, too, lacked the credentials that 

would position them for employment at wages that would break the cycle of dependency 

and recidivism. An exception was West Palm Beach, which reported almost all its clients 

found employment and were not required to earn a credential before beginning industry 

training. It will be important for future projects to learn which factors made the most 

difference for West Palm Beach. Was its success because the demand for health 

occupations was high? Was it because the demonstration focused on preparing youth for 

an industry it knew well and had contacts in? Was it because the agency was wellestablished and had a sound reputation for its training? Was it because it focused youth 

on industry preparation rather than earning a general credential, like the GED or a 

diploma? 

Although several projects boasted of the number of service delivery partners they had 

attracted through the demonstration, none used more than a handful of partners to deliver 

services. It may take more coordination resources than communities can manage to keep 

a large group of organizations working together. Hartford will be interesting to watch 

because it has such high-level support for a community-wide service network. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xx Research and Evaluation Associates

With the exception of Cincinnati and Hartford, all the projects eventually assembled the 

range of services DOL thought necessary to serve the target youth effectively. 

Negotiating service availability is only a first step, as each service provider needs to 

develop shared expectations, training, and standards of quality for its part of the program. 

With all the progress made, only West Palm Beach implemented a nationally certified 

work readiness program, for example. 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

The report considers accomplishments of the second round of Youth Offender 

Demonstration Project under three headings: 

 

• Individual accomplishments, 

• Systems-level accomplishments, and 

• Project accomplishments, as reported by the nine Round Two projects. 

Individual Accomplishments 

The second round of the Youth Offender Demonstration Project served 1, 852 youth as 

of the final quarterly data report, December 31, 2003. Twenty-two percent of Round 

Two youth had the experience of unsubsidized employment. In addition, 12% of Round 

Two youth were in subsidized employment at one point. Among the older youth 75% 

were able to obtain unsubsidized employment and 25% had a subsidized work 

experience. Fewer than 4 % of the youth were convicted of a new crime while they 

were active in the demonstration. 

Just over 34% of enrolled youth received federally funded job training, and 21% received 

some other form of job training. Youth progress from basic education services to GED or 

other more advanced education, so the education data counts services rather than clients. 

In all 1,304 educational service assignments were made for project youth. 

Systems-level Accomplishments 

There were four major areas of accomplishments where projects seem to have made 

significant strides in achieving the demonstration’s objectives: 

• Building partnerships, 

• Garnering new resources, 

• Achieving sustainability, and
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates xxi

• Involving the community and employers in the program.

These four types of accomplishments are actually closely interconnected, so it is not easy 

to establish the results as independent of one another. In fact, it appears that the act of 

developing partnerships and collaborative arrangements has a direct impact on the ability 

of a project to leverage resources, to sustain the project (whether through new funding 

sources or through a collaborative approach to service delivery), and to facilitate 

community and employer involvement. 

If an outcome is viewed as the result of changes brought about through an intervention, in 

the case of the demonstration the intervention is the receipt of a grant with expectations 

that the grantee would be able to do more things for target youth or do things differently. 

Based on prior experience, including that of the demonstration’s first round, DOL 

expected that projects would be better able to provide a more coordinated system for 

delivering services to youth if the project could bring together partners who may not have 

worked together to any extent in the past. There was substantial evidence in Round Two 

that demonstration grants were used to build new partnerships that did not exist prior to 

the grant, and that were also likely to be sustained. 

Evaluators for all nine projects reported that service providers and other organizations 

that worked with youth had changed the way in which they operated as a result of the 

demonstration in their community. The degree of change, of course, varied across the 

nine projects, but it seemed clear that one accomplishment of the demonstration was that 

organizations – and their managers and front-line staffs – were working together more 

closely than they had prior to receipt of the grant. Consistently, evaluators found that 

project partners reported that they would not revert to the “old ways” of working, which 

were often independent of one another, and instead would naturally continue to work 

together to expand and improve service delivery, plan for sustainability, etc. 

Without strong partnerships, projects often found themselves without political and 

financial support for their efforts. When reviewing the nine Round Two projects, the 

evidence was rather mixed as to whether the effects of developing partnerships extended 

to leveraging of resources. Though it might be argued that simply forming partnerships 

brought more services to targeted youth, a reflection of resource allocation, the net 

increase in resources, may have been modest. This was especially true if the partnering 

organizations had already been providing services to these youth, but not necessarily in a 

coordinated fashion. 

According to the Institute For Educational Leadership (Blank et al, 2000), a project is 

sustained if: all or part of the project is “institutionalized” into the larger service system; 

it is the catalyst that leads to reform across the larger service system; or it leads to the 

development of new policy and practices that become an accepted way of “doing 

business” in that field. There were indications that the demonstration had an effect in 

several communities on the accepted ways of “doing business.” As grant funding came 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xxii Research and Evaluation Associates

to a close for Round Two projects, there was substantial evidence that most, if not all, 

projects would continue to exist in some form. 

Projects that developed strong relationships with the local workforce investment boards 

(WIBs), made progress in establishing connections with employers. Others developed 

advisory boards that included more than partner representation, including influential 

members of the local community. Still others began to develop networks of employers 

who were willing to hire project clients. In general, however, stronger connections with 

local employers remained a challenge for most projects.

Staff Reports of Project Accomplishments 

Staff reports indicated that the Youth Offender Demonstration Project grants provided 

both tangible and intangible benefits. Among the tangible benefits, projects were able to 

serve more youth and develop partnerships that were making steady progress in serving 

the youth better. Among the intangible benefits, the grants served as catalysts for 

community change in attitudes toward the youth or toward the grantees’ efforts to serve 

them. 

SUMMARY 

The second round of the Youth Offender Demonstration Project was still evolving when 

this report was written. The project’s nine grantees were completing month 27 of the 30-

month-long demonstration. Several of the projects had requested and received no-cost 

time extensions from DOL. In addition, six projects received supplemental funding that 

would allow them to continue to develop for another year or two. The summary includes 

findings, lessons learned, and recommendations. 

Findings 

Context and Environment 

The projects in Round Two operated in a difficult economic climate that affected agency 

budgets and the ability of projects to find employment for clients when displaced 

workers’ needs and abilities ranked them higher in priority. 

Youth Characteristics 

The demonstration project enrolled youth who were generally offenders, almost evenly 

divided between younger and older age groups. The youth were overwhelmingly male, 

and somewhat over half were black. Most were in school at some point in the 

demonstration. Projects reported that the clients referred to them over the course of the 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates xxiii

demonstration presented deeper developmental needs and problem behaviors than the 

projects anticipated. 

Recruitment and Retention 

Youth were recruited generally by referral from another agency within the community. 

Retention proved to be a challenge for all the projects. Projects retained youth primarily 

by getting to know youth personally and following up if they began to miss activities. 

Several projects reported that using incentives improved attendance. Intangible incentives 

were introduced in several projects: positive peer pressure, new clothing in place of gang 

colors, a professional identity, and/or an atmosphere combining challenge and support. 

Public Management Model 

The Public Management Model focused attention on the larger system changes that 

needed to occur if the youth were going to experience the range of services they needed 

in a coordinated way. Driving the implementation and earning the central focus of the 

PMM was the implementation of the range of services outlined by DOL in the SGA. 

Seven organizational attributes characterized projects that were making steady 

improvements in implementing their youth offender employment projects. 

The PMM emphasized that projects attempting to implement a cross-agency project 

needed data that reflected the cross-agency activities in order to make decisions that kept 

the project on track. The approach to implementation embodied in the PMM leads 

systems to progress incrementally toward greater coordination through a continuous 

improvement loop: offer services through sound management tactics, collect information 

about performance success and gaps, and close the gaps in performance. 

Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Projects differed in whether the grantee delivered services directly or through partners. 

In all cases, youth received an individual service plan based on assessments of the 

youth’s needs. Depending in large part on the youths’ age, clients were assigned 

primarily to educational activities or primarily to workforce preparation activities. 

Projects coordinated services through the oversight of route counselors, housing services 

in one facility, maintaining service information in an accessible management information 

system, and/or regular team meetings. 

System-level Accomplishments 

Partnerships played a crucial role throughout all aspects of a project – from planning 

through service delivery to sustainability. Bringing workforce and justice systems into 

partnership remained a crucial relationship. Projects made good use of their relationships 

with health and education agencies, and both health and education agencies tended to 

provide some resources from their budgets for serving the youth. Relationships with OneStop centers remained challenging. Several admitted that they did not think that their 

agencies had the capacity to work with troubled youth, but those that worked with project 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xxiv Research and Evaluation Associates

youth gained confidence that they could serve the target population. One of the most 

challenging elements of the demonstration was developing a network of employers 

willing to hire youth offenders and youth at risk of court involvement. 

Youth Accomplishments 

More than 1,800 youth received services through the demonstration grants. The majority 

of the youth clients were male and offenders. Most of the youth received some additional 

education under the auspices of the grant and a majority of the older youth received some 

type of employment experience. While they were active in the project, few youth were 

convicted of a new crime or incarcerated for a new crime. 

Lessons Learned 

Demonstrations by their nature are essentially learning experiences for all those involved 

in them – stakeholders, sponsors, evaluators, technical assistance providers, and others 

who support the effort. 

1. A major lesson from Round Two is that youth needs vary, and lock-step 

curricula are unlikely to address their different developmental and 

therapeutic needs.

2. Another lesson learned is the value grantees placed on route counseling, the 

“glue” that holds the cross-agency service delivery system responsive to 

individual youth. Discussions of sustainability generally came down to the 

struggle to fund the route counseling system that kept youth on track and service 

providers engaged. 

3. Despite the poor economic environment, budget cuts, and high unemployment, 

youth in Round Two were finding employment. A lesson to be observed is that a 

discouraging environment is not a basis for avoiding youth offender 

employment efforts. 

4. It is hard to overestimate the importance of employment as a component of the 

services offered to youth offenders. The chance for employment made the 

project attractive to youth and to the referral agencies. 

5. The demonstration projects received technical assistance that proved valuable in 

addressing the challenges of stakeholder development and sustainability. A lesson 

for administrators in particular, is to recognize that projects need the support of 

coaching relationships if they are going to accomplish the system-changes 

envisioned. Communities need to identify local and state staff with experience in 

serving such youth or facilitating cross-agency partnerships. 
Executive Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates xxv

6. Round Two projects were successful at assembling a wide range of services, but 

the services themselves were not always developed using standards of quality and 

sufficiency. The lesson learned is that offering the range of services was a 

challenging task, but it is only part of what needs to be understood to serve 

these youth effectively. 

7. The process evaluation of the nine Round Two projects demonstrated the utility of 

the Public Management Model as a lens for grantees, evaluators, and technical 

assistance specialists. The language of the PMM provided a way for grantees, 

evaluators, and technical assistance specialists to communicate about the projects 

in an analytic way. Communities implementing a cross-agency project will 

need such a common frame of reference for communication, goal setting, and 

evaluation. 

8. The challenge to develop cross-agency partnerships and useful information 

systems came from the clear expectations included in DOL’s SGA. Grantees will 

attempt difficult tasks such as these if it is clear that receiving funds to help 

clients is tied to their compliance. Clear expectations can serve as a catalyst for 

producing system changes. 

Recommendations and Closing 

Although the demonstration continues and a new project to evaluate formal 

demonstration outcomes is not yet complete, some recommendations seem clear. 

Recommendation # 1 

The effort to prepare youth for employment through coordinated services across the 

spectrum of workforce, reentry, education, health, housing, and other support activities is 

grounded in theoretical and evidenced-based research. Despite the difficulty of 

implementing such complex service arrangements, communities should be encouraged to 

develop coordinated service delivery mechanisms for the sake of the youth and for the 

economic and public safety well being of the community. 

The alternatives are doing nothing or offering services in piecemeal fashion. Grantees 

already had enough experience with these options to know that they had to do better. 

Recommendation # 2 

System-by-system accountability standards are intended to focus agencies and 

subcontractors on performance, but these accountability structures may impede 

partnership arrangements where multiple organizations could take both responsibility and 

credit for accomplishments. Communities should be encouraged to develop standard 

enrollment and assessment instruments, build shared management information systems, 

and devise cross-agency performance standards and accountability structures. This 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xxvi Research and Evaluation Associates

infrastructure is needed to support cross-agency/cross-system partnerships that share the 

burden of high-need clients and share the credit for their progress as well. 

Recommendation # 3 

While the discussion of sustainability can be very theoretical—what should be sustained, 

who will take responsibility, etc. The ultimate concern should be for the youth, especially 

youth who are suspicious of civil systems in which they have experienced failure (e.g., 

school and juvenile justice). Projects that have raised their hopes of a better life need to 

be resourceful in accommodating enrolled youth’s needs for service or redirecting those 

they can no longer serve to other service providers. 

Recommendation # 4 

The risk conditions that increase the probability that youth will come under court 

supervision are not diminishing in our communities. Communities need to anticipate that 

youth will continue to be referred for a broad range of services to become work ready. 

Communities will be better served by more study of such factors as route counseling, 

duration and intensity of services, incentives use, or developing personal relationships 

with youth. 

Closing 

The demonstration allowed communities to find ways to reintegrate or reengage youth 

and prepare them for employment. Many of the observed success stories owe their 

inspiration to the vision, commitment and hard work of project administrators and staff, 

yet the youth deserve appreciation for entering the struggle to change the direction of 

their lives. Despite the headlines that opened this report, day-to-day project activity 

matched earnest youth and dedicated staff in learning activities that moved the youth 

closer to constructive life paths. Demonstration communities are strengthened and safer 

for their common efforts.
Table of Contents 

Research and Evaluation Associates xxvii

Table of Contents 

Section Page 

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

 I. IMPETUS AND BACKGROUND FOR THE DEMONSTRATION.................... 1 

 Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 

 Goals of the Demonstration .................................................................................... 2 

 Goals of the Evaluation........................................................................................... 3 

 History of the Demonstration ................................................................................. 4 

 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 6 

 Youth Development................................................................................................ 7 

 Youth Training and Employment ........................................................................... 7 

 Continuous Improvement and Organizational Learning ...................................... 10 

 Methodology......................................................................................................... 12 

 Evaluation Design................................................................................................. 14 

Evaluation Framework.......................................................................................... 14 

Research Questions............................................................................................... 15 

Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 16 

 Limitations of the Research .................................................................................. 21 

 Organization of the Report ................................................................................... 22 

 II. OVERVIEW OF THE DEMONSTRATION....................................................... 23 

 Project Goals and Objectives................................................................................ 23 

Category I Projects................................................................................................ 24 

Category II Project................................................................................................ 26 

Category III Projects............................................................................................. 27 

 Contextual Aspects ............................................................................................... 29 

 Project-level Characteristics ................................................................................. 33 

Nature of Grantee.................................................................................................. 33 

 Youth Characteristics............................................................................................ 35 

 Summary...................................................................................................... 41 

 III. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL (PMM) ...................................................... 43 

 Overview............................................................................................................... 43 

 Future Uses of the PMM....................................................................................... 44 

 Orientation of Projects to Model .......................................................................... 45 

 Why the Model is Important................................................................................. 45 

 1. Workforce Development Services.................................................................... 46 

 2. Reentry Services ............................................................................................... 47 

 3. Organizational Attributes.................................................................................. 47 

 4. Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................................... 48 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xxviii Research and Evaluation Associates

Table of Contents (Continued) 

Section Page 

 5. Continuous Improvement ................................................................................. 48 

 Summary............................................................................................................... 49 

 IV. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL: SERVICES AND SERVICE 

DELIVERY MECHANISMS............................................................................... 51 

 Overview............................................................................................................... 51 

 Assessments and Service Plans..............................................................................53 

 Workforce Development Services .........................................................................55 

 Reentry Services ....................................................................................................56 

 Educational Services..............................................................................................58 

 Other Support Services ..........................................................................................60 

 Coordinating Mechanisms .....................................................................................61 

 Summary................................................................................................................65 

 V. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL: ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRIBUTES 

AND DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ................................................. 67 

 Overview............................................................................................................... 67 

 Organizational Attributes...................................................................................... 67 

 1. Developed a Well-conceived Plan........................................................... 68 

2. Established Partnerships between the Workforce Development 

 and Juvenile Justice Systems .............................................................. 72 

 3. Built Community Support/Network......................................................... 74 

 4. Grantee Involvement................................................................................ 75 

 5. Connected the Workforce Development, Justice, and Health 

 Care Systems....................................................................................... 76 

 6. Leveraged Resources Through Collaboration and Partnerships.............. 80 

 7. Shared Leadership and Information Sharing ........................................... 81 

 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................... 86 

 Summary............................................................................................................... 88 

 A Final Note on Partnerships................................................................................ 90 
Table of Contents 

Research and Evaluation Associates xxix

Table of Contents (Continued) 

Section Page 

 VI. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL: CONTINUOUS 

 IMPROVEMENT AND TECHICAL ASSISTANCE.......................................... 93 

 Overview............................................................................................................... 93 

 Technical Assistance............................................................................................. 94 

 Use of Evaluations and Other Learning Practices ............................................... 97 

 Significant Changes ............................................................................................ 100 

 On-Going Struggles ............................................................................................ 103 

 Summary............................................................................................................. 104 

 VII. STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH OFFENDERS AND YOUTH AT 

 RISK OF COURT OR GANG INVOLVEMENT...............................................111 

 Overview..............................................................................................................111 

 Category I Projects...............................................................................................112 

 Category III Projects........................................................................................... 121 

 Summary............................................................................................................. 131 

VIII. ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..................................................................................... 135 

 Overview............................................................................................................. 135 

 Individual -Level Outcomes ............................................................................... 135 

 Systems-Level Outcomes ................................................................................... 138 

New Resources ................................................................................................... 142 

Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 144 

Community and Employer Involvement............................................................. 147 

Project Challenges .............................................................................................. 149 

Projects’ Report of Accomplishments ................................................................ 151 

Summary............................................................................................................. 153

 IX. SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 155 

 Overview............................................................................................................. 155 

 Findings .............................................................................................................. 156 

 Context and Environment ................................................................................... 156 

 Youth Characteristics.......................................................................................... 156 

Recruitment and Retention ................................................................................. 156 

Public Management Model................................................................................. 157 

Service Delivery Mechanisms ............................................................................ 157 

System-level Accomplishments.......................................................................... 158 

Youth Accomplishments..................................................................................... 158 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xxx Research and Evaluation Associates

Table of Contents (Continued) 

Section Page 

Lessons Learned ................................................................................................. 159 

Value of Coordinated Services ........................................................................... 159 

Economic Environment ...................................................................................... 159 

Youth Employment............................................................................................. 159 

Use of Technical Assistance ............................................................................... 160 

Delivery Is Not Enough ...................................................................................... 160 

Importance of the PMM...................................................................................... 161

Recommendations and Closing .......................................................................... 163 

Recommendation # 1 .......................................................................................... 163 

Recommendation # 2 .......................................................................................... 163 

Recommendation # 3 .......................................................................................... 164 

Recommendation # 4 .......................................................................................... 164 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 165 

Employment and Training Glossary ............................................................................... 169

Juvenile Justice Glossary .................................................................................................173 

APPENDIX A - Solicitation for Grant Applications...................................................... A-1 

APPENDIX B - Data Collection Plan .............................................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C - Youth Offender Demonstration Project Round Two Field Guide, 

 Third Visit........................................................................................................... C-1 

APPENDIX D - Third Evaluation Site Visit Reports..................................................... D-1 

APPENDIX E - Description of Services Offered by Each Project..................................E-1 

APPENDIX F - Fact Sheet on Job Retention ..................................................................F-1 

APPENDIX G - Fact Sheet on Sustainability................................................................. G-1 

APPENDIX H - Linkages for Coordination of Services Within the 

Workforce System .............................................................................................. H-1 

APPENDIX I - DOL Common Data Elements.................................................................I-1 
List of Tables 

Research and Evaluation Associates xxxi

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1. Site Visit Round Two Projects..................................................................................18 

2a. Project Characteristics: Chicago...............................................................................24 

2b. Project Characteristics: New York............................................................................25 

2c. Project Characteristics: Pittsburgh............................................................................25 

2d. Project Characteristics: Colorado .............................................................................26 

2e. Project Characteristics: Cincinnati............................................................................27 

2f. Project Characteristics: Des Moines .........................................................................27 

2g. Project Characteristics: Erie......................................................................................28 

2h. Project Characteristics: Hartford ..............................................................................28 

2i. Project Characteristics: West Palm Beach ...............................................................29 

3 Barriers Faced by Round Two Projects ....................................................................31 

4 Characteristics of Youth Enrolled in Round Two.....................................................34 

5. Project Characteristics ...........................................................................................35 

6. Services Offered by Round Two Projects.................................................................53 

7. Types of Assessments...............................................................................................54 

8. Work Readiness Training Program Intensity and Duration by Project ....................55 

9. Educational Services Offered by Projects.................................................................59 

10. Route Counseling Services Offered by Round Two Projects...................................62 

11. Public Management Model: Organizational Attributes ............................................68 

12. Partnership Arrangements of the Round Two Demonstration Projects....................83 

13. Projects' Use of Evaluation .......................................................................................97 

14. Learning Practices for Integrated Service Delivery..................................................99 

15. Significant Changes Identified for Projects ............................................................101 

16. Technical Assistance Requested and Provided.......................................................105 

17. Individual Results at Aggregate Level....................................................................136 

18. Program Components Likely to be Sustained.........................................................145 

19. Challenges of Round 2 Projects..............................................................................150 

20. Project Accomplishments from the Grantees' Perspective ...................................151 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xxxii Research and Evaluation Associates
List of Figures 

Research and Evaluation Associates xxxiii

List of Figures 

 1. Total Youth Enrolled by Quarter ...............................................................................34 

 2. Enrolled Youth by Age Group...................................................................................36 

 3. Enrolled Youth by Offender Status............................................................................36 

 4. Enrolled Youth by Gender.........................................................................................37 

 5. Status by Age Group..................................................................................................37 

 6. Racial Background/Ethnicity.....................................................................................37 

 7. School Status..............................................................................................................38 

 8. School Status for the 14-17 Age Group.....................................................................38 

 9. Educational Status for 18-24 Age Group ...................................................................38 

 10. Public Management Model........................................................................................43 

 11. Employment by Age Group.....................................................................................137 

 12. Educational Services Youth Received .....................................................................138 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

xxxiv Research and Evaluation Associates
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 1

Section I 

IMPETUS AND BACKGROUND FOR THE DEMONSTRATION 

Introduction 

Between 1989 and 1994, juvenile crime rates and gang activity exploded onto the public 

consciousness as the number of juveniles arrested for violent crimes (murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault) increased by 62%. 

While that trend has since declined and leveled off, the sudden peak in violent juvenile 

crime has had a substantial influence on bringing and keeping this population on the 

public radar screen. 

At the same time there has been a rise in the level of gang activity. The National Youth 

Gang Survey indicates that in 2000 (Egley and Arjunan, 2002) there were well over 

24,000 gangs in 3,300 jurisdictions across the country with more than 770,000 gang 

members. While the numbers themselves are staggering, what is more important to 

realize is that the dynamics of juvenile crime and gang involvement have changed 

drastically, with gang problems now affecting more jurisdictions than ever before, 

including many smaller cities and rural areas and involving an increasing number of 

females and youth of all races. 

Not surprisingly, given these trends, the country has experienced a dramatic rise in 

juvenile incarceration rates. In 1998, 1.8 million delinquency cases were heard in courts 

with juvenile jurisdiction throughout the United States. Of the 630,000 cases that were 

adjudicated, more than one-quarter resulted in out-of-home placements. With such a huge 

number of our country’s court-involved youth entering residential treatment centers, 

juvenile corrections facilities, foster and group homes, the nation can expect a large 

number of youth will be leaving these facilities and returning home. Some estimates hold 

that as many as 625,000 offenders reenter their communities every year. 

In Highlights of the 2001 National Youth Gang Survey (Epley and Major, 2003), 63% 

of communities with a high level of gang involvement reported that the return of gang 

members to their communities intensified the youth crime rate, particularly violent crimes 

and drug trafficking. Thirty-four percent of these communities also reported that their 

communities did not have programs to prepare youth to return to the community. The 

costs to a community of not intervening to prevent cycles of recidivism are high. A study 

by Mark Cohen (1999) estimated that the external costs imposed on society by the 

average career criminal are between $1.3 and $1.5 million. This figure accounts for only 

those costs incurred by society: 

• Costs that the crimes impose on victims, 

• Expenses borne by criminal justice system (investigation, processing and 

punishment), and 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

2 Research and Evaluation Associates

• Productivity losses caused by incarceration. 

Although this kind of analysis is, by nature, somewhat speculative, these costs estimates 

help to paint a picture of the sort of economic waste involved in a life of crime and to 

suggest that even modest prevention efforts make good business sense. It is worth it to 

invest in these youth. 

As to social costs, specifically public safety, studies show that having a job with decent 

wages is associated with lower rates of re-offending (Harer, 1994). So interventions that 

involve effective employment and retention services can actually help protect public 

safety by reducing recidivism. 

There is, as well, the issue of labor market potential. Given the size of the youth 

population, this constitutes a large potential labor market pool, a substantial portion of 

which is not yet being tapped by the legitimate labor market. While the youth who 

participate in the demonstration projects have challenges, they also have skills and many 

of them have received some type of formal training in correctional facilities. 

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) initiated the 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project to identify, 

prepare and place this underutilized labor force into 

employment that would break both the cycle of crime 

and patterns of dependency on public support. The 

task is a challenge because of the multiple needs the 

youth bring to the projects that attempt to prepare 

them for legitimate work. 

The remainder of this section describes the goals of 

the demonstration and of the evaluation, reviews the 

history of the demonstration, cites some of the 

research literature on which the demonstration is 

based, and reports on the approach and methodology 

of the evaluation. 

Goals of the Demonstration 

The demonstration’s goal is to assist youth at-risk of court or gang involvement, youth 

offenders, and gang members between the ages of 14 and 24 to find long-term 

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

cycle of crime and juvenile delinquency. The demonstration’s objective is to develop 

effective community strategies that support youth in becoming work ready and capable of 

attaining and keeping employment that provides a future of economic stability and 

support civic engagement. 

“Demographics are pointing to

the fact that we are going to

have a workforce shortage in

the future, and it’s critical that

we build a competitive

workforce to address that. So

we need to look at all our

resources, and that includes

people who are coming out of

the corrections system.” Tom

Phillips, executive director,

Capital Region Workforce

Development Board, Hartford,

CT. 
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 3

Based on the evaluation of its youth employment programs, DOL designed the 

demonstration to require a coordinated delivery of a spectrum of services to youth 

already under court supervision or who were at risk of court supervision either because of 

gang membership or other risky behavior in their communities. DOL’s review of its 

carefully evaluated youth employment programs (OYS, 2002) recognized that effective 

interventions: 

• Were intensive and long-term, 

• Built on the principles of youth development, 

• Addressed the range of educational, vocational, health, emotional, and 

recreational needs of youth participants, 

• Included strong educational components, 

• Involved partner agencies with shared mandates for serving youth, and 

• Created systems for serving youth at the community level.

The Youth Offender Demonstration focused community efforts on infrastructure 

development, building on systems already in place in the community for serving youth. 

It also identified the range of services that some youth participants were likely to require, 

and provided technical assistance in meeting the challenges a community would address 

in changing the systems to serve targeted youth more effectively. 

This report documents the implementation progress made by projects in the second 

cohort of the demonstration. 

Goals of the Evaluation 

The evaluation’s goal was to document the implementation process of the nine Round 

Two projects over the demonstration. In addition, the evaluation was to note 

achievements and challenges as project staffs attempted to deliver coordinated services to 

targeted youth. The Department of Labor anticipated that the demonstration would 

surface mechanisms other communities could replicate to serve youth more effectively 

and in a sustainable way. 

Research and Evaluation Associates performed the evaluation of both Rounds One and 

Two under contract with DOL. This report describes, assesses and summarizes the 

evaluation team’s findings for Round Two. A major part of the evaluation focuses on the 

extent to which the projects were effective in building upon existing programs and 

systems to serve targeted youth. Research and Evaluation Associates also provided the 

technical assistance to the projects in Rounds One and Two. The evaluation and technical 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

4 Research and Evaluation Associates

assistance teams collaborated on several aspects of their efforts, and these will be 

described in the report as well. 

History of the Demonstration 

Congress set aside $13.1 million in DOL’s 1998 Program Year Pilot and Demonstration 

budget for programs to address the needs of youth who have been or who are at risk of 

being under juvenile or criminal justice supervision. In collaboration with the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice 

(DOJ), the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (DOL/ETA) 

awarded grants to the first set of Youth Offender Demonstration Projects in May 1999. 

Awards went to 14 entities: states, counties, cities, or nonprofit organizations. Grants 

were made for two years with the assumption that projects would need six months for 

planning and then would have 18 months for operations. 

In June 2001, DOL awarded over $8.2 million in demonstration grants to nine new 

entities. Round Two (like Round One) projects fell into one of three categories of grants: 

• Category I – Model Community Projects focused on impoverished, highcrime neighborhoods in large cities where they were required to expand work 

readiness and job placement services with gang prevention and suppression 

activities, alternative sentencing, aftercare and route counseling for 

neighborhood youth offenders and youth at risk of court or gang involvement. 

Round Two projects were located in: 

• Chicago, Illinois; 

• New York City, New York; and 

• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

• Category II – Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiatives

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

to incarcerated youth while they were in residential confinement and work 

readiness, job placement, and aftercare/reentry services after they returned to 

their home community. The Round Two project was awarded to: 

• Colorado Department of Human Services. 

• Category III – Community-Wide Coordination Projects focused on 

smaller communities with high youth crime rates and provided funds for local 

service providers to develop linkages that strengthened the coordination of 

prevention and aftercare services. Round Two projects were located in: 

• Cincinnati, Ohio; 
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 5

• Des Moines, Iowa; 

• Erie, Pennsylvania; 

• Hartford, Connecticut; and 

• West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Round Two projects were funded for 30 months: 24 months of operation and a final six 

months for preparing case files and electronic databases and making them available to 

DOL evaluators. Research and Evaluation Associates received the contract award to 

provide both technical assistance and evaluation services through a competitive bidding 

process. 

In June 2002, a third cohort of 29 communities received demonstration grants. The grants 

were made for 30 months as for the previous cohort, but categories of grant awards were 

more general: 

• Category A - Large Areas - High-crime communities with a population of 

400,000 and a high youth crime rate and a significant youth gang problem; 

and 

• Category B – Small to Medium-Sized Areas - High-crime communities with 

a population of at least 100,000 and not greater than 400,000 with a high 

youth crime rate and a significant youth gang problem. 

The demonstration has evolved over the three rounds. Projects were first funded just as 

the new Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) legislation was being implemented 

across the country. Connections between the projects and the local One-Stop system were 

tenuous at first. By the demonstration’s second and third rounds, the WIA One-Stop 

system became a more central focus. (See Appendix A for the Solicitation for Grant 

Applications [SGA].) 

Further evolution in the demonstration occurred through the expansion of federal 

partnerships. As mentioned earlier, the demonstration’s first round was selected by DOL 

with the collaboration of OJJDP. By the third round, the demonstration solicitation was 

issued by DOL’s Employment and Training Administration with the collaboration of the 

Department of Justice (Corrections Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, OJJDP, 

National Institute of Justice, and the National Weed and Seed Office), and the 

Department of Health and Human Services (Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Administration’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and Center for Mental Health 

Services). 

This evolution stems from the increasing appreciation of the number and nature of the 

challenges targeted youth bring to the process of becoming work ready and finding long-
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

6 Research and Evaluation Associates

term employment. Projects learned that many youth had not succeeded in school for a 

number of reasons: family mobility, learning problems, truancy, etc. Also, many youth 

experienced problems with substance abuse – their own or within their families. Until 

these personal concerns were addressed, youth were not stable enough to succeed in 

either school or work. 

The evolution of the demonstration over the three rounds is reflected in the DOL/ETA 

prepared statement of the principles that guided development of the demonstration (DOL, 

May 16, 2002): 

1. Expand workforce development partnerships within states and local areas by 

collaborating with justice, health care, housing and education agencies. 

2. Determine what organizational interventions can be provided to states and 

local communities that serve youth offenders and youth at risk of gang or 

court involvement. 

3. Encourage local One-Stop centers to be more active in increasing staff 

capacity to serve young job seekers. 

4. Introduce young job seekers to the array of job search, training, and placement 

services and income support available at One-Stop centers. 

5. Establish trust in government services and instill civic responsibility in young 

job seekers, promote youth development and advance public safety. 

6. Provide employability services and employment opportunities to young job 

seekers. 

7. Determine the efficacy of the Youth Offender and At-Risk Youth: Public 

Management Model (PMM) for State and Local Workforce Development 

Agencies that [surfaced among] initial demonstration sites that provided richer 

services [to targeted youth]. (The PMM is described and analyzed in later 

sections of the report.) 

Earlier, this section quoted some of the research that underlines the urgency of the effort 

to find ways to support youth offenders and other vulnerable youth in their efforts to 

obtain and retain employment—both to enhance their economic well being and to help 

them remain free of involvement with the courts. The literature reviewed in the next 

portion of this section describes the theoretical and experiential literature that supports 

the design of the demonstration and of the evaluation. 

Literature Review 

Research in several areas provides the theoretical basis for the demonstration and the 

evaluation. These include: 
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 7

• Youth development, 

• Youth training and employment, 

• The continuous improvement process, and 

• Evaluation Methodology. 

Youth Development 

The social development strategy that is the main design element of the demonstration is 

based on the concept of risk and protective factors. Howell, Krisberg, and Jones (1995)

note that risk factors exist in multiple domains within which youth live and interact: 

family, school, peer, and community. Hawkins and Catalano (1993) note further that 

the vulnerability to risk varies with age: home having the most effect until children begin 

school, and peer influences as youth enter adolescence. These risk factors transcend 

ethnic and economic boundaries, implying that all youth are vulnerable to risk factors. 

Benson, Galbraith, and Espelund (1995) report, on the other hand, that protective 

factors, such as, a strong family and social ties (e.g., sports or church participation), 

protect youth from the risk factors that exist in their world. King County, Washington, 

moved to enhance protective factors for vulnerable youth in its Reinvesting in Youth 

(2001) program sponsored by the Seattle Human Services Department. It disseminated a 

reinvestment strategy paper within the community, eliciting grassroots involvement in 

developing such activities as after-school programs and early education activities. Under 

a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant, Portland, Oregon, is attempting to build 

protective factors by encouraging early substance abuse interventions with teens. 

While these efforts aim to prevent risky behaviors among youth, other researchers have 

found that the youth development approach is also effective with youth who have already 

exhibited such behaviors. 

Yohalem and Pittman (2001) encourage a similar approach to youth development 

among vulnerable youth, focusing activities on the developmental goals of youth and not 

on their deficits. Finn-Aage Esbensen (2000) also uses risk factors in predicting which 

youth will become gang members and recommends protective factors for gang prevention 

efforts, that is, positive and attractive youth activities. 

Youth Training and Employment 

Considering youth employment in general, Lerman (2000) reports that a substantial 

proportion of adolescent Americans lack the basic skills that all employers require and 

that the United States has a weak system connecting education and careers. These factors 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

8 Research and Evaluation Associates

are exacerbated for vulnerable youth, those who come from neighborhoods with high 

unemployment and social dysfunction. He further reviews employment programs 

targeting such youth, noting few strong positive outcomes. 

Those that looked promising (Job 

Corps and Gulf Coast Trades) are 

residential in character and 

emphasized academic education 

aligned to strong vocational training. 

Another promising training project 

(Center for Employment Training and 

Focus: Hope) is strongly tied to 

industry jobs and employers. 

Buck (2000) reviews the experience 

of programs directed to helping 

offenders to get jobs when they return 

to their communities. She reports that 

the evaluation research on programs 

from the Great Society of the 1960s to 

experiments and pilot demonstrations 

in the 1980s found that nothing really 

worked. 

With the work of Harer (1994), she 

reports, the research shifted from 

evaluating the success of programs to 

evaluating the success of former 

offenders. This research indicates that 

offenders who had worked or been in 

school are less likely to re-offend. 

Those who had jobs before leaving 

incarceration also are less likely to reoffend. 

Research examining successful 

employment programs also noted the 

need for broad partnerships such as 

those indicated by the guiding 

principles. Buck observes that 

offenders need “intensive supervision, 

mandatory substance abuse treatment, 

employability training (such as basic 

education, vocational training and job 

search assistance), housing, family 

intervention services, parenting skills, 

Youth Risk Factors 

In the Community 

 Availability of drugs, 

 Availability of firearms, 

 Community laws and norms favorable 

toward drug use, firearms, and crime, 

 Media portrayals of violence, 

 Transitions and mobility, 

 Low neighborhood attachment and 

community disorganization, and 

 Extreme economic deprivation. 

In the School 

 Early and persistent anti-social behavior,

 Academic failure beginning in 

elementary school, and 

 Lack of commitment to school. 

In the Family 

 History of problem behavior, 

 Conflict management problems, 

 Unfavorable parental attitudes, and 

 Involvement in problem behaviors. 

By the Individual/Among Peers 

 Rebelliousness, 

 Friends who engage in problem 

behavior, 

 Favorable attitudes toward problem 

behavior, 

 Early initiation of problem behavior, and

 Constitutional factors. 

J.D. Hawkins and R. F. Catalano, (1993.)
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 9

and medical and mental health services.” She goes on to report that offenders need 

additional assistance such as basic education, a chance to earn a GED, vocational 

education and computer skills to 

move beyond low-skill entry-level 

positions. Mukamal (2001)

supports the need for links to such 

services. She finds that it is 

necessary to assist the former 

offenders in meeting their personal 

needs for them to gain and keep 

employment. 

Brown, et al. (2002) published 

“Barriers and Promising 

Approaches to Workforce and 

Youth Development for Young 

Offenders” as a toolkit for juvenile 

justice practitioners by the Annie 

E. Casey Foundation. The authors 

identify three important lessons 

from the study: 

• Employment and careerfocused programs that promote 

self-sufficiency are those that 

are comprehensive, sustained, 

grounded in the principles of 

youth development, and are 

connected to further education 

or long-term career 

opportunities;

• Preparing youth for workforce 

success requires more than 

providing them vocational 

training and job readiness 

classes; and

• Youth programs face 

significant barriers, including 

insufficient funding for 

alternative strategies; taxpayer 

resistance; focus on 

punishment instead of 

empowerment; overwhelmed 

and dysfunctional courts; and 

Developmental Assets: An Overview 

Youth Protective Factors 

External Assets

 Support -Young people need to experience 

support, care, and love from their families, 

neighbors, and many others. They need 

organizations and institutions that provide 

positive, supportive environments. 

 Empowerment -Young people need to be 

valued by their community and have 

opportunities to contribute to others. For this to 

occur, they must be safe and feel secure. 

 Boundaries and expectations -Young people 

need to know what is expected of them and 

whether activities and behaviors are “in bounds” 

and “out of bounds.” 

 Constructive use of time -Young people need 

constructive, enriching opportunities for growth 

through creative activities, youth programs, 

congregational involvement, and quality time at 

home. 

Internal Assets 

 Commitment to learning -Young people need 

to develop a lifelong commitment to education 

and learning. 

 Positive values -Youth need to develop strong 

values that guide their choices. 

 Social competencies -Young people need skills 

and competencies that equip them to make 

positive choices, to build relationships, and to 

succeed in life. 

 Positive identity -Young people need a strong 

sense of their own power, purpose, worth, and 

promise. 

Search Institute (2003)
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

10 Research and Evaluation Associates

lack of interagency collaboration.

The authors also identify several features of programs, which they consider exemplary: 

• Commitment to rehabilitation, 

• Continuum of care, 

• Integrated education, 

• System collaboration, 

• Support structures, and 

• Accountability. 

The Youth Offender Demonstration responds to the findings that protective factors can 

mitigate the effect of risk factors by requiring focused and intensive education and 

training for the workforce. It recognizes that workforce experience is likely to reconnect 

former offenders to their community and assist them in avoiding future brushes with the 

law. By recommending constructive and proactive efforts, the demonstration builds on 

youth development principles. With the focus on systems building involving multiple 

partners to share the responsibility and the costs of serving these high-need youth, the 

demonstration anticipates that communities will be able to sustain the services for longterm support. 

Another aspect of the demonstration recognizes that systems change is often slow and 

difficult (Scott, 1992). Communities participating in the demonstration were encouraged 

to take a continuous improvement approach to implementing the services and 

coordinating mechanisms. DOL provided technical assistance to projects to assist them in 

taking the incremental steps needed to engage stakeholders and partners, establishing the 

service system, and negotiating the long-term coordinating mechanisms that would assure 

that services would be available as long as the youth needed them. 

Continuous Improvement and Organizational Learning 

As a result of experience with the first round of demonstration projects, DOL identified 

the principle of continuous improvement as an important component to be incorporated 

into the planning, implementation, and management for the Round Two projects. 

Affholter (1994) explains the continuous-improvement approach: 

The essence of continuous quality improvement is the focused 

diagnosis of barriers to better performance, followed by the design of 

alternatives to remove or circumvent those barriers, the 

implementation of trials to test those alternatives, and finally the 
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 11

expansion of successful efforts to raise performance levels while 

shrinking variability. 

In theory, the result of this effort to assess and change as needed will be that projects will 

improve their performance as they proceed through their implementation. On a more 

practical level, having a continuous improvement approach in place both helps projects 

identify barriers, and also assists them in designing alternatives to remove or circumvent 

them. The projects that do this are innovative enough to test strategies to overcome the 

barriers to see if they work. Above all, such projects discard those that fail to work and 

use those that do. 

Continuous improvement becomes part of the organizational culture. More specifically, 

improvements in an organization’s operation are achieved when all of its members 

understand how the continuous improvement process works and take responsibility to 

work toward several ends. These especially include achieving higher levels of 

organizational performance, efficient use of resources, and client satisfaction.

In recent years, given the proliferation of research on organizational learning, many 

definitions of the concept exist (Huber, 1993). Three ways it has been described are that 

it is: 

• More than the sum of individual learning; 

• The process of improving actions through better knowledge and 

understanding; and 

• A routine-based, history-dependent and target-oriented result. 

Implicit in these definitions is the premise that the target entity, which includes 

organizations, groups, and projects, will eventually demonstrate evidence of learning at 

the institutional level through a continuous improvement process. The learning acquired 

by members of an organization becomes reflected in the culture, routines and procedures 

of the entity. Accepting technical assistance and being flexible to change procedures and 

organizational arrangements become signs of strength, not weakness. Organizational 

leaders and staff acknowledge to themselves that their task is not easily addressed, and 

that it is consistent with their commitment to quality to keep changing until they achieve 

their goals. 

Benefits that a demonstration can derive from actively pursuing the goal of becoming a 

learning organization are manifold: 

• First, being a learning organization helps the demonstration navigate through 

ambiguous territory, which might be characterized as events that are not under 

the demonstration’s control. These include, for example, the possible end of 

grant funding, a change in the target population or a shift in public policy 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

12 Research and Evaluation Associates

priorities. The culture of experimentation and encouraging exploration of 

uncharted territories is the cornerstone philosophy of learning organizations. 

• Second, organizational learning helps demonstrations adapt to their 

environment. In a learning organization, change is proactively managed rather 

than reactive to challenges, threats and changes in its operating environment. 

This attitude develops resiliency in the organizational structure of the projects 

and helps them exploit their environments by expanding their boundaries. For 

example, a demonstration might adapt successful practices in one area to a 

new policy arena where funding seems more promising. 

• Finally, the third and the most-important benefit from organizational learning 

is derived from the cost saving and efficient use of resources. Case studies 

show that resilient organizational structures, an open learning culture, and 

good data management techniques (also known as the three basic foundations 

of a learning organization) lead to sizable cost saving and efficient use of 

resources. 

The evaluation and technical assistance team emphasized that the demonstration was 

searching for mechanisms that other communities could replicate based on the learning 

by the staff and leaders of the demonstrations. Technical assistance was promoted as an 

opportunity for organizational and staff development. Tracking progress became a major 

concern for all involved because it was on such sound assessment that continuous 

improvement became possible. 

The following portion of the section addresses the approach and methods used by the 

evaluation team in studying the process of implementation of the demonstration. 

Evaluation Methodology 

A process evaluation is a study of implementation and is defined as, “ the use of 

empirical data to assess the delivery of programs ... it forces clear thinking about what 

the program is” (Scheirer, 1994). The process evaluation of the Youth Offender 

Demonstration assumes that consistent program outcomes will not be achieved until 

demonstration projects have resolved the challenges of structuring the activities and 

processes to serve the youth effectively. Researchers have found that projects that do not 

meet expected outcomes may not have implemented planned activities or enrolled target 

youth, so the study of implementation is a first step to assure that the project is doing 

what it planned before examining the outcomes. 

The process evaluation methodology employed in the Youth Offender Demonstration 

was driven by the nature of the demonstration. Grantees varied considerably by type of 

agency providing services, types of services provided, and the characteristics of clients 

served. Some grantees were justice agencies, others workforce agencies, while others 

were community-based organizations. Grantees were states, counties, municipalities or 
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 13

non-governmental organizations. Some target areas were counties; others were cities or a 

few neighborhoods within a city. 

Program components also varied, and the common data elements required by DOL for 

project monitoring purposes did not always reflect common program elements. 

Together, these factors made cross-project quantitative comparisons impossible. Some 

projects tried to keep youth in school, and others recruited only youth over the age of 18. 

Comparing the employment figures for two projects that provided different services 

might make one look more successful than the other when the numbers really reflected 

different service delivery strategies or different target populations. Similarly, one project 

distributed application forms at youth group meetings and high school classes, but 

enrolled only those that came to project offices to get services. Other projects recruited 

and enrolled youth while they were incarcerated. Again, comparing the project 

recruitment and enrollment ratios or achievements of projects that recruited different 

types of youth (with different needs) could lead to misleading assessments of their 

success. 

With the emphasis on continuous improvement and organizational learning, evaluators 

chose a formative evaluation methodology. This approach is a process evaluation (study 

of implementation) that provides feedback to grantees, technical assistance specialists, 

and DOL project officers. This formative approach allows the sharing of evaluation 

reports with demonstration stakeholders as an element in the continuous improvement 

feedback loop. Grantees were encouraged to experiment with alternative service delivery 

strategies and to change them as part of the continuous-improvement process until they 

achieved the project’s goals. 

The process evaluation approach adopted by Research and Evaluation Associates 

assumed that demonstration grantees were willing to become learning organizations, that 

is, that they were open to organizational change even as they were in the process of 

supporting change in their clients. A goal of the evaluators was to “play an expanded and 

more productive role within the organizations” (Torres and Preskill, 2001). 

A formative evaluation does have its critics. The chief criticism of this approach to 

evaluation is that it is difficult for the evaluator to maintain the role of the objective 

outsider. Objectivity was protected in this evaluation in several ways: 

• Evaluators were not the only observers since there was a technical assistance 

team, technical assistance specialists, the DOL project officers, and the 

opinions and views of the grantees and their colleagues. 

• The site visit evaluation team was composed of five experienced researchers 

who brought independent judgment to their efforts. 

• Another researcher, who was not on the site visit team, performed much of the 

analysis of the qualitative data resulting from the site visits. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

14 Research and Evaluation Associates

• The completed field guides of each visit were shared within the evaluation 

team and were the basis of a common debriefing. 

• The debriefings from each round of site visits were done together, with 

evaluators probing each other for specific evidence in support of observations. 

Evaluation Design 

The evaluation was designed to ensure that the issues of interest to DOL were addressed 

systematically. The evaluation of the demonstration was designed to examine the 

activities of key actors, dimensions of project organization, relationships among partners, 

and environmental characteristics identified in the literature and from the demonstration’s 

first round as factors that affected project implementation success. 

Typically, process evaluations serve several broad objectives. The Youth Offender 

Demonstration Project targeted the following evaluation objectives named by 

Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (1985): 

• Providing feedback about the pattern and schedule at which the program 

activities developed, expected activities were carried out, and services were 

delivered to the expected audience; 

• Assessing the extent to which program staff and administrators carried out 

their roles and partner organizations formed linkages; and 

• Providing a record of the program that was actually implemented and how it 

may have differed from what was intended. 

The ultimate goal of each project was to help participants secure long-term employment 

at wage levels that would break the cycle of dependency and delinquency. A major 

purpose of the process evaluation, therefore, was to assess the implementation process of 

each project and to gauge the extent to which each was effective in building upon 

existing programs and systems to deliver coordinated services to the target population 

and in turn reach this goal. 

Evaluation Framework 

In addition to using Stufflebeam and Shinkfield’s objectives, the process evaluation 

designed by Research and Evaluation Associates followed the sequence of their CIPP 

model — Context, Inputs, Process, and Product. CIPP is a system-flow model that 

emphasizes tracking a program’s temporal flow through its components, including 

project design, start-up, and implementation phases. According to Stufflebeam and 

Shinkfield, the context in which a program is implemented helps explain how inputs and 

processes (techniques and interventions) work to produce the product – or the outcomes 

that realize the objectives. 
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 15

In the case of the demonstration, each project’s context consisted of several different 

dimensions: demographic characteristics of the community; the economic conditions of 

the community such as the rate of unemployment; the degree of cohesiveness of existing 

service delivery systems prior to the start of grant activities; and aspects of the local 

culture that made some delivery techniques and interventions more appropriate than 

others. Within this context, project officials designed and implemented their projects. 

Each step of the process was structured in such a way that one preceded another, ending 

with the product of the project. 

In addition to the CIPP system-flow model, the process evaluation also used a Public 

Management Model (PMM) developed by the evaluation and technical assistance teams 

and DOL staff during the demonstration’s first round. The initial model was further 

refined during the second round, and served as a lens for the evaluators, the technical 

assistance team, and the project staff and leadership to view demonstration activity from 

a systems perspective. 

Although findings through two rounds of the demonstration do not indicate that there is a 

single effective approach to service delivery, the findings have identified components 

shared by the most successfully implemented projects that appear to have universal 

application. It is the contention of Research and Evaluation Associates and DOL that 

organizations that structure their work around these components will better formulate, 

implement, and administer an effective project that targets youth offenders and youth at 

risk of court or gang involvement. 

Given this contention, DOL agreed that the PMM could serve as a schema to gauge the 

progress that Round Two projects made toward achieving their objectives and goals. The 

evaluation team found that the model helped analysis and facilitated comparison of 

projects both within and across categories. The results of the application of the model are 

presented in Sections III, IV, and V. 

Research Questions 

DOL provided the evaluation team with eight questions to guide the development of the 

evaluation. These questions fit into the CIPP sequence and could be addressed through 

the evaluation framework of the PMM. During the evaluation design phase, however, the 

evaluators added two additional research questions to accommodate all the elements of 

the PMM. The questions were: 

1. What is the context of each project and how did it influence the project 

development and implementation? 

2. How did the community planning bodies charged with the on-going tasks of 

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

involvement of the stakeholders, including parents and youth? 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

16 Research and Evaluation Associates

3. What program components were implemented and how successful were the 

efforts to build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an 

integrated network? 

4. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful 

were they? 

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

population as program participants and how successful were they? 

6. What types of training, employment, and gang suppression programs were 

provided to the target population? What were the intensity, duration, and quality 

of those programs? 

7. 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? 

8. In what ways do employment and training projects serving youth who have been 

in the criminal justice system or who are at risk of such involvement differ from 

traditional approaches to serving youth? 

9. What was the status of the management information system that collects and 

maintains data on the clients? 

10. What was the feedback system to enhance the ability of the projects to learn from 

their efforts, including those efforts that are either successful or unsuccessful? 

The correspondence between the CIPP sequence and the research questions is clear: 

a. Context – Question 1 

b. Inputs – Questions 2, 4, 5, 9 

c. Process – Questions 3, 6, 8 

d. Products – Questions 7, 10. 

Question No. 10 took on particular importance as DOL viewed the concept of continuous 

improvement as the feedback mechanism that helps bring about institutionalized change 

at the system level, which ultimately affects individual outcomes in positive ways. 

The questions not only formed the framework for the evaluation site visits, but also 

helped determine the kind of technical assistance recommended for each site. The 

questions reflected the comprehensive scope of the project and the importance of tracking 

youth through every stage of the intervention to assure grantees, stakeholders, and DOL 

that the project sites were implementing the project as the projects proposed and 

intended. 

Data Collection 
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 17

As explained in the preceding section, the system-flow model, the Public Management 

Model, and the 10 evaluation questions formed the basis for addressing the major areas of 

study identified by the evaluation team. The evaluation team drew upon an array of data 

sources at the nine project sites, both quantitative and qualitative, which it used to answer 

the research questions. These methods included: 

• Observations of project planning meetings and program operations; 

• Unstructured interviews with program planners, program implementers, 

youth, parents, community representatives, employers, and other stakeholders 

during visits to project sites; 

• Systems analysis (i.e., identifying the interconnected systems that supported 

project development and implementation such as community and faith-based 

organizations, One-Stop centers, schools, courts, employment and training 

programs, local businesses, etc); 

• Exchange of information with the demonstration’s technical assistance team; 

• Document reviews (e.g., project statements of work, needs/strengths 

assessments, strategic and implementation plans, records of court involvement 

by youth, etc.); and 

• Abstractions of data from project records and standardized reports about the 

outcomes for members of the target population. 

In the design for the process evaluation, the evaluation team identified data elements it 

would likely need to answer the DOL questions (See Appendix B for the Data Collection 

Plan). Evaluators also aligned the questions with components of the PMM. From these 

two sources, the evaluation team prepared field guides for each of a series of site visits to 

the nine projects. (See APPENDIX C for the field guide used for the final site visits 

conducted in the fall of 2003.) After approval of each field guide by DOL, evaluators 

held an orientation meeting with all evaluation team members to review the field guide 

and to clarify any questions. To ensure validity and reliability of the data collected, 

evaluators used standard triangulation techniques and multiple sources of information, as 

practical. 

Each project received three evaluation visits of two days each. Table 1 reports the 

schedule of the three visits to the projects in Round Two. Below the table, there is a 

description of each visit. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

18 Research and Evaluation Associates

Table 1. Site Visit Schedule for Round Two Projects 

Grantee Baseline Visit Second Visit Final Visit 

Chicago, IL March 13-14, 2002 November 5-6, 2002 September 15-16, and 

October 6-7, 2003 

Cincinnati, OH January 10-11, 2002 December 16-17, 2002 October 14-15, 2003 

Colorado January 9-11, 2002 November 5-6, 2002 September 23-24, 2003 

Des Moines, IA December 13-14, 2001 November 20-21, 2002 September 22-23, 2003 

Erie, PA December 11-12, 2001 November 18-19, 2002 September 28-30, 2003 

Hartford, CT December 19-20, 2001 January 14-15, 2003 September 17-18, 2003 

New York City, NY November 28-30, 2001 November 18-19, 2002 September 30-October 1, 2003 

Pittsburgh, PA January 3-4, 2002 November 18-19, 2002 September 10-11, 2003 

West Palm Beach, FL November 27-28, 2001 December 5-6, 2002 September 8-9, 2003 

First Site Visit. The purpose of the baseline evaluation visits was to document the status 

of the projects early in their implementation. The emphasis was on gaining rich detail of: 

• The project’s goals, the partnerships in place and planned, especially the 

crucial partnership between the workforce development and justice agencies; 

• The planning process and status of implementation planning; 

• The sources of the target youth, planned approach to service delivery, and the 

expectations of service demands; 

• The status of the project hiring process, the skills and background of project 

staff, and the plans for orienting staff members to their role and the goals of 

the grant; 

• The community context for the grant activity: the economy, the employers 

likely to employ youth, other youth service organizations that target youth 

could access and the political support for the project; and 

• The management information system in place or planned for the project and 

the experience of the grantee with using data for managing, accountability, 

and sustainability. 

Each visit included lengthy interviews of the grantee representative and representatives of 

each partner. Visitors went to offices where youth were being (or would be) served and 

met project frontline staff. Several projects were adding services to existing youth service 

projects, so there were some youth to interview. 

A few grantees already were serving youth, and evaluators collected data on services for 

these. For most grantees, however, collecting information about enrollment and services 

was deferred to the second visit. Each evaluator prepared a report on the baseline visit, 

answering as many of the study questions as possible, given each project’s development. 

Reports of these visits were submitted to DOL, which in turn, submitted them to the DOL 

project officers and the grantees. Reports were also sent to the technical assistance team. 
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 19

Grantees were asked to comment or raise questions about the reports after reading them. 

While several projects returned corrections of factual material, such as the spelling of a 

person’s name, none raised substantive questions. 

Second Site Visit. The second evaluation site visits occurred about one year after the 

baseline visits. The purpose of the visit was to collect information about youth enrolled, 

youth retention, services delivered, and day-to-day project activities. The field guide for 

the second visits emphasized questions to identify the extent to which the organizational 

attributes were characteristic of grantees one year after funding and after two training 

events for grantees focused on their importance. The technical assistance events were at 

grantee conferences held in October 2001 and April 2002. Evaluators looked for evidence 

that the projects used data for continuous improvement. They also looked at ways that the 

workforce development, justice and other systems worked collaboratively. 

These visits included a second lengthy interview with the grantee and representatives of 

the partners. By the time of the visit, all the projects had hired staff members who could 

be interviewed as well. All but one project had enrolled youth at this time, so youth were 

also interviewed. Site visit reports were submitted to the DOL Federal Project Officer 

(FPO), who in turn distributed them to the DOL project officers and the grantees. 

Third Site Visit. Final evaluation site visits commenced near the end of the grantees’ 

period of performance, about Month 27 of the project. One purpose of the final visit was 

to document any important changes in context or organization of the projects that had 

occurred since the time of the second visit. Evaluators emphasized describing each 

project’s approach to sustaining its program after the end of DOL funding. Projects were 

to have not only built a case for sustainability based on their results to date, but also to 

have planned for ensuring that services would continue to target youth. 

At this final visit, evaluators also collected data on youth outcomes as well as information 

on the extent to which the projects had changed the service delivery system within their 

communities. For this latter accomplishment, evaluators looked for evidence of new 

partnerships and collaborations that were expected to continue to provide an array of 

services for workforce development, reentry, and other support areas. Finally, evaluators 

identified barriers and challenges facing the projects at this stage in the grant period, as 

well as evidence of significant project accomplishments and lessons learned. 

After each round of evaluation visits, evaluators convened to debrief the experience and 

recommend changes to the field guide or visit logistics. Findings of these meetings were 

complemented by analysis of field notes by an evaluator who had not made any of the 

visits, but knew the project well from earlier design meetings. The results of these 

analyses appear in Section II and succeeding sections 

Data Analysis. The analysis of data involves examining, categorizing, tabulating, and 

otherwise recombining qualitative and quantitative evidence (Yin, 2003). In preparation 

for data analysis, evaluators compared data from different sources and attempted to 

identify and reconcile discrepancies. The evaluation team conducted the three 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

20 Research and Evaluation Associates

fundamental analytic tasks during the process evaluation, as articulated by Rossi and 

Freeman (1993): 

• Described the project and how it was implemented; 

• Compared sites within categories to determine commonalities, differences, 

barriers, and successes; and 

• Determined whether the project conforms to its design.

An important part of the evaluation was examining the data to determine whether each 

project was achieving the its desired results. In addition, evaluators used qualitative and 

quantitative data, as appropriate, to inform analyses about significant changes in project 

plans; contextual changes; and unexpected consequences resulting from the project, as 

well as barriers, challenges, and successes. Evaluators examined initial reports of youth 

achievements, as well: increased schooling, subsidized and unsubsidized employment, 

and avoidance of conviction and incarceration. 

The approach to data analysis, in general, followed standard qualitative and quantitative 

methods used during process evaluations. These are: 

• Qualitative Methods: These generally consist of description and 

interpretation. In addition, the methods include development of a grid for 

studying and comparing qualitative data at different points in the project. This 

approach is particularly valuable in identifying where linkages break down or 

fail and when components of programs either are poorly implemented or not 

implemented at all. 

• Quantitative Methods: In process evaluations these consist of 

descriptive statistics. Particularly important are demographic features and 

initial outcomes data, such as placements in jobs. The field guide and final 

design document ensured that measures identified were appropriate and that 

they sufficiently cover a range of activities projects were expected to 

implement. 

Using both the qualitative and quantitative data collected, the first step of the analysis 

task was to give a full and accurate description of each project. This focused on such 

elements as: 

• What partnerships were in place; 

• What activities the partners were producing together that they could not do 

singly; 

• What audience was being served; 
Section I – Impetus and Background for the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 21

• What proportion of the intended audience was being served; 

• What services were received by youth; and 

• What project goals were being met (for the demonstration, the goal was longterm employment of youth at wage levels that would prevent future 

dependency and break the cycle of crime and juvenile delinquency)? 

A second task was to compare the implementation of the demonstration across sites so 

evaluators could better understand the basis of differences they observed. This analysis 

also addressed the extent to which standardization versus flexibility of program 

characteristics contributed to program implementation success in different settings. 

The third task was the fundamental one of asking whether the project, as implemented, 

conformed to the project design. The approach to this process evaluation recognized that 

any technical assistance projects received, as well as community contextual factors, 

might have changed the project design as it was implemented. The analysis compared the 

operative project description in the implementation plan with the implementation 

observed during each site visit. As with any demonstration, this approach surfaced 

variations among sites, which indicated other approaches that produced positive 

outcomes for both youth and employers. 

Limitations of the Research 

This report assesses the progress Round Two grantees made in implementing their 

projects as they approached completion of the grant period. Similar to projects in Round 

One, grantees began at different places. Some added services to an existing program 

while others initiated new services tailored to the needs of targeted youth. In the case of 

both rounds, the depth of needs of youth varied by project. Some projects worked with 

youth offenders who had multiple and deep service needs while others worked more with 

youth at risk of gang and court involvement. 

No judgment can be made about the long-term success or promise of a particular service 

delivery profile at this time. At the time of the third visits, the demonstrations were 

continuing to refine and reshape the delivery of services to the youth participants. As 

mentioned earlier, demonstration goals varied by site, so the evaluation team reports 

salient features of the nine projects in a way to discourage facile comparisons. 

The goal of the demonstration was to have each grantee achieve the goals it set in 

collaboration with DOL. Numeric goals, in particular, were not the highest priority; the 

highest priority was learning which mechanisms helped the youth achieve their goals and 

the goals the project had set with them. That goal was to identify promising strategies for 

assisting youth achieve employment at wage levels that would avoid future dependency 

and break the cycle of recidivism. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

22 Research and Evaluation Associates

Organization of the Report 

Eight major sections follow this introduction to the Final Report: 

• Section II introduces the nine projects and the patterns observed at the project 

level. The descriptions include context, type of grantee and different forms of 

partnership models. They also describe youth participants at an aggregate and 

project level. 

• Section III introduces the Public Management Model (PMM) and describes 

the theoretical basis for it and how it applies to the nine projects of Round 

Two. This section also lists and describes the services the projects delivered. 

• Section IV focuses on the service delivery aspect of the Public Management 

Model. 

• Section V describes the organizational attributes and data collection and 

analysis components of the PMM. 

• Section VI describes the continuous improvement approach of the projects 

and the technical assistance that supported it. 

• Section VII summarizes the main strategic mechanisms the projects used to 

achieve their goals. 

• Section VIII provides an overview of youth-specific and system-level 

accomplishments at an aggregate level. 

• Section IX serves as a summary of the Final Report. It draws together lessons 

learned and provides recommendations for communities interested in 

mounting a cross-agency service delivery mechanism to serve the target 

population. 

• References and Appendices follow Section IX. 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 23

Section II 

OVERVIEW OF THE DEMONSTRATION 

This section consists of two parts. The first part describes the patterns observed at the 

project level, type of grantee, and different forms of partnership models the projects 

followed. It closes with a description of the context within which the projects operated. 

The second part describes project youth at an aggregate level and at the project level. 

Discussions include youth status, whether they were offenders or at risk of court and 

gang involvement, age, gender and other demographic characteristics. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

The demonstration’s goal is to assist youth at-risk of court or gang involvement, youth 

offenders, and gang members between the ages of 14 and 24 to find long-term 

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

cycle of crime and juvenile delinquency. The demonstration’s objective is to identify 

effective community strategies that support youth in becoming work ready and capable of 

attaining and keeping employment that will provide a future of economic stability and 

support civic engagement. 

In June 2001, DOL awarded demonstration grants to 

nine entities. Grants were for 30 months: the first 24 

months were devoted to providing program services 

and the final six months were for preparing case files 

and electronic databases and making them available 

to DOL evaluators. 

DOL awarded the grants based on three categories of 

projects. Category I projects were in large cities with 

a high crime rate, and the projects were primarily to 

offer a rich array of services to youth based on their 

needs. 

The Category II project was awarded to states for 

school-to-work activities for youth while they were 

incarcerated, support activities during their transition 

back to the community, and work readiness and job 

placement services once they were home. 

Category III awards went to small communities with 

high youth crime rates. The emphasis in Category III 

projects was on building infrastructure to support the 

delivery of services to the target population. 

Projects 

 By Categories 

Category I 

 Chicago, IL 

 New York City, NY 

 Pittsburgh, PA 

Category II 

 Colorado 

Category III 

 Cincinnati, OH 

 Erie, PA 

 Des Moines, IA 

 Hartford, CT 

 West Palm Beach, FL 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

24 Research and Evaluation Associates

As the projects evolved, the distinctions among the three categories became less apparent. 

Category III projects such as Hartford and West Palm Beach, for example, realized that 

their major concern was not just about developing partnerships and building the service 

delivery infrastructure, but also about enrolling youth and providing them services. By 

the time DOL issued the SGA for Round Three, the distinctions were blurred to the 

extent that the categories of the grant awards were more general: Category A was for 

large areas; and Category B was to consist of small to medium-sized areas. 

As a prelude to analysis, the following short profiles introduce each project and provide 

project-specific information about the nature of grantee, partnerships, sub-contractors and 

pre-existing structures among service providers. (See Appendix D for third evaluation 

site visit reports.) 

Category I Projects 

Table 2a. Project Characteristics: Chicago 

Grantee Project 

Name 

SubContract for 

Primary 

Services 

Partners at 

Project 

Inception 

Partners for 

Services 

Pre-Existing 

Conditions 

Change in 

Partners or 

Roles 

Mayor’s 

Office of 

Workforce 

Development 

(MOWD) 

YouthLink Goodwill 

Industries of 

Metropolitan 

Chicago 

MOWD and 

Goodwill 

Industries of 

Metropolitan 

Chicago 

Thirteen 

Consortium 

members 

NONE Two new 

CBO partners 

provide case 

management 

services 

Chicago, IL. The Chicago Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development (MOWD) 

subcontracted management of the project’s day-to-day operations to Goodwill Industries 

of Metropolitan Chicago, Inc. A consortium of 40 community-based organizations 

provided the project’s core structure. The project linked 13 service providers, 

subcontractors to Goodwill, and their referral networks and resources to deliver what the 

project called a holistic response to project participants. The project initially served both 

older and younger youth. In June 2002, when Goodwill itself received a Round Three 

grant, however, youth were separated with the Round Two project serving mostly 

younger youth. Route counseling was initially provided by a single agency, but during 

the project’s last year these responsibilities were divided between two subcontractor 

agencies, which served youth according to the Zip code where they lived. 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 25

Table 2b. Project Characteristics: New York 

Grantee Project 

Name 

Sub-Contract 

for Primary 

Services 

Partners at 

Project 

Inception 

Partners for 

Services 

Pre-Existing 

Conditions 

Change in 

Partners or 

Roles 

Friends of 

Island 

Academy 

(FOIA) 

NONE NONE Robin Hood 

Foundation 

Pinkerton 

Foundation 

Department of 

Education 

Human 

Resources 

Administration 

Department of 

Education 

Grantee 

already offered 

delinquency 

gang 

prevention and 

postincarceration 

services 

New 

partnerships 

developed to 

increase 

sustainability 

and to help 

secure 

additional 

funding 

New York City, NY. Friends of Island Academy (FOIA) received the New York City 

grant. FOIA is a non-profit organization founded in 1990 to provide mentoring and 

employment assistance primarily to youth leaving the Rikers Island Youth Correctional 

Facilities. Before the DOL grant, FOIA offered both delinquency and gang prevention 

and post-incarceration services. Grant funds were used to expand educational services for 

youth after incarceration, to add a formal Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) program for 

60 youth, increase the presence of transition outreach workers to youth in both the young 

men’s and the young women’s correctional facilities on Rikers Island, initiate an 

employment retention effort, and expand prevention outreach to high schools and public 

housing projects. Neither the ATI program nor the employment retention activities were 

continued after the DOL funding ended. (Although youth returning from Rikers Island 

are the main target group, youth incarcerated elsewhere in New York who are released to 

the city are also eligible to be members of FOIA.) 

Table 2c. Project Characteristics: Pittsburgh 

Grantee Project 

Name 

Sub-Contract 

for Primary 

Services 

Partners at 

Project 

Inception 

Partners for 

Services 

Pre-Existing

Conditions 

Change in 

Partners or 

Roles 

YouthWorks, 

Inc. (Nonprofit) 

BluePrint Life’s Work of 

Western PA 

provided most 

of services 

initially. 

YouthWorks 

assumed case 

management 

responsibilities

TRWIB 

(CareerLink 

One-Stop) 

Addison 

Behavioral 

Care 

Western 

Psychiatric 

Institute and 

Clinic 

YouthWorks 

worked with 

youth in the 

target area 

for years 

University of 

Pittsburgh 

school of 

social work 

and local 

AmeriCorps 

chapter 

provide 

workforce 

development 

services 

Pittsburgh, PA. YouthWorks, Inc., a non-profit organization founded in 1994 which 

received a demonstration grant, plays a key role in the Pittsburgh region’s youth 

workforce development. YouthWorks submitted its application in collaboration with the 

Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board. The project targeted adjudicated youth within 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

26 Research and Evaluation Associates

the city’s Community Development Block Grant Area. YouthWorks initially 

subcontracted all aspects of service delivery to other organizations, including Life’sWork 

of Western Pennsylvania, which provided route counseling and project coordination. 

During the summer of 2003, however, YouthWorks assumed route counseling 

responsibilities. Other major partners included Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic 

and Addison Behavioral Care, Inc., which received subcontracts to provide youth mental 

health and substance abuse services, respectively. 

Category II Project 

Table 2d. Project Characteristics: Colorado 

Grantee Project 

Name 

SubContract for 

Primary 

Services 

Partners at 

Project 

Inception 

Partners 

for 

Services 

PreExisting 

Conditions 

Change in 

Partners or 

Roles 

Department 

of Human 

Services - 

Division of 

Youth 

Corrections 

(DYC) 

Y.E.A.R.S. Center for 

Network 

Development 

Tri-county 

Workforce 

Center 

DYC 

Tri-county 

Workforce 

Center 

Center for 

Network 

Development 

Tri-county 

Adams, 

ArapahoeDouglas, 

Denver 

Workforce 

Dev. 

Centers; 

Lookout 

Mountain 

Youth 

Services 

Center 

Strong 

aftercare 

program 

already in 

place 

Department. 

of Vocational 

Rehabilitation 

became a 

partner with 

state funds 

Colorado Department of Human Services. Colorado’s Department of Human Services, 

Division of Youth Corrections received the only Category II grant. The grant targeted 

Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center (LMYSC) for project efforts. LMYSC is the 

most secure facility for young males in the Division of Youth Corrections system, and 

receives youth from throughout the state; most youth were 18 by the time of their release. 

The Division of Youth Corrections subcontracted out the entire project. A small portion 

went to the Center for Network Development for assistance in developing a youth 

employer network and for facilitating the development of the stakeholders into full 

partnership. The Tri-county Workforce Center, the Workforce Investment Board for 

Jefferson, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties, received the remainder of the funds; it was 

the fiduciary agent for the grant. Tri-county Workforce Center subcontracted part of the 

funds to each of the other workforce development centers serving youth in the central 

region of the state: Adams, Arapaho-Douglas, and Denver Counties’ workforce 

development centers. LMYSC already had well-developed aftercare activities in place 

before the grant; the grant was used to add workforce development activities within 

LMYSC and job placement and follow-up support after release. 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 27

Category III Projects 

Table 2e. Project Characteristics: Cincinnati 

Grantee Project 

Name 

SubContract 

for 

Primary 

Services 

Partners at 

Project 

Inception 

Partners 

for Services 

PreExisting 

Conditions 

Change in 

Partners or 

Roles 

City of 

Cincinnati’s 

Workforce 

Development 

Division 

NONE Work 

Resource 

Center’s 

Service 

Navigator 

Unit 

NONE Work 

Resource 

Center’s 

Service 

Navigator 

Unit 

NONE NONE 

Cincinnati, OH. The grantee was the City of Cincinnati’s Workforce Development 

Division, which serves Cincinnati and surrounding Hamilton County. The grantee 

contracted provision of direct services to the Work Resource Center (WRC), a non-profit 

organization that has grown to include several community-based employment and 

education sites throughout Greater Cincinnati since it was founded in 1972. WRC’s 

Service Navigator Unit is funded by Cincinnati and Hamilton County to provide services 

to youth under the Workforce Investment Act. Most of the youth enrolled were older 

youth, and all were offenders. 

Table 2f. Project Characteristics: Des Moines 

Grantee Project 

Name 

SubContract for 

Primary 

Services 

Partners at 

Project 

Inception 

Partners for 

Services 

Pre-Existing 

Conditions 

Change in 

Partners or 

Roles 

Central Iowa 

Employment 

Training 

Consortium 

(One-Stop 

operator) 

NONE Iowa 

Comprehensi

ve Human 

Services 

(WIAYouth), 

Spectrum 

Resource 

Program 

(Non-profit) 

NONE Iowa Comp. 

Human 

Services 

(WIAYouth), 

Spectrum 

Resource 

Program 

(Non-profit)

 

NONE County health 

care system 

provides 

mental health/ 

substance 

abuse 

services to 

youth 

Des Moines, IA. While the grantee was the Central Iowa Employment and Training 

Consortium, two subcontractors primarily carried out service delivery: Iowa 

Comprehensive Human Services and Spectrum Resource Program. Intake occurred at 

either location, and from that point, caseworkers met with clients to complete an 

individual service strategy form. Comprehensive information about each youth was 

collected, including employment history, education, public assistance, household 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

28 Research and Evaluation Associates

situation, health care, and status with the justice system, if any. Des Moines planned to 

enroll youth in small increments, so that it could adjust project activities and organization 

as it got more experience. It provided education and work readiness services primarily. 

Table 2g. Project Characteristics: Erie 

Grantee Project 

Name 

SubContract 

for Primary 

Services 

Partners at 

Project 

Inception 

Partners 

for Services 

PreExisting 

Conditions 

Change in 

Partners or 

Roles 

Perseus 

House 

(Non-profit) 

BroadReach Bayfront 

Center for 

Maritime 

Studies 

Perseus 

House 

Bayfront 

Center for 

Maritime 

Studies 

NONE Grantee 

already 

providing 

services to 

at-risk youth 

and strong 

inter-agency 

alliances 

Local school 

district, 

Office of 

Children 

and Youth, 

Juvenile 

Probation, 

and 

Department 

of Mental 

Health 

partnering to 

provide 

summer 

learning 

program 

Erie, PA. The BroadReach project was built upon two existing programs that had close 

ties to the community’s agencies and youth programs. Strong interagency agreements and 

alliances were in effect when the program was initiated. Primary services were provided 

by Perseus House, the grantee, and by the Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies through 

a subcontract. Perseus House, a non-profit organization, provides services for youth who 

are at risk for becoming or already are involved in the juvenile justice system. The 

Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies, also a non-profit organization, provides maritime 

experiences to teach citizenship, discipline and teamwork, self-esteem and confidence, 

and craftsmanship. The center works with neighboring school districts, the Erie Catholic 

Diocese, all of the juvenile placement facilities in Erie County, Scout groups, and others. 

Table 2h. Project Characteristics: Hartford 

Grantee Project 

Name 

SubContract for 

Primary 

Services 

Partners at 

Project 

Inception 

Partners for 

Services 

Pre-Existing 

Conditions 

Change in 

Partners or 

Roles 

Capital 

Region 

Workforce 

Development 

Board 

(CRWDB) 

Hartford 

Youth Access 

Program 

(HYAP) 

NONE NONE Youth 

Opportunity, 

Hartford 

Health and 

Human 

Services, 

Hartford 

public schools

NONE 23 MOUs 

signed 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 29

Hartford, CT. From the project’s conception, the Capital Region Workforce 

Development Board as grantee envisioned a comprehensive system for improving the 

integration of delivery of services to targeted youth. The central feature of this system 

was Hartford Connects, an internet-based database of route counseling information on 

youth who receive services. The program had Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) 

with 23 local agencies that agreed to provide services to youth, with the full range of 

needed services encompassed by these agencies. Agencies continue to be added to the 

consortium. Hartford anticipates that it will take an additional five years to have all youth 

serving agencies in the community connected through Hartford Connects and all the 

agencies’ staffs trained in its use and in a common approach to youth development. 

Table 2i. Project Characteristics: West Palm Beach 

Grantee Project 

Name 

SubContract 

for Primary 

Services 

Partners at 

Project 

Inception 

Partners 

for Services 

Pre-Existing 

Conditions 

Change 

in 

Partners 

or Roles 

Academy 

for Practical 

Nursing and 

Health 

Occupations 

(APNHO) 

NONE NONE Probationer’s 

Educational 

Growth 

(PEG), 

Palm Beach 

County WDB 

PEG 

Palm Beach 

County 

WDB 

APNHO 

was a well 

established 

trainer for 

health 

careers 

PEG 

received 

its own 

grant 

funding 

West Palm Beach, FL. The grantee, the Academy for Practical Nursing and Health 

Occupations (APNHO), works with its primary partners, Probationers Educational 

Growth and Palm Beach County Workforce Development Board, to identify youth for the 

program and then to coordinate service delivery. The youth recruited during the 

demonstration were preparing for entry-level positions in the health care field. APNHO 

has a coordinator for route counseling, instructor/case managers at the four area high 

schools where the program operates, and at APNHO itself, where a case manager works 

with students from training through placement and the initial stage of employment. While 

DOL funds were used to develop the infrastructure of the program, partners have raised 

additional funds for assessments, work readiness, support services, job placement and 

follow-up. 

 

Contextual Aspects 

At the demonstration’s heart was the notion that system-wide coordination – brought 

about by developing partnerships, leveraging resources, and engendering community 

support – helps youth achieve positive outcomes. This notion suggested that the socioeconomic and political context within which the projects operated would influence their 

ability to help youth achieve desired outcomes and perhaps vice versa. This 

understanding also was reflected in the research question posed by DOL, which became a 

part of the evaluation design: 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

30 Research and Evaluation Associates

What is the context of each project and how did it influence the 

project development and implementation? 

Round One 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. 

In spite of a strong economy, the Round One projects benefited only marginally from the 

economic boom. Placing project clients in jobs with long-term career potential became a 

difficult task for most projects in all three categories of the demonstration. The reason 

was that many clients were ill-prepared for the workforce, primarily because they lacked 

diplomas or GED certificates, had low academic 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 the 

like, which required little education or few technical skills. Miller and MacGillivray 

(2001) in the Final Evaluation Report for Round One of the demonstration noted that in 

the absence of a strong economy, the task of placing project clients in jobs undoubtedly 

would have been even more daunting. 

Unfortunately, the economy facing Round Two grantees proved less robust. The projects, 

almost universally, operated in an environment of reduced federal and local funding, cost 

cutting, economic downturn, increased risk of terrorism and uncertainty surrounding the 

war against terror. A report issued in June 2003 by the National Governors Association 

and National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), aptly summarizes the 

extent of budget cuts across different states, noting that state budget woes persisted from 

2002 into 2003. While in fiscal year 2002, a record 37 states cut their budgets by nearly 

$13 billion, a comparable number of states cut their budgets by $14.5 billion in 2003, the 

highest dollar amount of cuts in the history of the Fiscal Survey conducted by NASBO. 

This compares to reductions totaling $4.5 billion during the last recession in fiscal year 

1992. 

The potential impact of such cuts on the demonstration was evident from the NASBO’s 

December 2002 issue. NASBO reported a range of targeted cuts among the strategies 

being implemented in the states facing shortfalls. The cuts included state employee pay 

raises, elimination or reduced funding for lower priority programs or high priority 

programs (e.g., optional Medicaid services, drug treatment and rehabilitation programs 

for prison inmates, reduced flu vaccine stockpile, reduced pay for substitute teachers, 

delayed school start date, reduced support for people with developmental disabilities, 

closed offices, reduced state assistance to the aged, blind and disabled, and reduced 

programs for troubled youth). 

Table 3 shows the barriers reported by the projects at the mid-point of project activity and 

at the time of the third evaluation visit. While some barriers were internal to the projects 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 31

(and discussed in later sections), the contextual problems of high unemployment, budget 

cuts and the lack of employability skills challenged the projects as well. 

 Table 3. Barriers Faced by Round Two Projects

At the Time of the 2nd Site Visit At the Time of the 3rd Site Visit 

Chicago  Reluctance of employers to give 

youth a chance; 

 Personal challenges and unrealistic 

expectations of youth. 

 Youth entering with more severe problems 

and requiring more intensive care; 

 Increased serious crime and lack of 

affordable housing. 

Cincinnati  DOL data not in MIS; only client data 

available; 

 Confidentiality issues limit 

availability and sharing of data. 

 Non-intersecting system-level and 

individual-level efforts hinder service 

delivery; 

 Lack of educational options for offenders. 

Colorado  Personal challenges and needs of 

youth; 

 Lack of local-level strategy for 

sustaining project. 

 Budget cuts throughout social services; 

 Loss of employment among consortium 

board members; 

 Youth needs are greater than expected. 

Des 

Moines 

 Few entry level jobs; 

 Reluctance of employers to hire 

project participants when experienced 

adults are available. 

 Insufficient local advocacy for improving 

opportunities for youth employment 

(compared to adult workers); 

 Continuing competition for entry-level 

low-wage jobs. 

Erie  High unemployment; too few jobs 

available for project participants; 

 Age of youth in project precludes job 

placement. 

 Major cuts in state funding for human 

services; 

 High unemployment; 

 Failing school system. 

Hartford  Effects of implementing project late 

in project’s tenure; 

 Overcoming fragmented service 

delivery system. 

 One-Stop not youth-friendly; 

 Major budget cuts at state and local levels, 

particularly in education; 

 Significant increase in youth crime and 

gang involvement. 

New York  Special needs of project youth; 

 Low job retention among youth. 

 High unemployment and homelessness; 

 Budget cuts in state and city services; 

 Increased problems of incoming youth 

beyond expectations or previous 

experience. 

Pittsburgh  High unemployment; 

 Lack of resources for case managers; 

 High workload of project coordinator. 

 Bleak economic and employment 

environment; 

 Resurgence of crime and violence in the 

community. 

W. Palm 

Beach 

 Difficulty recruiting employers 

outside of health care industry. 

 Identification of employers outside of 

health care industry; 

 Restrictive nature of WIA list of Targeted 

Occupations reflecting lack of 

understanding of the importance of getting 

youth in training programs and jobs, even 

low-paying, not health-related, jobs. 

Effects on Projects. Due to budget cuts and a weak job market, many projects found it 

difficult to garner support from employers to provide opportunities for youth 

employment. For example, Erie County and the City of Erie were in an economic 

transition. Many factory jobs were eliminated as large plants closed. Much of the inner 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

32 Research and Evaluation Associates

city contained the empty buildings where workers and jobs used to be. Like other states, 

there had been dramatic cuts in state funds for health, education, and other human 

services. While federal funds had replaced reduced state funds in the latest budget cycle, 

the long-term availability of adequate resources was questionable. Another example of a 

weak economy was found in Colorado. Denver’s economy had been hit hard in the 

current recession, and some counties, such as Adams County, were particularly hard hit 

because they were essentially bedroom communities for the city. The more rural counties 

had even fewer resources to support unemployed residents than Denver and the counties 

closer to it. 

The unemployment situation faced by Pittsburgh’s BluePrint project reflected a more 

general trend that was characteristic of tough economic times. Area unemployment rates 

tended to be about the same or below the nationwide rate: in August 2003, the city had a 

5.3% unemployment rate, and the rate in Allegheny County was 5.1%, compared with a 

national rate of 6.1%. Jobs continued to be lost and unemployment rates declined because 

large numbers of people had stopped looking for work. The unemployment rates and 

numbers of discouraged workers who were not counted in the unemployment equation 

were undoubtedly higher among the project’s target group. Employment opportunities for 

project youth also were limited by the relatively large pool of older and more skilled 

workers – generally without criminal records – available for employment. 

Apart from the economic downturn, some projects faced a tough social environment with 

respect to problems with the educational system and increased levels of crime. For 

example, Pittsburgh had faced a growing gang problem since 1991 when the mayor and 

chief of police for the public schools declared the city had no gang problem at all. In 

1997, 52 gang members were prosecuted and convicted under the Racketeer Influenced 

and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. After many of them were released from prison, 

beginning in 2002, the community saw a resurgence of drug- and gang-related violence. 

In August 2003 alone, there were 18 homicides reported in the city – most involving 

youth or young adults in the target area. Youth already participating in BluePrint, as well 

as others the project has tried to recruit, were directly and indirectly affected by the 

climate of violence: one BluePrint participant was slain in August and others came to the 

project after their friends were killed. 

In the case of education, Hartford’s project faced a deeply ingrained challenge. The 

general perception of those with whom evaluators met during their initial site visit was 

that persons economically able to exercise choice flee the city when their children reach 

adolescence, largely due to the poor reputation of the Hartford school system. The public 

school dropout rate was estimated at more than 50%. According to one staff member, 

fewer than 40% of youth who enroll in ninth grade graduate from high school in Hartford 

Public Schools. 

Erie’s project faced a slightly different challenge. Eighty percent of all Northwest 

Pennsylvania regional employers required technical training beyond a high school 

diploma or GED. However, 26% of Erie adults had not completed their high school 

education and only 13% had college or graduate degrees. Student academic performance 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 33

as measured by state achievement tests was in the bottom quartile, and takeover of the 

school district by the state was being considered in fall 2003. 

In summary, Round Two projects faced a tough economic and social environment that 

made implementation of project plans an even a bigger challenge than what may have 

seemed the case in the beginning of the demonstration. Subsequent sections of the Final 

Report describe the projects’ success with service delivery, use of the Public 

Management Model, and achievement of outcomes. The reader of the report should bear 

in mind the difficult environmental conditions within which the projects operated. 

Project-level Characteristics 

This part of Section II describes characteristics of the projects and characteristics of 

youth at the project-level. Project characteristics include the nature of the partners, subcontractors, and the prevalence of pre-existing partnerships – factors that the projects 

have some control over and that were expected to affect project implementation. Youth 

characteristics include enrollment rates, age, offender status, gender, race and ethnicity, 

and education. 

Nature of Grantee 

Grantees varied considerably in terms of their organizational type: one was a justice 

agency; others were workforce agencies; while still others were community-based 

organizations (CBOs). Grantees included states, counties, municipalities and nongovernmental agencies. The geographic areas served by the projects also varied. Some 

targeted areas were counties; others were cities or a few neighborhoods within a city. 

Of the nine Round Two projects, four grantees were affiliated with the workforce 

development system. In Chicago, Cincinnati, and Hartford, grantees were workforce 

development boards or agencies. In Des Moines, the grantee was the region’s One-Stop 

Center operator and WIA Title I Adult Program provider. The other grantees were notfor-profit organizations: Perseus House in Erie, YouthWorks, Inc. in Pittsburgh, and 

Friends of Island Academy in New York. 

At least two of the nine projects, West Palm Beach and Pittsburgh, adopted the 

approach of entering into a partnership from the beginning when potential grantees 

submitted a proposal in response to DOL’s SGA for the demonstration. At the time of the 

first site visits, evaluators observed that six of the nine grantees had entered into a 

relationship with sub-contractors either to carry out day-to-day operations or for service 

delivery: Chicago, Cincinnati, Colorado, Des Moines, Erie, and Pittsburgh. 

At least three of the nine projects had the advantage of pre-existing partnerships and/or 

infrastructures to deliver youth-related services. These were Colorado, Erie, and New 

York. The Hartford and the Cincinnati projects had to build relationships and 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

34 Research and Evaluation Associates

infrastructure and West Palm Beach had to adapt its existing structure to fit the needs of 

the target youth. 

The following tables, graphs, and descriptions report the aggregate characteristics of the 

youth. Evaluators developed a profile of youth served by the Round Two projects at the 

aggregate level using quarterly report data submitted by the grantees. The data reported 

are drawn from reports of the cumulative data submitted as of December 31, 2003. 

Table 4. Characteristics of Youth Enrolled in Round Two 

Category Characteristic Total 

Enrolled Enrolled 1,852 

Age 14-17 834 

18-24 1,023 

Status Youth-at-Risk 402 

Youth Offender 1,450 

Gender Male 1,388 

Female 470 

White 257 

Black 1,122 

Hispanic 399 

Native American 6 

Asian 7 

Multiracial 44 

Race 

Other 17 

School In-School 1,099 

Out-of-School 794 

The numbers in Table 4 

exclude New York’s atrisk population, because 

this grantee reported data 

that included at-risk 

youth who were not 

officially enrolled in the 

project and had not 

received any services 

through the DOL grant 

funds, except violence 

prevention presentations. 

In March 2002, 438 

youth were enrolled in 

the Round Two projects, and there was a steady increase in enrollment each quarter. 

Overall, as of December 31, 2003, there were 1,852 youth enrolled across all nine Round 

Two projects. The graph in Figure 1 presents data beginning in March 31, 2002, since it 

was the first quarter during which projects started reporting enrollment data. 

438 603

846

1065

1319

1560 1701

1852

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Mar-02

Jun-02

Sep-02Dec-02

Mar-03

Jun-03

Sep-03Dec-03

Figure 1. Total Youth Enrolled by Quarter 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 35

Youth Characteristics 

The tables, charts and graphs provided in this sub-section give an overview of youths’ 

characteristics, such as their demographic profile, as well as their offender status. The 

data are not intended to compare projects, but to illustrate the diversity of the youth 

served. Table 5 summarizes these characteristics, and the following paragraphs describe 

each feature. 

Table 5. Project Characteristics 

Project Number 

Youth 

Enrolled 

Age Status Gender Ethnicity In 

School* 

Out of 

School*

Chicago 192 63% 14-17 55% Offenders 67% Male 72% Black 72% 26% 

New York 641 76% 18-24 100% Offenders 85% Male 68% Black 55% 45% 

Pittsburgh 147 54% 18-24 82% Offenders 77% Male 90% Black 55% 43% 

Colorado 215 59% 18-24 100% Offenders 100% 

Male 

39% White 

36% Hispanic 

62% 72% 

Cincinnati 107 55% 18-24 100% Offenders 77% Male 80% Black 45% 55% 

Des 

Moines 

99 60% 18-24 66% Offenders 69% Male 80% Black 27%** 55%** 

Erie 159 90% 14-17 59% at-Risk 70% Male 64% White 88%** 6%** 

Hartford 189 62% 14-17 57% at-Risk 61% Male 49% Black 

40% Hispanic 

62% 38% 

West Palm 

Beach 

103 51% 14-17 53% at Risk 92% 

Female 

82% Black 59% 41% 

* In-school and out of school data elements reflect status during the project period. One youth can be counted in both 

if he/she was in school at one point and out-of-school at some other time. 

** Projects did not report school status or counted youth only if status changed. For example, if youth were not in 

school to begin with then they were not counted at all.

Total Number of Youth Enrolled. The total number of youth enrolled by December 31, 

2003 was 1,852. The number of youth enrolled in different projects ranged from a low of 

99 (Des Moines) to a high of 641(New York). 

Interpretation of enrollment numbers here requires caution. Most project databases did 

not differentiate between youth currently enrolled and active and those no longer actively 

involved. As a result, enrollment numbers may not reflect the actual number of active 

youth in the projects. 

Youth by Age. Of all the youth enrolled, 55% in the Round Two projects were older 

youth who fell into the 18-24 age group and 45% were younger youth who fell into the 

14-17 age group (See Figure 2). This pattern differs from that found for Round One 

projects where 44% were older youth and 56% were younger youth. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

36 Research and Evaluation Associates

Among the individual projects, Pittsburgh, West Palm Beach, Cincinnati, Des Moines,

and Colorado had a fairly equal distribution of youth aged 14-17 years and older youth 

(18-24). New York enrolled primarily older youth (18-24 years) and Chicago, Erie, and 

Hartford enrolled a larger proportion of 14 to 17-year olds than older youth. 

Youth by Offender Status. A high percentage of youth enrolled across all nine projects 

were offenders (78%) while the remaining youth were youth at-risk of court or gang 

involvement (See Figure 3). Three out of nine projects served 100% offenders as a result 

of their direct relationship with correctional facilities. Round One projects enrolled fewer 

offenders; 64% of all enrolled youth were offenders. 

Four out of nine projects served a high percentage of the youth offender population with 

New York, Colorado and Cincinnati serving 100% offenders. Colorado served 

offenders from a juvenile correctional facility. Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center 

(LMYSC), the target facility, was the most secure facility for young males in the Division 

of Youth Corrections system, and received youth from throughout the state. In the case of

New York, the Friends of Island Academy (FOIA), the grantee, was a non-profit 

organization that provided mentoring and employment assistance primarily to youth 

leaving four youth correctional facilities on Rikers Island. Pittsburgh served some youth 

at risk of court involvement, but 82% of its enrollees were offenders. 

Chicago, Erie and Hartford served a higher percentage of youth at risk of court or gang 

involvement rather than youth offenders. The higher number in Chicago reflects the 

intentional decision a few months into the project on the part of the Goodwill Industries 

(the subcontractor) to use the Round Two grant for younger youth who were less likely to 

be involved with the justice system. Toward the end of the grant period, Chicago went 

back to serving youth along the whole age range. 

14-17

45%

18-24

55%

1,023 834

Figure 2. Enrolled Youth by Age 

Group 

1,450

402

Youth Offenders

78%

Youth at-Risk

22%

Figure 3. Enrolled Youth by 

Offender Status 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 37

Gender: Figure 4 shows that about 75% of all project youth were males and 25% were 

females. These percentages reflect the fact that all projects except West Palm Beach

enrolled a considerably higher proportion of males than females. Round One projects also 

displayed this pattern, with 72% of all enrolled youth being male. New York (85%), 

Cincinnati (77%), Pittsburgh (77%) and Colorado (100%) enrolled over 70% male 

enrollees. Only West Palm Beach had more females than males (92%). The grantee’s 

central focus for service delivery was on training youth for jobs in the health care field, 

which attracted females.

Youth Age by Offender Status. Figure 5 shows the combination of youth age and their 

status as offenders or as youth at risk of court involvement. A higher percentage of both 

older and younger youth enrolled in the projects were offenders (49% and 30% 

respectively). Given the targeting of youth offenders by the Demonstration, this high 

proportion of youth offenders is not surprising. 

Ethnicity. Figure 6 shows that black1

 youth 

constituted the majority (61%) of project 

participants, followed by Hispanics (22%) and then 

whites (14%). In Round One projects, 42% of 

youth were black while the percentage for whites 

and Hispanics were almost equal (about 21% for 

each group). 

Six out of nine projects had a majority of black 

youth. These projects were: Chicago, Pittsburgh, 

Cincinnati, New York, Des Moines, and West 

 

1

 The term black is preferred in the context of the demonstration, which enrolled youth from Africa or the 

Caribbean, as well as African American youth. 

470

1388

Female

25%

Male

75%

Figure 4. Enrolled Youth by 

Gender 

14-17

Youth at-Risk

15%

18-24

Youth at-Risk

6%

18-24

Youth Offenders

49%

14-17

Youth Offenders

30%

Figure 5. Offender Status by Age 

Group 

Asian

0% Other

1%

White

14%

Black

61%

Hispanic

22%

Native

American

0%

Multiracial

2%

Figure 6. Racial 

Background/Ethnicity 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

38 Research and Evaluation Associates

Palm Beach (percentages ranged from 90% in Pittsburgh to 68% in New York). In Erie

there were more youth who reported “white” as their race/ethnicity (64%) while 

Hartford had enrolled 49% black youth and 40 % Hispanic youth. [See Table 5 page 

35.] 

School Status. At an aggregate level, there was a higher percentage of youth enrolled in 

school at some time during the project (58%) as compared to the number of those who 

were out of school (42%) at some time during the project (See Figure 7). This figure 

portrays school status over the period of grant. Projects could report at one point that a 

youth was out of school, and then report later that the youth returned to school, so there 

may be some double reporting. 

Considering only the 14-17 age group, it is interesting to note that a substantially higher 

percentage of these youth (75%) were in school (see Figure 8). These data are consistent 

with the expectation that younger youth in the demonstration would still be in school. 

Although older youth would not necessarily be in a traditional school setting (e.g., high 

school), a substantial proportion of them (44%) 

did participate in educational activities such as 

GED preparation, occupational training 

programs, etc. (See Figure 9).

Projects in Chicago and Erie had the highest 

percentage of in-school youth (72% and 88% 

respectively). (See Table 5.) Both projects 

primarily served younger youth (63% and 90% 

respectively) who were more likely to be in 

school. Cincinnati and Des Moines had the 

lowest percentage of in-school youth (45% and 

27% respectively). 

In 

School

75%

Out of 

School

25%

217

644

Figure 8. School Status for the 14-17 

Age Group 

In 

School

58%

Out of 

School

42%

794

1099

Figure 7. School Status 

In 

School

44%

Out of 

School

56%

577 455

Figure 9. Educational Status for 

18-24 Age Group 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 39

Projects in Colorado, Cincinnati and Des Moines had the highest percentage of youth 

who were out of school (72%, 55%, and 55%, respectively). (see Table 5) The numbers 

reported for in-school youth and out-of-school youth do not always add up to 100%. A 

particular youth may be counted twice if he/she was in school and then dropped out 

during the project period or vice versa. 

Recruitment and Retention. Round Two projects differed substantially from each other 

with respect to strategies adopted for recruiting youth into the projects. One meaningful 

way to document these different strategies was to understand and compare what the 

projects had expected to do as articulated in their initial plans and what they actually did. 

The evaluation team observed that while some projects remained consistent with their 

initial plans, others had to change their strategies mid-stream. 

Projects in Erie and Cincinnati, for example, deviated from their initial plans. In Erie, 

the initial plan was to recruit youth from existing Perseus House programs. These 

included residential programs for court-ordered youth, community-based programs for 

court-ordered youth, and the Erie City School’s Alternative Education program housed at 

Perseus House. During the first year, the project found it difficult to retain youth from 

these programs. The youth participated on a voluntary basis. A second plan was 

developed and implemented in the second year that increased the number of 

organizations from which referrals were sought. Also, project staff arranged with the 

WIB to pay youth $3.25 per hour for participating in the 8-week Bayfront program. The 

two strategies helped the project recruit and retain sufficient numbers of youth and to 

expand the program to more of the community’s youth. 

The project in Cincinnati had difficulty keeping with the initial plan for two main 

reasons. First, because of its emphasis on starting with capacity building, the project did 

not start recruiting youth until about October 2002. Of those recruited, about half were 

youth whose “service start date” was before October 2002. That is, they enrolled in WIA 

and were later counted as project youth even though they were unaware that they were 

enrolled in a separate program and received no services different from what they would 

have received if the project did not exist. Second, the project had expected to enroll more 

older youth, but the eligibility documentation requirements made it especially hard to 

enroll them. Often parents and others, such as a girlfriend or boyfriend the youth was 

living with, were reluctant to provide documentation of their incomes. Documentation 

requirements also kept the project from starting to work with younger youth while they 

were incarcerated because they had difficulty getting information from parents to support 

the youth’s eligibility. 

On the other hand, projects in Pittsburgh and Des Moines were good examples of 

showing consistency with their project plans. In Pittsburgh, both the number of youth 

served and their demographic profile were in line with what the project planned, 

primarily black male offenders. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

40 Research and Evaluation Associates

Des Moines provided an interesting example of consistency. The initial project plan 

called for recruitment of an average of 10 youth per quarter, or 40 per year. Each person 

was expected to be in the program at least two years and thus the project expected to have 

served approximately 80 clients by the end of the first two years of the grant. Project staff 

indicated at the first site visit that they intended to start with a small number of clients to 

evaluate an initial group as the clients move through the process, and make refinements 

before a large number entered the program. Project staff were concerned that they not 

“oversell” the program at the beginning, and believed that there would be more than 

sufficient referrals from community partners to meet the goal of 10 clients per quarter. 

The project retained that steady approach to recruitment throughout the grant, eventually 

enrolling 99 youth. 

The evaluation team also observed patterns in the methods adopted for recruiting youth 

across the nine Round Two projects. For some projects, referrals of youth came from 

their relationship with the justice system. For example, in the Chicago project, 90% of 

the referrals came from the parole officers. Similarly, in Pittsburgh, probation officers 

and judges were increasingly aware of the project as a valuable resource and made formal 

and informal referrals to the project. In the case of the projects in New York and 

Colorado, youth were directly recruited from correctional facilities by virtue of the 

grantee’s direct relationship with the facilities. For the rest of the projects, the main 

source of referrals of youth came from partners (Erie, Hartford and Des Moines) or the 

distribution of flyers, presentations, word of mouth, etc. (West Palm Beach, and 

Cincinnati). 

The projects recognized that retaining youth with challenging personal issues was a 

daunting task. In spite of this difficulty, some projects tried putting appropriate retention 

strategies in place. As one example, at least four of the nine projects used monetary 

incentives to keep the youth in the program (Colorado, New York, Erie and Des 

Moines). 

The project in Des Moines was an interesting case in point. The project developed a new 

approach for working with out-of-school youth that seemed to have a positive effect on 

retention. Youth who participated in a daily, one-hour life skills and leadership class, and 

then continued on directly to a 2-hour GED preparation class experienced high rates of 

retention and persistence towards achievement of the GED certificate. Youth were paid 

stipends (minimum wage) for the three hours in the morning and then received further 

compensation through a new arrangement with YouthBuild, or in other subsidized work 

experiences, in the afternoon. Project staff reported that youth had specifically said they 

would not have stayed in the program without the financial incentives. In addition, 

compensation for GED participation was paid only if the instructor certified the youth 

was making progress. This approach had been in effect since December 2002, and as of 

the third site visit in the fall of 2003, no youth had quit the program and a number of 

them had completed a GED, at a faster rate than had been the experience earlier in the 

program. For in-school youth, the project also had provided subsidized work experiences 

from the beginning of the demonstration, and there had been a high rate of retention in 

school for this group as well. 
Section II – Overview of the Demonstration 

Research and Evaluation Associates 41

For projects in New York and Pittsburgh, retention strategies were linked to the positive 

project culture developed for the youth and the commitment of the project staff. In 

Pittsburgh, for example, the project encouraged retention by fostering youths’ sense of 

identification with the project by bringing them to a central project space for most 

services and providing t-shirts and other items with the BluePrint logo. Weekend trips 

and in-town events also were used as incentives for active, continued participation. New 

York created a sense of identification with FOIA by calling participants members and 

providing services to members in a dedicated space. At meetings every Thursday 

evening, the members reported in turn on their progress and their struggles. The group 

affirmed their achievements and encouraged them to keep trying during difficult times. 

Interestingly, West Palm Beach adopted a different, but unique, approach to retention. 

The approach reflected the central focus on training for specific jobs in the health care 

field. The project director believed that many youth in this target group did not want to be 

in a traditional academic program where there was no proven connection to a job. This 

was especially true for older youth who did not graduate from high school; in her 

experience, these youth were not interested in GED programs where it was not clear that 

completion would lead to a job or a career. In fact, typically many of these youth did not 

succeed in a traditional educational setting to begin with and did not want more of the 

same. She found that youth significantly improved their math and reading competencies 

by having to learn and use these skills in practice-oriented classes. This also developed a 

personal sense of success in education, thus making it more likely they would go on to a 

GED and further education once they entered a career. Staff found that the length of time 

youth had to spend in a GED program (due to relatively low grade levels in math and 

reading) was too discouraging. Of the health occupations for which APNHO offers 

training, only the LPN requires a GED or high school diploma. Project staff also found 

that youth in both high schools and at APNHO really needed jobs, which in turn helped 

keep them engaged in the occupational program because of the high likelihood of getting 

a job in the health care field. West Palm Beach also created a new identity for its 

participants by having them wear their health worker uniforms to class, a visible sign of 

an emerging professional identity. 

Summary 

Round Two projects operated in an environment of reduced federal and local funding, 

cost cutting, economic downturn, increased risk of terrorism and uncertainty surrounding 

the war against terror. Apart from these factors, some of the projects faced a tough social 

environment with respect to problems with the educational system and increased levels of 

crime. 

At the project level, grantees varied considerably: some were justice agencies, others 

workforce development agencies, while others were community-based organizations. 

Grantees were states, counties, municipalities or non-governmental organizations. Some 

target areas were counties; others were cities or a few neighborhoods within a city. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

42 Research and Evaluation Associates

In terms of partnerships, the West Palm Beach and Pittsburgh projects adopted the 

approach of entering into a partnership right from the beginning of the grant period. On 

the other hand, Chicago, Erie, Des Moines and Cincinnati chose to sub-contract with 

external agencies either to carry out day-to-day operations or for service delivery. 

Projects such as Colorado and New York had the advantage of building upon an already 

existing structure of partnerships and/or linkages for delivering youth related services 

while projects in Hartford and Cincinnati had to start from scratch. 

Round Two projects differed substantially from one another with respect to strategies 

adopted for recruiting youth into the projects. While some projects remained consistent 

with their initial plans, others had to change their strategies mid-stream. In all, 1,852 

youth were enrolled across all nine projects. Most were youth offenders, older youth, 

males, and black. These observations were more or less similar to what was found for 

Round One projects. 

Finally, projects recognized that retaining youth with serious personal issues was a 

daunting task. In spite of this difficulty, projects made a sincere effort in putting 

appropriate retention strategies in place such as incentive plans, a supportive youth 

culture, and hiring a committed project staff. 
Section III – Public Management Model (PMM) 

Research and Evaluation Associates 43

Section III 

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL (PMM) 

The Public Management Model surfaced in response to a query from DOL about which 

projects had made good progress in implementing their goals. It developed as a lens for 

viewing the projects at the system-level. 

Overview 

About half way through Round One of the demonstration the evaluation and technical 

assistance teams and the DOL staff began to identify and compile promising practices 

they had noticed during implementation of the 14 projects. In testing a variety of service 

delivery strategies in a diverse set of communities, these practices formed a set of nine 

organizational attributes shared by the projects that were implementing a coordinated 

array of services most successfully. 

By the end of the first round process evaluation, a more complete model that included 

additional components had begun to take shape. Soon after the start of the 

demonstration’s second round in summer 2001 the model’s four elements were structured 

into what DOL identified more formally as an “organizational footprint” for effective 

implementation practices, or the Public Management Model (PMM). 

As indicated by Figure 10, the five 

components of the Public Management 

Model became: 

• Workforce Development Services, 

• Reentry Services, 

• Organizational Attributes, 

• Data Collection and Analysis, and 

• Continuous Improvement Loop 

(Double-headed Arrows). 

In developing the PMM, the evaluation and TA teams and the DOL staff paid particular 

attention to each project’s service delivery strategies as well as institutional and 

organizational approaches. Drawing on the work of Nathan (1988), the PMM focuses 

attention on systems change as the first of two steps in developing knowledge of what 

policy changes work. First, Nathan asserts, assure that the systems are in place, and 

second evaluate the impacts on individuals. He goes further to say that if systems change 

as designed, the individuals are likely to improve on the targeted dimension (school 

Workforce 

Development 

Services 

Organizational Attributes 

Reentry Services Data Collection 

and Analysis 

Figure 10. Public Management Model 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

44 Research and Evaluation Associates

achievement, gaining employment, etc. This was in accordance with DOL’s long-term 

vision for the multi-phased demonstration, which essentially was to illuminate how 

institutional change resulting from a continuous improvement process employed by the 

projects ultimately would affect individual outcomes in positive ways. 

By the mid-way point in the second round projects, the evaluators, technical assistance 

team and DOL further refined the PMM to eliminate a few overlaps in the nine 

organizational attributes that resulted from expansion of the model. More specifically, the 

nine organizational attributes were reduced to seven. Eliminated from the attributes were 

“collected and maintained data,” which was replaced by the Data Collection and Analysis 

component; and “strive for continuous improvement,” which became the feedback loop 

resulting from the five components working together properly. 

The observation of the evaluators is that: 

When the PMM components exist together in an operating 

environment, the project has a greater likelihood of achieving 

successful implementation. Based on Nathan, successful 

implementation is hypothesized to lead to collaborative efforts within 

a community that will be sustained in such a way that the needs of 

youth are better met and ultimately affect them in positive ways. In 

effect, the project can produce change within a community’s 

organizations and institutional structure by virtue of the means by 

which it continuously improves the collective, coordinated delivery of 

services through those partners. 

Future Uses of the PMM 

After more thorough testing of the PMM, DOL hopes to progressively export the model 

for use by state and local workforce development organizations implementing service 

strategies that seek to serve youth offenders and other vulnerable youth. This assessment 

effort already has begun with the evaluation of the third round of projects, which 

continues through 2004. 

At the local and state levels, this will mean that workforce development agencies that 

structure their work around the PMM should be better able to formulate and implement 

service delivery strategies for youth offenders and other vulnerable youth that respond to 

local needs. More specifically, the PMM will help future projects to: 

• Assess the unique needs of the community; 

• Identify key stakeholders and partners integral to the success of the projects; 

• Map and access resources within the community; and 
Section III – Public Management Model (PMM) 

Research and Evaluation Associates 45

• Better implement an effective coordinated service strategy tailored to meet the 

community’s specific needs. 

Orientation of Projects to Model 

Unlike first round projects, which were started before development of the PMM, second 

round projects were oriented to the organizational attributes component of the model 

during the post-award conference held in Arlington, VA, in October 2001. Then, in April 

2002, during the second conference for grantees that was held in New Orleans, LA, 

Round Two grantees were re-introduced to the organizational attributes and also provided 

more details about the PMM, specifically the model’s other components. During another 

conference held in Kansas City, MO, in October 2003, both second and third round 

grantees were briefed on the theory behind the PMM and how the model should be 

implemented. 

During the conferences, presenters stressed the importance of using the model in the 

project’s planning and implementation phases. In theory, they were told, projects that 

closely followed the model and applied a continuous improvement approach were more 

likely to experience successful implementation and to become sustainable than those that 

did not follow the model. 

Why the Model is Important 

The PMM is especially important for project and community leaders. One of their major 

tasks as leaders is to build partnerships with other service providers that can share the 

human resources and financial burden of meeting the service demands of high-need 

youth. 

For Round Two projects, the PMM directed these efforts in constructive ways. At the 

most basic level, the model helped projects avoid many of the pitfalls that slowed down 

and discouraged other projects during the demonstration’s first round. For the technical 

assistance team, the model served as a framework for identifying project strengths and 

challenges. As a result, the technical assistance team was better able to recommend 

options for working through barriers and arranging for expert technical assistance, 

customized to the specific circumstances, to address the barriers. The model also may 

help communities in the future to bring together resources, in the form of service 

providers, to better serve the needs of their youth. 

The demonstration’s first round appeared to show that youth were best served when 

projects provided an integrated approach to meeting each youth’s individual needs, rather 

than providing services in a piecemeal or lock-step fashion. Thus, evaluators concluded 

from observations of Round One that projects that did not exhibit a preponderance of the 

nine organizational attributes were less likely to experience successful implementation. 

Community leaders and staff of projects that never implemented their designs were likely 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

46 Research and Evaluation Associates

to become discouraged in their efforts to serve the youth while successful implementation 

implied a more efficient and effective use of existing community resources in meeting 

youth’s needs. 

At the same time, and because the model stresses the importance of collaboration among 

service providers, it appears that service delivery approaches are more effective when 

youth are served in a holistic manner. This approach should increase the likelihood that 

the youth will progress toward employability and refrain from destructive behavior. 

Focusing attention on cross-agency approaches to serving youth raises the appreciation of 

community leaders on the importance and difficulty of building an interagency/interorganizational system of services. Developing this understanding will be key, especially 

if agencies and community organizations hope to attempt to replicate the demonstration 

in their communities after DOL grant funds end – and without an influx of additional 

grant funds. 

We now introduce each element of the PMM. The discussion focuses on Workforce 

Development Services; Reentry Services; Seven Organizational Attributes, Data 

Collection and Analysis; and the Continuous Improvement Loop. More complete 

discussion of services is found in Section IV; the attributes and data collection and 

analysis are discussed in Section V; and technical assistance and the continuous 

improvement loop are described in Section VI. 

1. Workforce Development Services 

At the center of the graphic are the basic services available to all citizens through the 

workforce development system established under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

of 1998. The services include: 

• Work readiness information and training, 

• Job placement, 

• Job retention, and 

• Supports to reduce the barriers to employment (transportation and child care 

costs, for example). 

Each One-Stop center located in communities across the nation is also able to provide 

eligible youth with intensive services, such as literacy classes, work experience and 

internships, occupational training, and counseling. The Youth Offender Demonstration 

Project allowed all target youth to receive these intensive services for the duration of the 

grant. 
Section III – Public Management Model (PMM) 

Research and Evaluation Associates 47

2. Reentry Services

On the left-hand corner of the graphic are reentry services. These usually are defined as: 

• Gang prevention and suppression activities, 

• Alternative sentencing for offenders, 

• Aftercare, and 

• Route counseling (case management). 

These services are typically offered by the justice system while the youth remains on 

probation or parole. The demonstration projects tended to support the youth in meeting 

obligations, such as making sure a youth was home by curfew after an event or by 

assisting a youth with finding ways to meet restitution requirements. 

Workforce development and reentry services are discussed further in Section IV. 

3. Organizational Attributes

While the services just presented explain what the nature of the demonstration was, the 

organizational attributes describe how the successfully implemented projects managed 

the demonstration. At the apex of the triangle in the graphic are the seven attributes of 

successfully implemented projects: 

1. A well-conceived plan. Successfully implemented projects had or developed a 

plan with a clear and focused vision, where goals and objectives were realistic and 

measurable, and involved major stakeholders, including youth and families. 

2. Pre-existing experience between the workforce development, justice and 

health care systems. Projects moved toward integrating multiple services for 

youth if the grantee had developed good working relationships with the other 

systems. While experience among all three was important, previous experience 

between the workforce development and justice systems was essential for 

implementing the Youth Offender Demonstration Project within its short time 

frame. 

3. A strong community support network. These projects developed good 

relationships with the community, including the faith community, other nonprofits, Chambers of Commerce, and most importantly employers willing to 

employ youth, especially youth offenders. 

4. Strong grantee involvement. It was important for the grantee to be actively 

involved with the project, even if the project operations were contracted out to 

one or several service providers in the community. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

48 Research and Evaluation Associates

5. Linkages among the workforce development, justice, health, housing and 

other major youth service providing organizations and services. Successfully 

implemented projects recognized that the grantee did not have the expertise to 

meet all the needs of youth itself and built partnerships throughout the community 

for education, health, housing, mental health, and substance abuse services. 

6. The ability to leverage resources. Further, grantees leveraged resources for these 

services through partnerships and collaborations. Such partnerships that leveraged 

resources were a key to any community’s dream of continuing on-going 

comprehensive services to troubled youth. 

7. Shared information and leadership. A major dimension of the continuous 

improvement effort was a growing openness to share information and leadership 

in the process of serving the youth. 

A more complete discussion of each attribute follows in Section V. 

4. Data Collection and Analysis

The fourth element of the Public Management Model is use of project data, which is 

found on the PMM schematic at the right angle of the triangle. An important realization 

during the demonstration was that projects were easier to keep on track when a good data 

reporting system alerted everyone involved in the project of the project’s status. In 

addition, data drove the continuous improvement process that allowed cross-agency 

service providers to recognize gaps in service or in youth recruitment and retention 

efforts. This component of the PMM is discussed further in Section V. 

5. Continuous Improvement

The dynamic of the Public Management Model is the continuous improvement loop. 

Nathan’s (1988) assumption is that attention to systems improvement gradually 

improves the circumstances of the individual persons being served. The focus is on the 

services to be implemented and coordinated; the organizational attributes are features of 

the service project that assist in the effective delivery. The approach is monitored through 

data collection and analysis that lead to improvements in the delivery and coordination of 

services. 

The technical assistance offered by the Department of Labor is described in Section VI in 

conjunction with the continuous improvement loop because its goal was to assist projects 

in making the changes needed to address the needs of the youth. Communities attempting 

to implement a coordinated service delivery system will likely have to offer local 

resources to assist project staff over hurdles similar to those demonstration projects 

addressed in implementing the demonstration. 
Section III – Public Management Model (PMM) 

Research and Evaluation Associates 49

Working from the systems perspective means that the links between systems change and 

individual benefit cannot be viewed during an implementation study, but an outcomes 

study performed after an implementation study will shed light on these linkages. Such an 

outcomes study is underway during the third phase of the demonstration evaluation. 

Summary 

This section introduced the Public Management Model, a way of viewing and organizing 

a coordinated service delivery project with the goal of placing youth offenders and youth 

at risk of gang and court involvement in employment that will break the cycle of crime 

and dependency. The discussion addressed the reasons a community would attend to the 

system-level issues in implementing such a project, and each element of the PMM was 

described briefly. The following three sections analyze the projects using the components 

of the PMM. The next section will discuss the services; Section V will describe the 

attributes and the data collection and analysis; and Section VI will review the technical 

assistance and the continuous improvement loop. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

50 Research and Evaluation Associates
Section IV – Public Management Model: Services and Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Research and Evaluation Associates 51

Section IV 

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL: SERVICES AND SERVICE 

DELIVERY MECHANISMS 

Overview 

The Public Management Model discussed in Section III listed all the demonstration 

services intended for project youth under the rubrics of workforce or reentry services. 

The core of the demonstration is finding better ways to offer workforce and reentry 

services to the target population. A finding of the Round One projects was that the 

services typically identified as workforce or reentry were not sufficient to meet the 

myriad needs of some project youth. Staff and administrators offered other services, and 

the projects tended to characterize these services by the agency that offered them. 

Services provided could, therefore, be categorized differently at the project level. For the 

purposes of this report, services are discussed by the categories of workforce services, 

reentry services, commonly shared services, and support services (See Table 6 on page 

53). The primary workforce services were: 

• Work/Job Readiness – teaching workplace skills in classes, vocational 

certification classes, leadership classes, and job shadowing; 

• Job Placement – Activities to assist youth in learning about and exploring 

work opportunities, making appointments for interviews, and making the 

transition to a job; and 

• Job Retention – Follow-up activities with the employed youth and his/her 

employer to work through concerns that threaten the youth’s ability to retain 

the job. 

Reentry services, as the term is used in the justice literature, categorizes the services and 

activities used to assist youth transitioning back to a community from detention or 

incarceration. In the context of the demonstration some reentry services have been 

offered to youth who have not been convicted or adjudicated. The reentry services at least 

include: 

• Anti-gang activity – Both direct efforts to reduce violence in a neighborhood 

and indirect efforts to provide wholesome activities to engage the youth as a 

substitute for gang activity; 

• Alternative sentencing – Community activities and special restrictions (like 

curfew) assigned to a youth convicted of a crime in lieu of assignment to 

residential confinement; 

• Aftercare – Activities and services assigned to a youth in an environment of 

graduated sanctions, both positive and negative, which are designed to have 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

52 Research and Evaluation Associates

the youth accept greater responsibility for her/his behavior as her/his behavior 

improves. 

There are some services that are sometimes referred to as reentry services and sometimes 

as part of workforce development services. Their commonly shared services include: 

• Assessments – Screenings or careful analyses of youth attitudes, knowledge 

and behavior that are used to tailor program components to a youth’s 

individual needs; 

• Academic education – Basic literacy, pre-GED, GED, high school, or college 

classes that are part of the individualized work readiness or aftercare plans for 

a youth; 

• Vocational education – Specific preparation for an occupation or industry, 

including practical experience, which can be part of the individualized work 

readiness or aftercare plan for a youth; and 

• Route counseling – Assistance in realizing one’s individualized case plan 

through the workforce development and/or the justice systems. Youth 

offenders in the demonstration typically had both a parole/probation officer 

and a workforce development specialist supporting youth in his/her plan. 

As the projects gained experience in the complexity of issues youth brought to the 

projects, staff integrated other services into the program that some youth in the project 

were likely to need. These were provided through the workforce or the justice systems, 

and often partners to these systems supplied them. Such support services include: 

• Substance abuse interventions – A majority of the youth in the projects have 

experienced problems with alcohol or other drugs in their own lives or in their 

families; 

• Mental health – Recent research is uncovering an alarming degree of 

diagnosable mental health issues among incarcerated youth, particularly 

depression and the effects of abuse. Many demonstration youth experienced 

these issues; 

• Health – Some projects assess health as part of the orientation; health issues 

surface for others as youth miss activities for health reasons; 

• Housing – While rare, the youth who lacks a regular, fixed, adequate 

nighttime residence presents overwhelming needs to a project. Projects have 

needed to find partners who can support youth through the process of finding 

such residence before either school or work patterns stabilize; and 

• Recreation – Projects provide either episodic events, like trips to an 

amusement park, or regular opportunities for fun such as sports leagues. 
Section IV – Public Management Model: Services and Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Research and Evaluation Associates 53

Much of the literature reviewed earlier in this report notes the importance of having each 

youth connected to a caring adult. Some projects attempted formal mentoring as a 

response. This was not a required element of the demonstration however, so the 

evaluators found that projects had not kept comparable records from which they could 

comment. 

Assessments and Service Plans 

If projects had not learned it on their own, Round Two projects learned from Round One 

projects that they needed to design individual strategies for serving project youth. In an 

attempt to customize service delivery to youth participants, almost all projects used an 

individual service strategy that also incorporated a youth’s input. At the core of this plan 

was the assessment system that screened the youth for past history or continuing signs of 

mental, physical, behavioral or social problems. (See Table 6.) 

Table 6. Types of Assessments 

Education Risk Substance 

Abuse 

Mental 

Health 

Other 

Chicago     Health and Finances 

Cincinnati  

 

 

Health, Living 

Situation, Readiness, 

Job Skills 

Colorado     Vocational 

Rehabilitation 

Des Moines 

  Health 

Erie     

Health, Family, 

Employment, 

Readiness 

Hartford  

 Life Skills, Vocational 

Assessments 

New York     Health, GED 

Predictor 

Pittsburgh    Employment, Social/ 

Personal Skills 

West Palm 

Beach   

Physical Health, 

Aptitude, Family 

Health, Learning Style 

Assessments also were used to help identify service needs. In this regard, most projects 

had a comprehensive system for assessments that looked at issues involving education, 

risk, substance abuse, and mental health. All projects either made assessments themselves 

or used the assessments made by a partner agency: school district, justice agency, or 

another human service agency. The specific domains of assessments offered are reported 

in Table 6. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

54 Research and Evaluation Associates

Table 7. Services Offered by Round Two Projects 

 Chicago Cincinnati Colorado Des 

Moines

Erie Hartford New 

York 

Pittsburgh W. Palm 

Beach 

Job Placement          

Job Retention         

Workforce 

Services 

Work Ready          

Aftercare   

Alternative 

Sentence     

Anti-gang       

Reentry 

Services 

Community 

Service  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Assessments          

Education 

Academic          

Education 

Vocational  

 

    

 

  

Services 

Commonly 

Offered 

Through 

Multiple 

Agencies 

Route 

Counseling          

Health         

Housing        

Mental Health          

Support 

Services 

Substance 

Abuse          

 Indicates presence of specific service provided by the grantee or partner through DOL or leveraged funds. 

Once the project and youth completed the individual service plan (ISP), the youth either 

received services directly from the grantee or was referred out to a partnering agency. 

Table 7 also reports all the services available to youth through the project. Because the 

service plans were individualized, however, youth might not have received all services 

accessible through the project. For example, youth in Chicago were typically in the 14-

to-17-age range; so many of them did not receive job placement or retention services. In 

the Colorado project youth were all over 18 by the time they left LMYSC; they had 

either earned a diploma or a GED before release or they were judged unlikely to ever 

earn high school equivalency. They received job placement and retention services after 

release, but few educational services. (Also see Appendix E for a more complete 

description of services offered by each project.) 

Some youth resisted referrals to some services. Some projects had particular problems 

getting youth to attend mental health counseling or substance abuse treatment and 

maintenance services. New York had an in-house psychological counselor available on 

site where she could connect informally with youth who were struggling with mental 

health issues. Pittsburgh, however, brought counselors into the project location from the 

Western Psychiatric Institute; yet the youth resisted attending appointments with the 

counselor. Colorado had reinforcement from parole officers while the youth remained on 

parole, but staff found it hard to keep youth attending therapeutic services when they 
Section IV – Public Management Model: Services and Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Research and Evaluation Associates 55

were released from parole supervision. The Colorado workforce specialists found that 

some youth stopped taking medication once they were released as well. 

We turn now to reviewing the services each project offered youth and the mechanisms 

that projects used to coordinate those services for individual youth. 

Workforce Development Services 

Preparing a youth for work varied in format, duration, 

and intensity (See Table 8). Des Moines incorporated 

work readiness into the first hour of the GED school 

day; Colorado incorporated a one-half hour session 

twice a month into its GED class at Lookout Mountain 

Youth Services Center (LMYSC). Just before release 

from LMYSC, workforce specialists, who would help 

youth find employment after release, led the young men 

through a week-long five and one-half hour a day 

program. These workforce specialists developed the 

“Striving Toward Employment and Personal Success” 

(STEPS) work readiness curriculum during the DOL 

grant, revamping it as they gained more experience with what did and did not work in 

Table 8. Work Readiness Training Program Intensity and Duration by Project 

Project Intensity Duration 

Chicago 

Periodic workshops. Periodic workshops (Latino Youth) or a 2-week 

class (Y.E.S.) for older youth. 

Cincinnati 

There are six providers; intensity 

varies. 

There are six providers; duration varies. 

Colorado 

In LMYSC: 1⁄2 hour, two times a 

month. 

Just before release: five and 1⁄2 hours 

per day for a week. 

Entire semester through the Metro Lab School; 

STEPS using workforce specialists for a week 

before release. Additional assistance also offered 

at the workforce centers as needed after release. 

Des Moines Every morning for an hour. Until the youth finishes a GED. 

Erie One-two hours per day. Eight weeks; also a program through the Boy 

Scouts. 

Hartford Just being implemented. N.A. 

New York 

City 

Two hours per day scheduled in 

morning and afternoon. 

One to four weeks or until the youth is placed. 

Pittsburgh 

One 7-hour session with one-to-one 

follow-up for those that need more. 

Daylong workshop. 

West Palm 

Beach 

90 hours. Built into the clinical experience explicitly as 

work readiness with an emphasis on the health 

professions. 

Workforce 

Development 

Services
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

56 Research and Evaluation Associates

helping youth find jobs. West Palm Beach made work readiness an element of its 

clinical training curriculum, and it gave 90 hours to it during the clinical training. New 

York focused its work readiness on those with the lowest skills—those least likely to 

complete a GED. The curriculum emphasized the basics of completing applications, 

preparing a resume, and conducting an interview. The length of work readiness depended 

on the needs of the youth. Youth who were more likely to complete their schooling were 

encouraged to attend education classes until they had the GED; they usually had fewer 

problems preparing for and finding work. 

Job placement and retention efforts were offered to some extent by all the projects, but 

staffs emphasized preparing youth for work more than helping youth keep jobs. Several 

projects learned through the grant period that youth needed more support during the early 

months of job placement than they were receiving, but they often did not have the 

resources remaining to allocate to this task. 

The technical assistance team arranged a conference call on developing an employer 

network about mid-way during the project, but it was not until the end of the project 

period that grantees realized how intractable the job retention problem remained. The 

technical assistance team arranged a second conference call to address this problem and 

developed a Fact Sheet to summarize the key strategies. (See Appendix F for the Fact 

sheet.) 

New York offered youth the services of a retention specialist. She contacted employers 

and visited employment locations. She believed that she was able to work with employers 

and youth employees to resolve issues before youth quit or were fired. Once DOL 

funding was depleted, the project retrenched to protect the educational and work 

readiness services. The retention specialist was able to detect the effect of not having 

time for retention, but she believed that the changes made to the work readiness training 

after her experience with retention helped more youth remain employed – even without 

special interventions. 

The Colorado project was designed to provide job placement and retention services to 

the young men at LMYSC after their release. Most of the men had a GED or diploma and 

had had an intensive work readiness experience at LMYSC; yet the workforce specialists 

needed to work both with the youth and the employers to keep youth employed. 

Pittsburgh youth typically found jobs in entry-level retail positions, and the project 

provided case managers to follow-up with the youth for a year. West Palm Beach also 

maintained contact with the primary employer of its graduates. Des Moines did not have 

a retention specialist, but case workers believed that youth would come to them if they 

needed child care, transportation, or faced other threats to their job status. Chicago and 

Erie provided few employment retention services because their clients were younger 

youth. Staff at Goodwill in Chicago had, however, developed an employer network and 

had broad experience in matching first-time workers with jobs. Hartford was just 

beginning to offer job placement and retention services while Cincinnati depended on 

six providers; each had its own service pattern and length of follow-up. 
Section IV – Public Management Model: Services and Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Research and Evaluation Associates 57

Reentry Services

Reentry Services 

Table 6 on page 53 reports which reentry services 

each project offered. The services reflected each 

project’s design. 

Notice, for example, that alternative sentencing is not 

offered in Colorado because all the young men were 

adjudicated and incarcerated when they entered the 

project. Similarly, youth in the Pittsburgh project 

generally were former offenders, but some judges 

asked the project to take youth they believed would 

not benefit from incarceration. Erie tended to get youth into the program after they 

fulfilled their alternative sentencing obligations. Des Moines accepted youth who were 

given alternative sentencing. Staff supported youth with such activities as going with 

them for court appointments, rather than offering alternative sentencing services directly. 

New York City instituted an alternative sentencing component with DOL funds, but it 

was cut as part of the retrenchment mentioned earlier. The project and Judge Corriero, an 

advocate of reducing the number of youth incarcerations, thought that the example of the 

demonstration would attract local funds to continue an alternative sentencing program. 

With city budget cuts, however, there were no funds for alternative sentencing. (See 

Appendix E for more detail on reentry services offered project-by-project.)

Few of the projects offered aftercare services with DOL funds. Chicago, Cincinnati, Des 

Moines, Erie, New York, Pittsburgh, and West Palm Beach projects supported youth 

who were under court supervision without actually providing any aftercare services 

directly. The Colorado project was awarded to a justice agency that provided a rich array 

of aftercare services. By design the project added a workforce development component to 

the aftercare profile. With state budget cuts, the DOL project began funding some of the 

mental health and substance abuse services for youth after release – services that were a 

part of the aftercare program initially. Although it did not offer formal aftercare services, 

Erie used the Anger Replacement Therapy (ART) with its youth, and Colorado referred 

some youth to the Gang Reduction and Support Program (GRASP). Both of these would 

be considered aftercare measures. The mental health counseling offered to youth by 

several of the projects was often instigated by an anger event, so they could also be 

considered aftercare in nature. Aftercare, strictly defined, refers to such services offered 

to returning offenders although the projects may offer them to other youth as well. 

Anti-gang activities can be direct, such as offering the GRASP curriculum, or indirect, 

such as keeping youth occupied in activities that are alternatives to gang activities. In this 

latter sense, all the projects offered anti-gang activities whether they had been designed 

explicitly to be so or not. Creating a sense of trust among youthful clients, occupying 

their time with constructive activities, developing rules against wearing gang marks or 

colors during project activities – all mitigated the effects of gang involvement. New York

had the youth meet as “members” every Thursday night to share their successes and 

struggles; West Palm Beach had its youth join a health occupation club – a positive, 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

58 Research and Evaluation Associates

professional association. Colorado’s project would not allow gang insignia on grounds, 

and put two gang leaders through a cooperative ropes course before assigning them to 

work together. For some youth, the project was neutral ground where gang members 

could study and work together amicably, even though the hostilities emerged outside the 

project. Pittsburgh created an alternative to gang colors through the BluePrint clothing 

youth received. 

Chicago and Pittsburgh had specific anti-gang activities. In Chicago, caseworkers 

attempted to build the trust of youth and help extricate them from gang activity should 

they want to change. Pittsburgh staff worked in the streets during unrest to keep as many 

youth as possible from getting involved. Pittsburgh staff asked another demonstration 

project to take one youth into its protection when he wanted to leave a gang, but had 

reason to fear for his life if he stayed in the area. Cincinnati helped to establish a Youth 

Offender and Gang Prevention Advisory Board to share information and strategies 

among other youth service agencies aware of the deleterious effects of gang membership 

on their efforts to keep youth engaged in constructive activities. 

Community service was required for all participants only in West Palm Beach, where it 

was designed as a group activity that the youth enjoyed working on together. For most 

other projects, community service was a court requirement for certain youth, but not a 

specific project activity. In Erie, project activities qualified as community service, and 

stipends youth received could be applied to restitution requirements. In Colorado, extracurricular efforts by the young men at LMYSC served as their community service 

requirement, and work stipends paid most restitution requirements before they were 

released. Five or six youth at Friends of Island Academy (FOIA) in New York City were 

trained each year to provide anti-gang/anti-violence presentations to junior high schools, 

high schools, and at public housing projects. With DOL support, FOIA members reached 

more than 800 youth in the city with their message. 

Educational Services 

Of all the services provided by the DOL grant, educational services were the most 

generally provided to most clients (See Table 9.). There were several reasons for this 

emphasis: 

• A large number of youth (45% of the total or 834) were under the age of 18. 

Their main task was to remain in class and complete high school. 

• Even those who were 18 and older needed additional schooling. Many had 

been unsuccessful in school; many had dropped out of school or had been 

suspended/expelled. 

• Even some who had received GED certificates were unable to meet 

employers’ expectations for reading or mathematics skills. 
Section IV – Public Management Model: Services and Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Research and Evaluation Associates 59

Table 9. Educational Services Offered by Projects 

Project Literacy/PreGED GED/ Diploma Post GED Vocational 

Training 

Chicago 

Self-paced computer 

class for those reading 

under Grade 5; 

English-as-a-Second 

Language (ESL) as 

needed 

Diploma for those 

enrolled in 

alternative high 

schools; GED for 

others 

None An arts module was 

available at Latino 

Youth 

Cincinnati Basic skills through 

subcontractors 

Major effort of 

project 

None None 

Colorado 

Metro Lab School at 

LMYSC offered; 

none after release 

Major emphasis at 

LMYSC 

Red Rock 

Community 

College 

while at 

LMSYC; 

only a few 

aspire to go 

on after 

release 

While at LMSYC: Silk 

screen printing, 

construction, culinary 

arts, computer 

assembly, horse trailer 

remodeling and 

detailing 

Des Moines 

Offered tutoring, but 

no longer has funds to 

continue 

GED class daily 

until complete 

Des Moines 

Community 

College 

Youthbuild and 

Spectrum Resource 

Program offer 

construction experience 

to some 

Erie 

Broadreach does not 

offer, but Perseus 

House does for those 

who are also part of it 

Has three 

computer-based 

training packages 

None Boat building through 

the Bayfront Center for 

Maritime Studies –all 

day Saturday for eight 

weeks 

Hartford Hartford Schools Hartford Schools None None 

New York City 

Literacy and pre-GED 

classes offered daily 

as long as needed 

GED classes 

offered daily 

A few attend 

CUNY 

Referred to nearby 

training centers 

Pittsburgh 

Pittsburgh Board of 

Education Regular 

and Alternative 

Schools 

Pittsburgh Public 

Schools/Alternative 

Schools; Connelley 

Vocational School 

None 

Vocational Technology 

School Pittsburgh 

Board of Education; 

Connelley Vocational 

School, Letsche 

Alternative School; 

Manufacturers 2000 

West Palm 

Beach 

English and 

mathematics remedial 

classes with pre- and 

post-tests 

Not required to 

begin 

postsecondary 

health professions 

training 

APNHO is a 

postsecondary 

training 

facility 

Health-related 

occupational training 

with emphasis on OJT 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

60 Research and Evaluation Associates

Projects learned that finding youth employment was markedly easier if they had acquired 

the skills and the certification of those skills before searching for a job. New York is a 

good example. It initially intended to work only on the GED, but when staff assessed the 

youth, they found that some needed the most rudimentary training. Staff redesigned the 

educational program to provide a sequence of four levels: literacy, basic skills, pre-GED 

and GED classes. Youth were tested regularly and moved through the sequence at their 

own pace. If youth seemed unable to move through the sequence to high school 

equivalency, they were referred for work readiness training and directed to jobs they 

could accomplish with low literacy/numeracy skills. 

West Palm Beach took a different tack. When youth demonstrated the competence to 

enter the health academy, they were offered reading and math support, but they were not 

asked to earn a GED before beginning health-careers training. A diploma or GED is not 

required to earn the certificates for some entry-level positions in health care. The focus in 

Cincinnati, Des Moines and Colorado was on earning the GED, and substantial 

resources were funneled into the GED programs there. Chicago, Hartford, and 

Pittsburgh put their emphasis on keeping youth in schools operated by the local school 

districts; many youth were in district-run alternative high schools. 

At the time of the third evaluation site visit, Erie was redesigning its educational 

programs as a result of the DOL grant. The Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies and 

Perseus House agreed that the 8-week boat-building program did not provide sufficient 

time to meet the needs of the youth. Perseus House formed a charter school, and the 

successful elements of the Broadreach project software and activities curriculum were 

integrated into the new school offerings. The charter school will give more focused and 

consistent attention to the educational development needs of project youth. 

Notice in Table 9 that a few other projects gave youth specific occupational training. 

Clearly, West Palm Beach was an exception with its focus on training for careers in the 

health care system. Colorado also offered all youth some occupational training while 

they were incarcerated. The young men ran a silk screening project, and they were 

offered instruction in culinary arts, construction, computer assembly, and horse trailer 

repair and detailing. (The last-named was new, but the facility is in a horse-sports area. 

The youth repair the vehicles and add decorative detailing as an extra.) Many youth have 

found work in an occupation for which they trained, especially culinary arts jobs. The 

project hoped to attract the interest of unions in apprenticeable occupations to begin 

apprenticeship training while the young men are incarcerated and continue with them 

after release. YouthBuild of Des Moines gave project youth some construction 

experience, but it did not admit them into formal training as part of the project. 

Other Support Services 

All projects offered support services. A substantial proportion of project youth needed a 

substance abuse intervention, and failing substance abuse tests was an occasion of job 

loss for some youth. Several projects reported that, no matter what they were told by 

staff, youth did not think marijuana use constituted using drugs. All projects except 
Section IV – Public Management Model: Services and Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Research and Evaluation Associates 61

Cincinnati and Hartford screened for substance use. Cincinnati and Hartford

depended on partner agencies to detect substance use, although both had partners to 

whom youth could be referred should substance abuse services be needed. (See Table 6 

on page 53 for support services provided; see Appendix E for more detail on support 

services.) 

Assessments for mental health services were routinely made by most projects: Chicago, 

Colorado, Des Moines, Erie, New York, Pittsburgh and West Palm Beach. Of these, 

Des Moines, Erie, Pittsburgh, and West Palm Beach made referrals for services. The 

other projects provided the services themselves. 

Few projects had occasion to provide health assessments. Colorado did as part of its 

orientation of youth to the correctional system, and West Palm Beach provided a health 

screening routinely. West Palm Beach uncovered untreated asthma and hypertension 

among its youth while Colorado uncovered few health problems. New York did not 

provide health screening, but the project ensured that all youth had insurance through the 

Children’s Defense Fund effort to have all children insured. Colorado also arranged 

health insurance for youth who lacked other coverage. 

Housing was an occasional, but disruptive, need for project youth. Youth without a 

stable, adequate, nighttime sleeping arrangement were incapable of achieving any of the 

other project goals: attending consistently, being on time, and making progress with 

studies or employment. Until this need was resolved, the other goals of the youth were 

unreachable. Des Moines had no provider for housing; other projects had referral 

sources. In general however, communities did not have many available places suitable for 

youth, so most did not have secure arrangements they could count on. 

Coordinating Mechanisms 

A major demonstration goal was identifying effective mechanisms for serving high-need 

youth. The experience of both Rounds One and Two was that no one organization or 

agency could meet all these needs effectively. Partnerships of varying intensities were 

necessary to assure access to all needed services. From the foregoing, one can see that the 

projects have been resourceful in identifying the services youth need. The very 

collaborations themselves raised a task for the projects: How would they coordinate and 

oversee the service delivery to assure that all the youth were served, regardless of who 

provided the service? The chief coordinating mechanisms were: 

• Individual service plans, 

• Route counseling, 

• Standard forms, definitions, and record-keeping, 

• Automated or web-based management information systems (MIS), 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

62 Research and Evaluation Associates

• Referral agreements 

• Co-location of services or integrating/co-locating staff, and 

• Cross-agency training. 

Individual Service Plans 

The individual service plan is a major tool for coordinating services. The plan acts as a 

framework for monitoring the youth’s pathway through services and progress in 

completing them. All Round Two projects included the youth in the development of the 

individual service plan, and they used the individualized service plan to coordinate the 

services to youth. 

Route Counseling 

All the projects used some variation of the same approach to monitoring services and 

assessing progress: route counseling, sometimes called case management. Route 

counseling is a term preferred by many practitioners for several reasons: 

• Persons resist the idea of someone managing them; 

• The term emphasizes that responsibility for change and progress belongs with 

the client; 

• The term focuses attention on the “route” or pathway that coordinates and 

sequences the services; and 

• The term also implies an endpoint, that is, the services lead a client to a place 

where he/she can manage on his/her own. 

Persons serving as route counselors were accountable for seeing that the youth received 

services or sought assistance, from family and/or project managers, if the youth failed to 

attend or resisted in other ways. Consider the route counseling characteristics reported in 

Table 10. About half of the projects assigned a substantial number of youth to each 

counselor. This reflected a philosophical approach to the route counseling task, that is, 

that the counselor would ensure that a youth received services, but would not be a 

personal mentor. 

Chicago, Pittsburgh, Des Moines, and West Palm Beach, on the other hand, kept the 

caseload small enough that each route counselor had time to follow up with each youth 

personally. Some projects structured contacts around activities the youth were supposed 

to attend every day (Des Moines, New York, and West Palm Beach), while others 

needed to find the youth in the community to contact them (Chicago, Cincinnati, 

Colorado, and Pittsburgh). Erie connected with the youth weekly during the youth’s 
Section IV – Public Management Model: Services and Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Research and Evaluation Associates 63

Table 10. Route Counseling Services Offered by Round Two Projects 

Project Number of 

Counselors 

Ratio to Youth 

(Average) Frequency of Contacts 

Chicago 5 1:6 At least every other week. 

Cincinnati 10 1:80* Every 90 days; caseload includes 

WIA-only youth. 

Colorado 4 1:50 At least monthly; case load 

includes youth at LMYSC. 

Des Moines 2 1:25 Daily (start of GED class). 

Erie 4 1:60 Weekly during active phase; then 

monthly. 

Hartford 2 1:64 At enrollment, then to partners. 

New York City 4 1:50 Daily for those in classes. 

Pittsburgh 5 1:15 8-12 times a month; telephone or 

in-person. 

West Palm Beach 5 1:20 Daily at class. 

• The caseload also included WIA clients who were not part of the demonstration. 

time at the Bayfront Maritime Academy. Hartford expected that each partner would 

become responsible for ensuring that youth referred received services. The two project 

counselors served as individual service strategy planners, and they had little contact with 

the youth once the plan was complete. 

Management Information Systems 

Hartford’s project, however, planned another useful strategy for monitoring whether the 

youth received services. The project used grant funds to develop Hartford Connects, a 

management information system (MIS) that unified the reporting for all youth service 

providers. Service providers were expected to enter the data on services delivered, and all 

those providers with a youth in common could read the individual service plan and the 

record of services received. Cincinnati planned to build a common database, like 

Hartford’s, but the work bogged down over the issue of confidentiality. 

The Chicago grantee, the Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, developed a webbased data collection system to record all the services the youth received, regardless of 

the partner providing the service. Des Moines planned to report data similarly across 

partners by integrating subcontractor databases into the local One-Stop database. (In this 

project, all services a youth received were through one or the other sub-contractor.) 

Negotiations proved difficult, however, so the subcontractors developed their own 

databases. 

In Colorado, each workforce development agency maintained its own MIS, but the 

project developed a program that brought key data from the four agencies into alignment 

for a combined report to the project staff. West Palm Beach developed an extensive 

project MIS. Leadership reviewed data monthly with a local evaluator to monitor 

progress. Pittsburgh did not use a unified MIS during the project; route counselors 

prepared a monthly report for supervisors on each youth as an accountability mechanism. 

Counselors maintained extensive case notes as a basis for these reports. New York was 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

64 Research and Evaluation Associates

in the process of developing a project level database; one staff member maintained counts 

of youth in each program until the MIS was ready to use. Weekly meetings of each 

program unit (education, leadership, employment, etc.) coordinated the delivery of 

services. Erie collected “Case Action Forms” for each activity in which a youth 

participated. Data from these forms were aggregated for regular reports to supervisors or 

for DOL. 

Co-location of Services 

Several projects coordinated services by providing most of them in a common location. 

Des Moines’ two sub-contractors provided most of the services to youth directly at their 

offices, referring youth to other agencies for mental health, substance abuse, and other 

support services. The New York project delivered almost all its services in one location 

as well; youth with serious mental health and substance abuse issues were referred out for 

services. Pittsburgh also delivered most services under one roof, and mental health and 

substance abuse intervention specialists came to the project location to meet with the 

youth. Clients of the West Palm Beach project were in two groups: high school students 

and academy students. The high school program was the last period of the day at the four 

targeted high schools. The academy youth came to the academy building every day for 

about two-thirds of the day. Most of the contact time, for both groups, therefore, was in 

one place. For support services, however, the youth were referred to providers in the 

community. 

Latino Youth and Scholarship and Guidance provided some services to Chicago youth 

beyond route counseling, but the project developed a consortium of providers in the 

community to offer services as well. As mentioned earlier, Cincinnati used six providers 

in the community, and youth went to them for services. Similarly, Hartford referred all 

its youth out to community partners for services. The Bayfront Center for Maritime 

Studies portion of the Erie project was conducted in one place, but all the other services 

in the youth’s individual case plan were referred to other partners within the Erie 

community. The post- release portion of the Colorado project operated in the counties to 

which the youth were released. Although the original expectation in Colorado was that 

youth would come to the One-Stop centers to meet the workforce specialists and to get 

further work readiness and job placement support, experience showed that youth were 

reluctant to come to the One-Stops, at least initially. Workforce specialists met the youth 

wherever they were: at work, in a library or other neutral setting near home or work. 

Other services were all in the county of residence, and youth were expected to go to 

them. 

Cross-Agency Training 

Most projects provided explicit training to project staff, and some explicitly used cross 

training as a way to develop a common approach to serving youth. Fourteen front-line 

youth services workers in Hartford completed the first round of cross-agency training 

through Hartford’s Youth Development Practitioners’ Academy. Four West Palm Beach

staff members completed “Offender Workforce Development Special Team Training,” 
Section IV – Public Management Model: Services and Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Research and Evaluation Associates 65

and, in addition, four staff members completed the accredited Occupational Associate 

degree in youth development offered by the State of Florida. Faculty also earned national 

certification to teach employability skills and attended the offender workforce 

development specialist training offered by the National Institute of Corrections. 

Cincinnati offered project staff monthly training in subjects like crisis intervention, 

working with special populations and eligibility determination. New York offered its 

staff three sessions on employment retention training and received a PEPNet consultation 

on employment retention as well. One staff member attended the National Youth 

Employment Coalition training, and monthly staff meetings included some in-service 

education or training elements. Colorado assured that all the workforce specialists 

received specialized training; each had to complete the baseline training for anyone who 

works inside the fence of LMYSC. In addition, each had to complete the workforce 

specialist training at the workforce center that hired him or her. Three of the four workers 

also attended the National Youth Development Practitioners Institute. Pittsburgh

provided all staff members with training in mental health and substance abuse 

interventions. 

All projects used at least two forms of services coordination: individual service plans and 

route counseling. Others used management information services, team training, 

integrating multi-agency staff, or co-location as well. Many of these efforts developed a 

team approach to service delivery. Although Chicago and Hartford developed 

memorandums of understanding with a broad swath of community based organizations, 

evaluators observed that the partners engaged in delivering services tended to be few. 

Evaluators raised the possibility that coordinating services for individual youth required 

so much project energy that it became difficult to coordinate a large number of service 

delivery providers as well. 

Summary 

Over the duration of the demonstration, projects incorporated a rich array of service 

resources into their projects to meet the needs of project youth. While all projects had 

access to a wide range of services for youth, the program design and target audiences 

narrowed their focus. Projects enrolling primarily younger youth, for example, supported 

them in educational pursuits more than employment preparation; those with older youth 

emphasized employment over education. 

Workforce preparation received more emphasis than job placement and retention in most 

projects. The projects seemed, however, to each design its own work readiness 

curriculum and experiences. Several projects reported that they had redesigned their work 

readiness components after some experience with their original designs. 

The intensity and duration of employment preparation activities varied widely from an 

occasional workshop to a 90-hour curriculum. For some projects work readiness activities 

were embedded in other experiences, such as Erie’s boat building or West Palm Beach’s

clinical training. Other projects focused on specific work readiness activities. These 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

66 Research and Evaluation Associates

variations are likely to affect the extent to which youth are work-ready, and they bear 

study to distinguish their effects. 

While all projects provided access to support services, some of them were meeting 

resistance from youth to attending the services recommended in their individual service 

plans. All projects experienced a degree of non-persistence moreover, that is, a certain 

portion of the youth dropped out of the project before completing their plans. The data 

elements DOL required projects to maintain did not include a count of active and inactive 

clients, but evaluators heard the concerns of the project staff anecdotally. Through the 

coordinating mechanisms of the individual plan supported by route counseling, however, 

projects did know which youth were not attending or receiving services as intended. They 

had policies about continued follow-up, and the press of client caseload usually 

determined how strong the follow-up proved to be. 

Other projects, notably Cincinnati and Hartford, were early in their service delivery 

implementation phase, having devoted the major portion of the demonstration period to 

building their service delivery infrastructures. Notice the lack of detail in their reports of 

work readiness services (Table 8). In time, the issues of intensity and duration are likely 

to become a focus of concern for Cincinnati, and Hartford will know more about the 

services youth receive when they are referred to partners for educational, employment, 

and support services. 

All projects used the coordinating mechanisms of an individual service plan supported by 

route counseling. Some projects created a sense of place and peer support by offering 

services to groups of youth and by establishing stable meeting places. While all projects 

had at least a rudimentary MIS, few used the data to identify patterns of progress or 

difficulty in tracking the pathways of youth through the project. Evaluators viewed the 

projects’ failure to use data as a missed opportunity to make better use of their investment 

in designing and maintaining records in the management information systems. Evaluators 

observed different philosophies of route counseling: large caseloads and small. Further 

study of the differences for youth tied to these philosophical differences would be of 

practical value to projects’ staff and administrators. Further research would also be useful 

on the differences for youth of different coordinating mechanisms. For example, are 

persistence patterns stronger with more coordinating mechanisms in place compared to 

using fewer? Evaluators observed that projects with many partners used only a few of 

them to deliver services. Using only a few partners could stem from the newness of the 

partnerships, and projects will incorporate more service providers over time. It could also 

stem from the additional project staff time needed to coordinate multiple partners, 

oversee service delivery and develop common reporting processes. More may not be 

better in service delivery partner coordination. 

In the next section, evaluators report on the organizational attributes and the data 

collection and analysis component. 
 Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 67

Organizational Attributes

Section V 

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL: ORGANIZATIONAL 

ATTRIBUTES AND DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

Overview 

In the previous section, the report reviewed the progress projects in Round Two made in 

implementing the expected array of services and in providing coordinating mechanisms 

for delivering those services to the youth in customized ways. The description noted that 

not all projects had rationalized the service delivery effort to the same degree: some 

projects managed to assemble the range of services but had not developed a 

comprehensive approach to duration, intensity and reporting processes among service 

providers while others had devised ways to assure that youth received the needed services 

consistently. 

Similarly, all the projects demonstrated attributes of successfully implemented projects, 

but some of them struggled with one or more of the attributes. This section reviews the 

attributes observed in successfully implemented projects and identifies the ways the 

projects in Round Two exemplified these attributes. 

All the projects also made progress with developing data collection processes and varied 

in the extent to which they used the data for accountability, decision-making, and 

sustainability. This section also reviews the progress Round Two projects made in 

developing and using data to manage their projects. 

All these dimensions of the PMM were incorporated by projects differently and to 

different degrees. Recall that Nathan’s observation was that attending to systems-level 

change, over time, would improve the services to individuals. In other words, the nine 

projects were evolving at different rates and in different ways, but they were making 

progress toward the common goal of serving the target population. 

Organizational Attributes 

A key component of the PMM is the set of seven 

organizational attributes. The indicators for 

successful implementation of each attribute and the 

criteria used by the evaluation team to gauge 

progress toward them appear in summary form in 

Table 11. Each attribute is described in the 

following paragraphs. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

68 Research and Evaluation Associates

Table 11. Public Management Model: Organizational Attributes 

Organizational Attribute Criteria for Gauging Presence of an Attribute 

1. Developed a Wellconceived Plan

 Program has a clear and focused vision and mission. 

 Program goals and objectives are realistic and 

measurable. 

 Stakeholders, including community partners, family 

member representatives, and front-line staff are 

involved during program development and 

implementation. 

2. Established 

Partnerships Between 

the Workforce 

Development and 

Juvenile Justice 

Systems

 Grantee has prior experience working with the 

Workforce Development and/or Juvenile Justice 

systems. 

3. Built Community 

Support/ Network

 Youth and family serving agencies, including CBOs, 

faith-based organizations, and public service 

agencies, support the program. 

4. Ensured Grantee 

Involvement

 Grantee is the lead agency, actively providing 

direction and coordination for the project. 

 Grantee involvement and support is continuous. 

5. Connected the 

Workforce 

Development, Justice, 

and Health Care 

Systems

 Grantee coordinates with and utilizes resources 

available through the Workforce Development, 

Justice, and Health Care Systems. 

6. Leveraged Resources 

Through 

Collaboration and 

Partnerships 

 Project effectively identifies and utilizes other 

resources and funding streams to support project 

goals. 

7. Shared Leadership 

and Information

 Decision-making and information are shared among 

stakeholders. 

1. Developed a Well-conceived Plan 

The evaluation of Round Two projects confirmed that projects that had well-conceived 

plans implemented their plans with greater ease than those that did not. Seven of the nine 

Round Two projects began with what appeared to be well-conceived and well-developed 

implementation plans. 

Plans for projects in Colorado, Des Moines, Erie, Hartford, New York City, 

Pittsburgh, and West Palm Beach were solid from the beginning. To a large extent, the 

implementation plans served as useful guides throughout the demonstration. In general, 

the plans met standards outlined for this organizational attribute, including measurable 

objectives and provision for periodic review to ensure that they were being reached. Each 
 Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 69

project brought together a diversity of stakeholders to develop consensus about the vision 

for the projects. 

After the October 2001 post-award conference, which introduced the organizational 

attributes to the projects, staffs in West Palm Beach, Colorado, and New York City

revised their plans so they were more closely aligned with the organizational attributes. 

Evaluators noted, however, that initially New York City’s project lacked adequate 

involvement of most stakeholders. 

The BroadReach project in Erie resulted from a vision of two organizations that focused 

on future growth and sustainability of the project. Both agencies had experience serving 

youth and the project benefited from the strong planning mechanism that the grantee, 

Perseus House, already had in place before it received demonstration funds. 

By late 2001 it became apparent that Chicago’s project design did not offer a way to 

bring an adequate number of partners together to provide services to target youth. To 

correct the situation, the Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development (MOWD), the 

grantee, rethought the project’s plan and subcontracted with Goodwill Industries of 

Metropolitan Chicago, Inc., to organize the effort. By the second evaluation site visit, the 

project had recovered much of the footing it lost early on. The project continued to 

modify its plan through implementation as it confronted unexpected barriers and 

challenges, such as when a subcontractor had to be replaced because it could not perform 

its route counseling responsibilities. 

YouthWorks, Inc., the grantee, and its partners in Pittsburgh shared a vision to create a 

model community-based route counseling system for youth offenders, based on the 

concept of balanced and restorative justice to reduce recidivism and youth violence. That 

vision did not change throughout the grant period. Planning was generally informed by 

first-hand, qualitative, anecdotal knowledge rather than by analysis of quantitative data. 

Cincinnati’s project plan was commendable in its detail: the 50-page plan outlined 

specific tasks, responsibilities, outcome measures, and milestones. It served the project 

less well than it might have, however, because of the absence of the “big picture:” how 

specific tasks would fit together to achieve the project’s vision and mission. While the 

plan was monitored periodically, and missed milestones were repeatedly revised, the 

monitoring process was not used as an opportunity to reconsider whether the initial plan 

was too ambitious for the resources available or whether priorities assigned to tasks 

needed revision. Community capacity building activities, for example, continued to 

receive the highest priority even when no youth were being served a year after the grant 

award. 

The vision of the West Palm Beach project was to involve a broad coalition of partners 

in planning activities. Partners were included not just in periodic formal meetings but also 

in work groups to focus on specific areas, such as administrative, programmatic, and 

system development. The strategy was that such interaction among the partners would 

lead to more awareness of the unique needs of targeted youth, more awareness of the 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

70 Research and Evaluation Associates

range of services available to meet their needs, and more willingness to collaborate to 

serve them. 

Planning for Sustainability. From the beginning of the grant period, projects were 

expected to include planning, not just for the grant period, but also for on going operation 

after the grant funds were gone. As the projects progressed into their implementation 

phases, planning for sustainability became a more-pressing issue. This part of the section 

considers each project’s efforts. 

At the time of the third evaluation site visit in fall 2003, Chicago’s project was grappling 

with how to sustain the project after grant funding ended. The grantee, MOWD, and its 

primary partner, Goodwill Industries, were working together to secure WIA youth funds. 

In addition, the partners hoped to receive additional funds through the juvenile justice 

system to continue route counseling. The partners also worked together to advocate for 

development of two youth One-Stop centers in the project’s target area. The partners also 

were confident that the consortium of 40 partners created for the project would continue 

to meet after grant funding ended, although only about five partners provided services 

through subcontracts. 

Cincinnati’s project developed a sustainability strategy from the beginning of the grant 

by enrolling all youth through the WIA eligibility process. Youth who did not meet the 

eligibility criteria, but met the demonstration criteria, were eligible for services through 

the demonstration. The plan, however, was that the majority of demonstration project 

youth would continue receiving services after the grant through the WIA system. 

Frequent turnovers in both grantee and subcontractor staff delayed the development and 

implementation of the plan. The WIA-related youth council and the Re-Entry Task Force 

will likely continue the project’s community-based activities. The focus on sustaining 

service delivery relied on full integration with existing WIA-funded youth services. 

The project in Des Moines planned to use grant funds to address the findings of a 

community report that recommended development of partnerships to build capacity and a 

collaborative approach to service delivery that would be sustained beyond the grant. As 

of the third site visit in September 2003, the grantee had formed a community coalition 

with a group of inner-city non-profit providers. The partnership was to “serve as the 

driving force in the development of a comprehensive service network” and intended to 

show that collaborations, such as the demonstration, produce results. The partnership also 

planned to bring in more organizations to broaden the community commitment to 

changing the system and make presentations to potential funders as a group. 

In Erie, the project’s Workforce Essential Skills program was to be incorporated into the 

curriculum of all Perseus House programs, including residential, community-based, 

alternative education, and the charter school. Partnerships created with the Bayfront 

Center for Maritime Studies and the local WIB were to continue. 

The Hartford Youth Access Program, with its grantee Capital Region Workforce 

Development Board, saw the capacity-building initiatives under DOL funding as vital 

components to gaining long-term buy-in from both service providers and funders. The 
 Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 71

expectation was that because Hartford Connects results in a highly interconnected system 

of comprehensive service delivery, all participating agencies would have an increasing 

commitment to its continuation. In addition, the grantee and several partners created the 

Youth Development Practitioners Academy to provide a no-cost permanent mechanism 

for improving the professional skills of participating agencies’ staff. At the time of the 

third evaluation site visit, and looking beyond the period of the DOL grant, the grantee 

planned to continue providing leadership to develop a community-wide system, 

broadening the target population over time to essentially all at-risk and offender youth 

between 14 and 24 years of age. Eventually, responsibility for route counseling would be 

spread throughout the system, such that an agency that enrolls a youth through Hartford 

Connects becomes the agency responsible for route counseling and for monitoring the 

client’s progress on his or her Personal Learning and Career Plan over time. 

The lack of partnerships with organizations that shared responsibility for delivering 

services to Friends of Island Academy (FOIA) youth made sustainability a worrisome 

issue for the project in New York City. FOIA hired a part-time grants writer to seek out 

additional funds. Although FOIA attracted more grant funds after the grant writer joined 

the project, the staff size, which at one point numbered 40, could not be sustained. One 

grant offered guidance on streamlining staff structure and processes, making it possible to 

sustain most services with fewer staff. Since the time of the second site visit, the project 

has made major strides in bringing together new partners, including the New York City 

Department of Corrections; and several new health grants also supported new 

partnerships. The project received additional funds as part of DOL’s Academic Skills 

grant, which will support on-going and new project activities for another year. Staff, 

however, reported that they wished they had started sustainability efforts sooner, as 

suggested by the technical assistance team. 

The collaboration formed in Pittsburgh was expected to continue working with 

BluePrint during its 1-year no-cost extension and later, if sufficient funds can be found. 

Even after then, the project coordinator and grantee executive director believed that 

BluePrint would continue basically unchanged. They expected the county to pick up a 

substantial portion of the funding, supplemented by foundation support. Although the 

grant application envisioned BluePrint achieving a higher level of inclusion of youth 

offenders in the local CareerLink system, BluePrint has served as a substitute for 

CareerLink, rather than facilitating greater inclusion in the system. As a result, sustaining 

services for youth is expected to depend, not on the One-Stop system, but on the 

continued role of YouthWorks to obtain funding from sources such as Allegheny County, 

foundations, and perhaps other federal funding streams. 

The grantee in West Palm Beach, the Academy for Practical Nursing and Health 

Occupations (APNHO) and its principal partners (Probationers Educational Growth 

(PEG) and the Palm Beach County WIB), jointly planned for continuation of the 

program. The project became a model for planning among Round Two projects and was 

featured in a fact sheet on sustainability prepared by the TA team for DOL (See 

Appendix G.) 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

72 Research and Evaluation Associates

From the beginning of the grant process, APNHO pursued a collaborative approach to 

service delivery through partnerships and alliances. DOL grant funds were used for 

capacity building that was intended to develop a strong community infrastructure capable 

of being self-sustained after grant termination. As of the third site visit in September 

2003, 17 separate projects had been funded, often because one project was able to build 

on the success of another. As for continuation of services to target youth, PEG will 

become the central point for serving target youth. 

2. Established Partnerships between the Workforce Development and Juvenile 

Justice Systems 

Successfully implemented projects were or became knowledgeable about the culture and 

operating procedures of the workforce development and justice systems. Those that had 

established good working relationships on youth-oriented programs before the grant 

period gained valuable experience that made the implementation of the demonstration 

easier and quicker. 

In the case of workforce development organizations running the projects, it helped when 

the organizations already had established strong communications systems with judges, 

district attorneys, and probation officers in their communities. In the case of juvenile 

justice organizations running projects, it helped when they already had established strong 

communications systems with the One-Stop delivery system in their communities. 

In short, projects with other system relationships firmly in place before receiving grant 

funds were able to move more quickly toward integrating workforce development 

services for youth under court supervision or who were involved in gangs. 

At the start of the second round of the demonstration, the majority of the nine projects 

lacked strong prior experience with both the juvenile justice and the workforce 

development systems. YouthWorks, the grantee and parent organization in Pittsburgh, 

however, had developed strong ties with both the juvenile justice and workforce 

development systems before it received DOL funds. It served as the primary focus for the 

city’s and county’s effort to provide workforce preparation for youth offenders and other 

vulnerable youth. Through other programs it was involved with, the grantee also had 

developed strong relationships with probation officers who were assigned to schools to 

ensure that offenders attending the schools complied with court orders. These included 

attendance at work readiness classes offered by YouthWorks and other services provided 

by its partners. 

Erie’s project also had established a strong relationship with the juvenile justice system. 

Perseus House, the grantee, runs residential pre-trial and mental health programs for 

youth and an alternative school for offenders. The associate executive director of Perseus 

House also is a retired top official of Erie’s juvenile justice system. During the project, 

Perseus House established a working relationship with CareerLink, registering every 

participant youth in the CareerLink system. 
 Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 73

The grantee in West Palm Beach, a training school for practical nursing and other health 

occupations, had previous experience with the workforce development system as a result 

of eight years of conducting in-school and out-of-school programs for youth through 

funding from JTPA and WIA. It had an especially strong relationship with the local youth 

council of the WIB from which the project had received other grants for operating its 

programs. Through its partner, Probationer’s Educational Growth (PEG), the project also 

had working relationships with the court system. 

New York’s project also had connections to the juvenile justice system as a result of its 

outreach programs to youth incarcerated in four youth facilities on Rikers Island. 

Through its experience with the youth leaving Rikers Island facilities, Friends of Island 

Academy (FOIA) had experience working with the courts. From this relationship with the 

courts, FOIA developed its Alternatives to Incarceration, a pilot effort funded by the 

DOL grant to provide services to youth receiving alternative sentences. What FOIA 

lacked was a relationship with the workforce development system. The One-Stop center 

system in New York City was not well developed during the demonstration period, so 

FOIA provided all the workforce development services itself. Toward the end of the 

grant period, a few WIA services were available to FOIA youth. 

Colorado, the only justice agency grantee in Round Two, had only the experience of 

developing the grant proposal with workforce development agencies prior to the award. It 

overcame that lack of experience in two ways: turning over most of the grant funds to the 

workforce development agencies to develop services for Division of Corrections’ youth 

and by allotting a portion of funds for partnership development processes and activities. 

 

Grantees in Hartford, Cincinnati and Des Moines, all workforce development agencies, 

had only limited prior experience working with the justice systems. Goodwill Industries, 

which operated Chicago’s project, had extensive experience with the workforce 

development system. It operates a One-Stop center and has contracts with the Mayor’s 

Office of Workforce Development, the project’s grantee, to provide other workforce 

services. Its links to the juvenile justice system, however, did not appear to be extensively 

developed, although members of its consortium represented the juvenile justice system. 

Although not as critical to implementation success, it is worth noting that several projects 

had previous experience with the health care system. The executive director of 

YouthWorks in Pittsburgh had worked for several years as a social worker at Western 

Psychiatric Institute and Center, a subcontractor that provides assessments and treatment 

for youth with mental health issues. West Palm Beach, as a health occupations training 

institution, had extensive health system connections. Other projects that had prior 

experience working with the health care system were Colorado and New York City. 

LMYSC receives the incarcerated youth diagnosed with mental health and substance 

abuse issues, and New York provides both mental health and substance abuse treatment 

services, referring youth to other agencies only for serious mental illness, substance 

abuse, and health care services. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

74 Research and Evaluation Associates

Attribute No. 2 recognizes that demonstration projects had different starting points in 

partnership development. The partnership between workforce and justice systems is 

essential for addressing the needs of target youth. Projects that lacked a strong connection 

took months or even years to establish good working relationships between the two 

systems. A community intending to serve target youth needs to make the development of 

this cross-system partnership an early and high priority. 

3. Built Community Support/Network 

The experiences of Round Two projects reinforced the importance for projects to have 

broad-based community support. Such support was essential, if they were to succeed at 

implementation and to develop the partnerships that increase the likelihood of a 

sustainable effort. Juvenile crime prevention depended on a commitment and sense of 

ownership by major agencies and interests that played a role in these efforts. Especially 

important was the need for projects to nurture support from youth and family-serving 

agencies, such as community-based organizations (CBOs) and other public service 

organizations. Sustainability often depended on a community knowing and supporting the 

project’s mission. 

Evaluators found this attribute present to some degree in most projects, many of which 

had substantial histories of working with other CBOs. This was the case with Chicago’s

project, which operated under a subcontract to Goodwill Industries, a large CBO that had 

established a consortium of 40 other community-based organizations. The project in 

West Palm Beach also proved effective building community-wide support. It partnered 

with many CBOs and raised more than $2 million in funds from foundations, and public 

and private organizations to fill in gaps in service delivery. 

The grantee running Pittsburgh’s project also had strong experience with creating 

community-wide support. Pittsburgh’s grantee serves as a conduit for foundation and 

governmental grants that target youth who are at risk of gang and court involvement. It 

manages millions of dollars each year, parceling funds to other CBOs seeking financial 

help to run programs for youth 

The grantee in Erie, a large non-profit agency, also had widespread community support, 

which was shown by the large number of partners who provided services to the youth it 

targeted. The New York City grantee had multiple funders and advocates, and its youth 

had been featured on the television program, “ 20/20,” and on National Public Radio. It 

had not, however, fully developed a broad network of community support. The grantee in 

Cincinnati, the city’s Workforce Development Division, worked hard from the start of 

the project to build community support. During the past two years it convened meetings 

of stakeholders in the community, including juvenile justice agencies, to bring them more 

strongly into the project and to create a unified vision for the demonstration. This 

community support, however, is in a nascent stage since the network of providers was 

still developing at the end of the project period. 
 Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 75

Colorado’s project received support from a group of community and political supporters. 

The project built upon a strong aftercare project that was in place when the Division of 

Youth Corrections of the Department of Human Services received DOL grant funds. The 

funds were used to add a workforce development dimension to an already rich array of 

services and supports provided by the grantee. The project in Des Moines had a narrow 

group of community supporters. In Hartford the grantee, a local workforce development 

agency, collected 23 signed memorandums of agreement from other CBOs. This 

appeared to indicate that the grantee was able to gain wide community support; yet it was 

only in the early stage of developing these agencies into operating partners. 

4. Grantee Involvement 

Evaluation of the Round Two projects appeared to confirm that well-managed and 

operated projects were those in which grantees remained constructively involved in all 

phases of the projects. It appeared essential that the grantees served as the lead agency 

and provided direction and coordination for the projects, even when they subcontracted 

project responsibilities to other organizations. 

With a few exceptions, evaluators found the active involvement of the grantee in all 

projects from the start of the demonstration grants. The grantee in Cincinnati 

subcontracted responsibility for providing youth services to an agency affiliated with the 

local One-Stop center and, instead, devoted most of its effort toward building capacity for 

youth services within the community. After problems with service delivery emerged, 

however, the grantee changed subcontractors and began to provide closer supervision and 

oversight of the new subcontractor to ensure adequate delivery of services. At the time of 

the second evaluation visit, the project had only begun to recruit project participants. Yet 

by the time of the third evaluation site visit in October 2003, the project had recruited 

more than 75 youth. The grantee was plagued, however, with staff turnover and 

administrator reassignments. The lack of grantee stability slowed project implementation 

and partnership development. 

During the project’s first nine months, the grantee in Des Moines did not closely 

supervise its two main subcontractors and did not appear to provide adequate direction. 

By the time of the second visit, the grantee was taking a more active role and worked 

more closely with its two primary partners and service providers to share information 

about the project’s status. By the time of the third site visit, however, the grantee once 

more appeared overwhelmed with other responsibilities and was experiencing difficulty 

making the project a priority. 

To a large extent, grantees of the other projects demonstrated strong positive involvement 

and provided oversight to other agencies with which they subcontracted or had 

partnerships to provide services. This was the case in Colorado where the Division of 

Youth Corrections of the state’s Department of Human Services contracted out the entire 

project to workforce development agencies and in Pittsburgh, which also subcontracted 

responsibilities, including route counseling and mental health assessments and treatment, 

to three main agencies. Chicago’s grantee closely monitored, supervised, and 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

76 Research and Evaluation Associates

participated on the project advisory board of Goodwill Industries, the subcontractor for 

the project. 

In the past, Pittsburgh’s grantee, whose mission is to develop, pilot and implement 

initiatives involving workforce issues for youth, leveraged its resources to get other 

organizations and systems to fill gaps in services provided youth. Some services, for 

example, included part-time and year-round employment and career exploration 

opportunities. The grantee agency and its staff are actively involved in guiding the project 

and its activities. The agency is well positioned to take the lead in providing services for 

the target population after DOL funds end. 

Several grantees provided direct services to project participants. This was the case in 

West Palm Beach where the grantee provided occupational training services to youth 

enrolled in the project. From the project’s inception, the grantee worked with the local 

WIB for coordination of workforce development services and with Probationers’ 

Educational Growth in the areas of alternative sentencing and aftercare. The grantee 

made a conscious effort to approach the project as a “team effort,” where the grantee was 

as much a partner as it was the lead agency. For this project, “grantee involvement” may 

only begin to describe the nature of the approach to managing the project. Though 

“leadership” is a difficult concept to measure, it was evident, starting with the project 

director and other senior managers at both APNHO and among primary partners. There 

seemed to be a strong sense of a common vision and a commitment to working with 

youth who faced challenges in the workplace. 

In Erie, the grantee was a large service provider that provided route counseling, and the 

grantee also coordinated service delivery to youth through a number of other CBOs. The 

grantee worked with the Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies, which provided 

workforce preparation through boat building, and CareerLink, which provided workforce 

development services and incentives. 

In Hartford the grantee directly managed a comprehensive system for improving the 

integration of service delivery to youth offenders and other youth at risk of gang and 

court involvement. It managed an Internet-based database of route counseling 

information on youth who received services. When fully operational, more than 23 

agencies will have access to the agency’s database. 

The grantee of the project in New York City, Friends of Island Academy, provided direct 

services to youth leaving four correctional facilities on Riker’s Island. The grantee 

provided mentoring and employment assistance and prevention outreach. Virtually all 

services were delivered under one roof by the agency’s staff. 

5. Connected the Workforce Development, Justice, and Health Care Systems 

Staff of well-managed and operated projects not only had experience and knowledge 

about the workings of the workforce development and justice systems (organizational 

attribute No. 2), but they also expanded their network of partners to include other service 
 Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 77

systems, especially health and education to take advantage of resources available through 

those systems. To more fully integrate services, project staff also worked to enhance 

coordination among the three systems. (See Table 12, on p. 83-85, which shows 

partnership arrangements.) 

The discussion of attribute No. 5 presents two perspectives on development of 

connections among the key systems. First, it discusses the types of new partnerships and 

collaborations created by projects during the grant period. Second, it looks at the types of 

challenges that several projects faced in developing these crucial relationships. 

Establishing Effective Connections. Several projects began building partnerships from 

the beginning of the demonstration. In West Palm Beach, the Academy for Practical 

Nursing and Health Occupations, worked with its primary partners, Probationer’s 

Educational Growth and Palm Beach County Workforce Development Board, to identify 

youth for the program and then to coordinate service delivery. The grantee of Colorado’s

project, a state juvenile justice agency, convened workforce development center partners 

during the proposal preparation and subcontracted out the entire project to those 

workforce development centers after funding. As the project evolved, the parole officers 

and the workforce specialists collaborated in working with youth, and the state 

Department of Vocational Rehabilitation assigned a staff member to work with the young 

men with disabilities to help them find employment at a wage that would make them selfsustaining. 

The BluePrint project in Pittsburgh faced a different situation. Although Three Rivers 

Workforce Investment Board was technically a project partner, youth received few 

services from the One-Stop center, which is called CareerLink. Youth, and to some extent 

the BluePrint staff, perceived the CareerLink sites to be unwelcoming, with a focus on 

retraining middle-aged adults rather than training young adults or youth in this 

population. As a response, the project partnered with other organizations to deliver 

workforce services to selected youth, such as its collaboration with University of 

Pittsburgh and the supplemental grant from DOL for a project with AmeriCorps. The 

Knowledge to Empower Youths to Success (KEYS) Service Corps – an AmeriCorps 

program operated by the Allegheny County Department of Human Services/Office of 

Community Services – planned to partner with BluePrint to train about 40 BluePrint 

participants, 17-22 years old. At the end of a 17-week program, youth were expected to 

either get a job, further their education, or enter AmeriCorps or Job Corps. 

From initial planning, the Des Moines project intended to recruit a relatively small 

number of youth each quarter. As a result, the project did not initially see a need to 

establish a strong working relationship with the juvenile justice system. As the project 

matured, however, staff began working with the juvenile court for referrals and 

alternative sentencing. At the time of the third evaluation site visit, it had not been able to 

gain a steady flow of referrals from various community organizations to meet goals. 

In terms of building new partnerships for the purposes of financial stability and service 

delivery, most projects made important progress. For instance, in Chicago a consortium 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

78 Research and Evaluation Associates

of 40 community-based organizations provided the core structure of the demonstration. 

The project linked 13 service providers, subcontractors to Goodwill, and their referral 

networks to deliver what the project called a “holistic” response to project participants. 

In New York, the grantee’s prior experience with offering reentry services, gang 

prevention and other youth services also gave the project an advantage of being efficient 

about meeting youth needs through partners in other systems. The Pinkerton Foundation 

awarded Friends of Island Academy a grant for adult literacy. FOIA won a competitive 

solicitation for mental health services from the state Department of Mental Health, and 

received a state Human Resources Administration grant to assist youth with mental 

illness find employment. All three of these grants became operational about the same 

time as the DOL grant. Because FOIA staff delivered all the services supported by these 

grants, the project appeared to be self-sufficient in fulfilling youth’s needs. Concerns 

about sustainability and identifying additional financial resources made project staff more 

welcoming to new partners and their involvement with the project. Since the second and 

the third site visits, Friends of Island Academy has strengthened its support from various 

sources. 

Several projects connected effectively with the workforce, juvenile justice, and health 

care systems, perhaps because of their prior experience with the systems. In Erie, for 

example, the project grantee provided health services to project youth, and youth received 

work readiness training from funds provided through the local One-Stop center. The 

associate executive director was a retired top official with the Erie’s juvenile justice 

system, and he helped the CBO develop a solid relationship with probation officers. 

The grantee, a major organization that provides services for youth who have been or are 

at risk of being involved in the juvenile justice system, could well serve as a model for 

interagency collaboration and cooperation. The director of Perseus House forged working 

collaborations and partnerships with all of the community agencies serving youth 

involved in the juvenile justice or other court-related systems. In less than a decade, he 

saw his organization’s annual budget increase from $800,000 to $9 million. 

In February 2003, Hartford’s grantee, the Capital Region Workforce Development 

Board, and the Department of Probation began a pilot referral process. Since then, the 

department has referred an increasing number of youth to the project. Project case 

managers go to the probation office two mornings a week to meet with youth offenders to 

enroll them in the program. The project also collaborated with Community Partners in 

Action that operates 17 programs for offenders, including the Coalition Employment 

Services (CES), which assists with transportation, documents needed for employment, 

job preparation skills and other work readiness services. CES also develops relationships 

with employers to overcome concerns about hiring offenders. In spring 2003, the grantee 

funded a position of retention specialist at CES to work out of the local One-Stop. 

Challenges in Developing Partnerships. Several second round projects had trouble 

connecting the service systems together effectively. While the projects, whether run by an 

organization that specialized in workforce development or juvenile justice services, were 
 Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 79

able to bring together various partners, they had difficulty developing true working 

relationships. It appeared that a primary reason for this involved different cultural and 

organizational traditions, policies, and features of the different systems, which often 

worked at odds with those of the other systems. 

Projects in New York City and Colorado had prior relationships with parole officers by 

virtue of their focus on targeting offenders coming out of the correctional facilities. By 

the end of the DOL grant, New York staff reported that probation and parole officers 

were more likely to come to FOIA offices to meet youth, but FOIA was just initiating a 

relationship with the city Department of Corrections. Colorado struggled to keep the 

workforce development partners it had gathered as the state and counties pared their 

service delivery budgets. Many of the senior agency staff members that attended the 

Consortium meetings lost their jobs, and the workforce development centers were unable 

to guarantee that the workforce specialists they had hired with grant funds would be hired 

permanently. 

Projects run by workforce development agencies sometimes had difficulty accessing 

information on clients transferring from confinement facilities into the project. This was 

the case in Chicago, for example, where the juvenile justice system, apparently because 

of privacy concerns, would not give project route counselors access to project 

participants until after they had left the facility. As a result, route counselors were not 

able to access case notes and other information compiled by the juvenile justice system 

that they needed to provide proper and effective services to youth. At the time of the 

second evaluation site visit, counselors relied upon self-reported information from 

participants, which was of uncertain validity. By the third evaluation site visit, however, 

project staff and the grantee were trying to establish a better working relationship with 

probation officers and the courts and were working to make the project an alternative 

sentencing program. 

Chicago project staff also reported that it had not established a strong working 

relationship with the One-Stop delivery system, which they said did not understand the 

needs of the youth. The grantee, the city’s workforce development agency, and Goodwill 

planned to advocate for creation of two youth One-Stops in the target area to rectify the 

situation as part of their sustainability efforts. 

The project in Cincinnati, also run by the city’s workforce development agency, did not 

develop a strong relationship with the juvenile justice system that would have allowed it 

to maximize use of juvenile justice resources. This was the case, even though a countyoperated correctional facility for youth had agreed in principle, early in the project, to 

participate and refer youth to the project. 

By the time of the third evaluation site visit, Hartford’s project had experienced some 

reduced levels of commitment among several smaller community-based agencies. Project 

staff had to work with agencies that signed memorandums of understanding (MOUs) to 

encourage them to attend training in the Hartford Connects route counseling system and 

then to get them to use the system. Meanwhile, Hartford Public Schools needed 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

80 Research and Evaluation Associates

encouragement from the mayor to persevere in the broad community initiative, despite 

budget cuts that eliminated counselors and staff in the critical Student and Family 

Assistance Centers. The recent receipt of a $9 million, 3-year grant may help the schools 

become a full partner so that all school-age youth will be in some form of educational 

program through age 18.

6. Leveraged Resources Through Collaboration and Partnerships 

An important part of any project is its ability to deliver something of value to its clients. 

The evaluation of Round Two confirmed that well-managed and operated projects 

identified and used other resources and funding streams to support their goals. Strong 

linkages and collaborative partnerships, which allowed organizations to participate in 

joint activities, also encouraged development of innovative approaches for problem 

solving and delivery of services within the projects. Without strong partnerships, 

organizations often found themselves alone and without broad political and financial 

support for their efforts. (See Table 12, on p 83-85 which shows partnership 

arrangements.) 

Evaluators found that about half of the Round Two projects displayed some degree of this 

organizational attribute. In West Palm Beach the grantee leveraged more than $2 million 

in grants from a variety of funding sources, both private and public, to provide services to 

target youth. To do this, the grantee identified gaps in services it provided and then 

partnered with other organizations to apply for grants that targeted the gaps. The project 

provided a full range of workforce development services through its close partnership 

with the local WIB. A full array of services was made available to youth through other 

service providers that supported the project’s efforts. By focusing on the DOL goal of 

capacity building from receipt of the grant, the project had great success in leveraging 

resources, being especially effective in identifying potential funders for a range of 

initiatives. (See Appendix H for details of how the project built partnerships.) 

As a key component of its mission, Pittsburgh’s grantee raises millions of dollars for 

various projects that serve target youth. The grantee also appeared to have a strong 

working relationship with probation officers stationed in county schools. The project had 

contracts with two other organizations for assessments and mental health services. The 

project was not able, however, to develop a strong relationship with the local One-Stop 

delivery system. The case manager supervisor said that the One-Stop was reluctant to 

serve project youth because the system did not understand how to meet their 

developmental needs before they were capable of finding and holding jobs. 

Hartford’s project developed a close working relationship with the local Youth 

Opportunity Grant staff to create an impressive database system that approximately 23 

community-based organizations were to start using to access and track youth through 

various agencies while receiving services. In the future, these efforts may result in 

increased collaboration and leveraging of resources, including funds. 
 Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 81

New York’s grantee received funds from multiple sources for its various programs, and it 

was in the process of establishing working partnerships that would leverage additional 

funds. Cincinnati’s project succeeded in getting community partners to collaborate on 

problem solving about the needs of this population and ways to better serve them. For 

example, a multi-partner work group explored ways to streamline information sharing 

among the justice, health, and workforce systems. The project used WIA funds to pay for 

some services; all but route counseling services were paid for through the DOL grant. 

The project partnerships had not evolved to the point of contributing funds and resources 

to the project during the grant period, but grantee staff planned to keep the partners 

engaged. 

The Colorado project had some success leveraging resources through collaborations and 

partnerships. The grantee provided aftercare services, and leveraged a vocational 

rehabilitation staff position for employment services. At the time of the third evaluation 

site visit, the four workforce development centers had not yet committed to hiring the 

workforce specialists supported by the grant. Chicago’s project did not extensively 

leverage resources in support of the project. The project received some in-kind services 

from members of its consortium. 

The grantee of Erie’s project was able to leverage resources through its many 

relationships with other CBOs. Several of these provided in-kind services to youth, 

including recreational services. In Des Moines, collaborations and partnerships were 

mostly among the project’s three official partners. It appeared the project needed to 

broaden its political and financial support to become sustainable. While staff with the 

project’s two subcontractors gradually developed a network of staff and other service 

providers, the grantee recognized the importance of gaining the support of directors of 

CBOs and other senior administrators at key agencies only at the end of the grant period. 

One partnership arrangement that proved important to Round Two projects was with the 

education system. Eight of the nine projects formed relationships with the local schools, 

and through those relationships leveraged resources. The projects that worked with 

younger youth worked to keep the youth in the public schools (Chicago, Cincinnati, 

Erie, and Hartford); in Pittsburgh, the older youth were in alternative high schools. 

West Palm Beach offered health occupations training to youth in four high schools, and 

New York received the services of a certified special education teacher from the New 

York City Schools Alternative, Adult and Continuing Education Schools and Programs 

office. While most youth did not return to school after leaving Colorado’s LMYSC, 

Jefferson County Schools worked with the project to certify the diplomas earned by 

youth while they were incarcerated. 

7. Shared Leadership and Information Sharing 

The evaluation of Round Two projects appeared to confirm the need for lead agencies to 

share both the leadership and the credit for the results of their programs with other 

stakeholders. Successful programs shared information with other stakeholders so that 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

82 Research and Evaluation Associates

fully integrated – and effective – services were provided to clients. This approach also 

helped the projects improve operations over time. 

In general, Round Two projects shared project leadership with partners they had 

assembled. This was the case in Chicago, for example, where a consortium of 40 

community-based organizations came together to provide advice and services for the 

project. 

Other projects followed similar approaches to providing feedback to partners, sharing 

ideas, and confronting problems in unison. Hartford’s project received feedback on its 

database system and training curriculum and, as a result of the feedback, requested 

technical assistance to help improve how both operated. The project in West Palm Beach

worked hard to keep its partners and stakeholders involved and well informed. 

Colorado’s project worked from the start to build strong partnerships, and the fact that 

the project was facing difficult sustainability issues forced it to share an even greater 

level of project ownership with other agencies and organizations. 

The three main partners in Des Moines shared decision-making and information about 

what was going on. At the time of the third evaluation site visit, the project was trying to 

build a broader coalition of partners. In Erie, although active partners shared decisionmaking responsibilities, the grantee provided most of the project’s leadership since its 

project advisory board did not meet often. Pittsburgh’s project had an active advisory 

board where information about participant and project issues was exchanged freely and 

informally. 

The project in Cincinnati also worked hard at sharing leadership and information with its 

partners. Its partners formed working groups as well as ad hoc committees to help 

confront pressing issues and address concerns. New York’s project was self-contained 

initially, but developed an advisory board that met regularly and became active in seeking 

joint funding for future activities. 

Using project data is a key support for developing the attributes of successfully 

implemented projects. The relationship is mutual; most of these attributes were required 

to develop a project-based data collection and analysis system (planning, partnership 

development, grantee involvement, shared leadership and information). We turn now to 

this component of the PMM. 
Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 

Table 12. Partnership Arrangements of the Round Two Demonstration Projects 

Projects Operating Partners Funders Subcontractors Advisors 

Chicago 

Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development 

DOL Goodwill, Latino Youth, 

Scholarship and Guidance, 

YMCA, Roseborough and 

Assoc., Youth Employment 

Services, Free Spirit Media, 

Institute for Latino Progress, 

Lawndale Restorative Justice 

Collaboration, Le Pensuer 

Youth and Family Services, 

Leonard and Young 

Communications 

Chicago Public 

Schools, Probation 

Department 

Scholarship services Latino Yout

Cincinnati 

Department of 

Community Development 

and Planning (formerly 

the Workforce 

Development Division 

within the Department of 

Community 

Development) 

DOL Work Resource Center Hamilton Co. Job and 

Family Services, City Public Schools, River 

City Correctional 

Center, Lighthouse 

Youth Services, City 

Recreation, Real 

Truth, Inc., Citizen’s 

Committee on Youth, 

Hillcrest Training 

School, Cincinnati 

Police, Children’s 

Defense Fund Greater 

Cincinnati Project, 

Ekklesia Dev., Talbert 

House, Society for the 

Advancement of 

Performing Felons, 

Children’s Hospital 

Affiliated C

One-Stop fo

Alternat

(providers w
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

84 Research and Evaluation Associates

Projects Operating Partners Funders Subcontractors Advisors 

Colorado 

Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Corrections/ LMYSC, Colorado Department of Vocational Rehabilitation 

DOL 

Colorado DYC 

Colorado 

Department of 

Vocational 

Rehabilitation 

Tri-County, Adams, and Arapahoe-Douglas County Workforce Development Centers, Denver Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development/ DAYS, Metro. State College Academy School, Center for Network Development 

Jefferson County Justice Services, Jefferson County Public Schools, Youth Track, Lost and Found 

Des Moines 

Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (One-Stop center operator) 

DOL Iowa Comprehensive Human 

Services Spectrum Resource Program 

WIB Youth Advisory Council, Juvenile Court 

Youthbuild,  Polk County Moines Area Human Serv(United WayPolk County 

Erie 

Perseus House and Career Link (WIB) 

DOL 

Career Link 

The Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies 

 Erie City Sc

Erie County Youth ServiErie County Department, Erie DepartmRetardation, Diocese, C.IBoy Scouts 

Hartford 

Capital Region Workforce 

Development Board 

DOL, United Way 

of the Capital 

Area Hartford 

 Mayor’s Taskforce on 

Hartford’s Future 

Workforce 

Department Partners in AEmploymenSchools, Citof Health anMetro AllianPublic GivinWomen/UniCollege, HarBoys and GiRegion EducVillage for C
Section V – Public Management Model: Organizational 

 Attributes and Data Collection and Analysis 

Research and Evaluation Associates 

Projects Operating Partners Funders Subcontractors Advisors 

New York 

Friends of Island Academy, New York City Alternative, Adult and Continuing Education Schools and Programs, NY Department of Mental Health, NY Human Resources Administration 

DOL; Robin Hood Foundation, Pinkerton Foundation, NY Community Trust, New York Women’s Foundation, Van Ameringen Foundation, Mott Foundation, United Way 

 Andrew Glover Youth 

Services, City University of New York (CUNY), Times Square Business Improvement District, New York City Housing Authority, Manhattan Supreme Court 

Queens and Philliber ResAustin MacCRikers Island M. Singer R

Pittsburgh 

YouthWorks, Inc., Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board (CareerLink) 

DOL Western Psychiatric Institute 

and Clinic Addison Behavioral Care, Inc., Life’s Work of Western Pennsylvania 

 Allegheny C

Allegheny CServices, PitCommunity University o

West Palm Beach 

Academy for Practical Nursing and Health Occupations, Palm Beach County Workforce Development Board, Probationer’s Educational Growth (formerly a subcontractor), and Morse Geriatric Center 

DOL, Research and Training Institute, FL Dept. of Ed., Palm Beach Comm. College Foundation, School District of Palm Beach County, and Migrant Farm Worker Program 

Palm Beach Palm Beach Care), Boys Parenthood, Palm Beach Linking Peo
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

86 Research and Evaluation Associates

Data Collection and Analysis 

The Data Collection and Analysis component of 

the PMM is depicted in the lower right-hand 

corner of Figure 10. Data are collected and 

reported within project accountability structures; 

data can also be used to guide project activities 

and to build a case for sustainability. DOL 

established 16 data elements that every project 

needed to collect and report to DOL quarterly; in addition every organization associated 

with the demonstration required some level of internal data collection and reporting. A 

few projects expanded both the range of data they collected and the ways that they used 

data for other than accountability purposes. 

During Round One of the demonstration, the data challenge was designing systematic 

ways of collecting project data. With the DOL requirement of quarterly reports, every 

project developed an electronic or web-based data collection system to gather at least the 

minimum required data and prepare the quarterly reports. (See Appendix H, which 

includes the data elements). While the barrier in Round One was learning the technical 

aspects of developing a database, the barriers in Round Two were more cultural: 

changing habits of administration, agreeing on common data definitions and coding 

mechanisms, and satisfying confidentiality issues. Few projects developed the individuallevel database needed to allow them to identify patterns in attendance, attrition, progress 

and employment and to help staff close gaps in services and support requests for ongoing funding. 

In general, all projects collected some individual data on project youth, usually in 

individual files used by route counselors. But in several projects the information was not 

collected in a way that allowed route counselors to identify patterns and help determine 

whether youth received individualized and targeted services in the proper arrangement, 

intensity, and duration to meet their needs. Because many projects either lacked or were 

weak using this approach, evaluators concluded that only a few of the nine projects 

adequately developed this component by the end of the demonstration period. 

By the time of the second evaluation site visit, for example, Chicago’s project had 

developed a data collection system that included basic information on youth that was 

shared through a controlled access system among partners. The project, however, found it 

difficult to acquire some information on youth enrolling in the project from the school 

and juvenile justice systems, apparently because of confidentiality issues. As a result, 

much of the information in the system was self-reported by project participants and, 

therefore, was unconfirmed. 

The grantee and project subcontractor set as a major project objective better incorporation 

of a process for collecting case notes, in a standardized format, so route counselors could 

use the information more effectively. By the time of the third evaluation site visit, it 

appeared that case notes were being submitted in a more uniform and useful format. 

Data Collection

and Analysis
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 87

While this method of collecting data on youth was adequate for tracking and route 

counseling, it did not have great utility as an analytical tool. 

Colorado’s project, which focused on youth offenders and was operated by four OneStop Centers, had a strong information collection system in place. Data were maintained 

by the four workforce systems. A consultant prepared a bridge program to align the data 

from the four systems into one report. The level of aggregation made it difficult to track 

the separate components of the project. 

The project in Pittsburgh collected data on most project youth, but did not use 

quantitative data analysis to monitor project implementation or document achievements. 

Administrators relied on their involvement with and knowledge of the youth to assess 

project progress. In making the case for the project’s sustainability, the approach was to 

rely on anecdotes about individual youth rather than analysis of employment outcomes 

such as the quality of jobs youth received. 

At the time of the third evaluation site visits in fall 2003, other projects were in the 

process of developing electronic data collection systems to provide better participant data 

so the projects could track individualized services to youth and improve decision-making. 

Hartford’s project, for example, designed a strong Internet-based data tracking system to 

collect information on youth. The great potential of the system is that it eventually will 

link service providers to provide a seamless flow of clients through a citywide system of 

services. Until all agencies are entering data, however, data collection will remain 

incomplete and limit data analysis. In addition, while the database has the capability to 

report outcomes, this will not be fully usable until all participating agencies are recording 

the accomplishments of youth participating in their programs. 

By the time of the third evaluation site visit, the project staff in Des Moines were 

beginning to assess data on youth to make a case for sustainability. Staff had not 

performed internal evaluations and, because of problems gaining agreement on a 

common database with the One-Stop, the project was slow in putting together a single 

database system to facilitate tracking of youth and their outcomes. 

The project in Erie had not progressed to the point it was using data for effective 

decision-making. Route counselors documented specific services provided to youth. A 

route counselor then summarized the information needed for required reports and 

provided the data to the management at Perseus House as needed. The project did not 

have an electronic system for data collection and analysis, except as required by DOL. In 

New York Philliber Associates provided an in-kind gift of an annual report to the 

grantee. FOIA used the Philliber Associates’ report, but the narrow range of data 

collected initially limited the report. The grantee designed and was collecting data for a 

much-expanded database, but it was not fully functional at the end of the grant. The 

project in Cincinnati had not developed an adequate system that captured either the data 

elements required by DOL or data on project participants. The frequent turnover of 

project staff and administrators delayed the development of the project. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

88 Research and Evaluation Associates

West Palm Beach developed a sophisticated system for collecting individual-level 

program information that it used to monitor youths’ progress and document their success. 

The on-site evaluation coordinator began with a plan for using data to strengthen the 

program through careful analysis, and the project subsequently added more data elements 

as it recognized the need for other information beyond that required by DOL. The local 

evaluator (not funded under the DOL grant) met monthly with the project leadership to 

review the month’s accomplishments and identify areas of concern. The project 

developed data to present a “case” to community agencies and funders to build support 

for helping targeted youth and for funding future activities. The project could 

demonstrate successful outcomes for both in-school and out-of-school youth across a 

number of dimensions, including retention in school, improvement in reading and math 

(based on pre- and post-tests), and job placement. 

Summary 

Developing the organizational attributes of successfully implemented projects and 

building a project-based data collection and analysis system required project staff and 

leaders to rethink their approach to delivering services to the target population. Several 

projects began the demonstration believing that the federal dollars were an opportunity to 

deliver services to more youth within the existing service delivery structure of their 

community. DOL, the evaluators and the technical assistance team worked diligently 

through conference presentations and other means to convince project leadership to 

rethink how they were delivering services to: 

 Involve more partners, 

 Expect partners to share responsibility for the youth, 

 

 Expect the community at-large to assume more responsibility for the youth, 

 Exercise leadership to realize system changes, and 

 Plan for a permanent difference in the way target youth are perceived and 

served within the community. 

Over the course of the demonstration period, all projects made progress in inculcating the 

attributes described. In this instance, it is easier to review projects by category and to start 

with Category III projects. 

Category III projects received funds primarily to build infrastructure to serve youth 

offenders and youth at risk of court or gang involvement. Hartford and Cincinnati

began without service delivery systems in place, but developed appropriate plans to do 

so. Although Hartford’s design was just becoming operational by the end of the 

demonstration period, the local leadership reported that the project was on schedule for a 

system they estimated would take five to seven years to implement. Cincinnati is an 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 89

example of the importance of leadership involvement and staff stability during a major 

system-change; the design is still evolving, but turnover and the absence of grantee 

involvement delayed the effort. 

West Palm Beach, which had a history of delivering services to youth in the local 

community, made good use of the DOL grant to build an infrastructure to develop a 

funding base for continued service to the target youth. Similarly, Erie was an 

experienced youth service delivery agency that used the project to develop a new 

understanding of what the youth would need to become work ready. While the period of 

services at Bayfront Maritime Academy proved too limited for this purpose, the grant 

developed the capacity within Perseus House and its partners to improve the work 

readiness aspect of its programming. 

Initially, Des Moines viewed the grant primarily as a way to provide services to more 

youth in the community. Only as the demonstration evolved did the leadership of the 

partners recognize the value of broader partnerships to leverage funds and to bring other 

community services to bear on the needs of the youth. By the end of the demonstration, 

the project was evolving to incorporate systems change, but without demonstration funds, 

the change is likely to take longer. 

The only Category II project is Colorado. From the beginning, the grantee recognized 

the goal of system change. The Division of Youth Corrections within the Department of 

Human Services had incorporated many innovations in the care and treatment of youth 

offenders. The agency had been a demonstration site for the development of the Intensive 

Aftercare Program (IAP) through which it developed a comprehensive aftercare and 

reentry program. The DOL grant added workforce development services to this already 

rich array of services. Plagued by severe budget cuts at the state and county level, the 

leadership still reported that the partnerships developed would continue between justice 

and workforce systems, even if some valued activities had to be cut until new funding 

was found. 

The Category I projects received substantially more funds than the Category III projects, 

and they were expected both to develop the infrastructure and increase services to youth. 

Chicago attempted to deliver the services through a small number of subcontractors and 

found that the arrangement was not adequate to serve the youth. It changed direction by 

associating with Goodwill Industries that already had the rudiments of an operating 

infrastructure in place. Making that infrastructure of partnerships work proved daunting, 

and the project changed subcontractors several times until it found the right combination. 

Leadership involvement was crucial to seeing this project realize its potential. 

New York’s Friends of Island Academy (FOIA) was founded in 1990 to provide services 

to youth leaving correctional facilities on Rikers Island, so it had more than 10 years to 

learn the needs of youth. Even so, the project rethought its educational and workforce 

development service delivery mechanisms several times during the demonstration. Part of 

the impetus for founding FOIA was a perception that existing services were inadequate 

and delivered in a way that failed to touch the youth emotionally. The leadership 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

90 Research and Evaluation Associates

explored ways to provide all the services within the FOIA organization as a way to 

deliver the needed services while maintaining an accessible and respectful approach with 

the youth. As a CBO, however, it has no on-going funding stream. Despite its success in 

working with the youth and the growing awareness by the media of its special approach, 

FOIA constantly faced funding shortfalls. During the demonstration, however, FOIA 

discovered agency and foundation advocates that will provide both funding sources and 

shared services in the future. Grantee involvement and partnership development were 

critical for FOIA’s service sustainability. 

The grant to Pittsburgh also went to an organization with a strong history of service to 

the youth in the target neighborhoods. The grant allowed the project to offer critical 

substance abuse and mental health services, as well as work readiness services. During 

the demonstration, the project developed new partnerships and secured new funding. The 

leadership’s knowledge of the youth and the neighborhood, combined with its network of 

advocates and funders, leave a strong project infrastructure in place at the end of the 

demonstration. 

After Round One, evaluators reported that projects would be stronger if they developed 

electronic databases of individual level data. With Round Two, evaluators recognized 

that after the technical aspects of database design were overcome, the cultural aspects of 

data use needed to be challenged as well. Projects with a strong history of working with 

youth relied on the judgment of veteran youth workers for an assessment of progress. 

Without disputing the value of such judgment, this form of administrative knowledge is 

not useful for identifying patterns of issues with the youth, nor is it sufficient to build a 

case for sustainability. It has proved, nevertheless, a hard feature of experienced projects 

to change. Many communities have resolved the confidentiality issues appropriate to 

shared service files, but several projects were unable to overcome this issue within the 

demonstration period. The resolution will require strong leadership involvement and 

deeper levels of partnership commitment. 

A Final Note on Partnerships 

The term partnership has been used often in this report. Evaluators observed that the term 

is used for a range of relationships and linkages. Some “partners” met for monthly 

meetings of information exchange, but little else. Evaluators tended to distinguish this 

from other relationships as cooperation between agencies or organizations. The large 

number of youth-serving agencies within Chicago or Hartford’s network that are not 

providing services or funding support would be part of a cooperative arrangement, for 

example. 

Some evaluators noted service providers linked by a carefully structured subcontract or 

voucher systems for services, and characterized these as transactions. The 

subcontractors in the demonstration were chiefly related to the projects through such 

formal transactions. Many projects had at least some organizational connections that 

involved shared planning, shared resources (such as space or a service), and shared 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 91

service data. Evaluators termed these as collaboration. Chicago’s relationship with 

Latino Youth would be such a collaboration. 

Considering Erie’s relationship between Perseus House and CareerLink, these 

organizations jointly took responsibility for the youth and shared the funding for services; 

evaluators would term this arrangement an alliance. Colorado’s relationship with the 

Department of Vocational Rehabilitation could also be characterized as an alliance. 

Evaluators also observed relationships where the parties shared a joint vision, planned for 

a coordinated response to the youth’s needs, collected data in a cooperative and uniform 

way, and developed resources and stakeholder buy-in together. Evaluators termed such a 

relationship as a joint venture. The relationships among APNHO, PEG, and the local 

WIB in West Palm Beach form such a joint venture. 

Every project had a range of valued relationships with other entities in the community, 

but the evaluators noted the stubborn barrier of moving at least some of the relationships 

from the level of transaction or collaboration to the levels of alliance or joint venture. 

This is the barrier that the relationship between the Division of Youth Corrections and the 

four workforce development agencies in Colorado faced at the end of the DOL grant. 

The long-term sustainability of the coordinated service delivery effort will require that at 

least one relationship contains a mutual capability and willingness to share responsibility 

for and funding services required by these high-need youth. 

The next section of the report completes the discussion of the Public Management Model 

by describing the continuous improvement (CI) loop. The section will also describe the 

technical assistance activities that supported continuous improvement efforts. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

92 Research and Evaluation Associates
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 93

Section VI 

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT MODEL: CONTINUOUS 

IMPROVEMENT AND TECHICAL ASSISTANCE 

Evaluators approached the evaluation of Round Two projects as a formative evaluation. 

The distinctive component of a formative evaluation is sharing both evaluation and 

technical assistance information among key stakeholders during the demonstration 

period. In the case of the demonstration, the sharing involved: DOL, the projects, 

evaluators, and technical assistance specialists. During Round One, evaluation and 

technical assistance findings were not shared, and that experience seemed like a missed 

opportunity to pool knowledge for the good of the projects. 

DOL agreed that developing a continuous improvement approach to system change 

efforts held merit, and the key stakeholders were able to share documents, reports, and 

observations. At the opening grantee conference, federal project officers urged projects to 

explore better ways to serve the target youth even if such improvements resulted in 

significant changes to the original implementation plans. Projects were encouraged 

repeatedly to consider technical assistance as a staff and organizational development 

opportunity, rather than an admission of error or limitation. These efforts intended to 

create a safe environment in which projects could learn, change, and improve—an 

environment to encourage a continuous improvement loop as a valued dimension of the 

demonstration. 

Overview 

The evaluation of Round Two projects confirmed that 

successfully implemented projects conducted selfassessments and actively sought and accepted 

available technical assistance as part of their 

continuous improvement process. Successful projects 

also identified objectives they sought to reach as they 

prepared implementation plans and used them as milestones to gauge their progress. They 

then periodically assessed their progress toward reaching the objectives and took 

necessary corrective action when they did not. This approach, in essence, describes the 

continuous improvement process, which is the fifth component of the PMM and indicated 

by the arrows in the graphic. 

In observing second round projects, the evaluation team identified three pathways that 

projects could follow to change and improve service delivery mechanisms: 

1. Projects requested and used technical assistance; 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

94 Research and Evaluation Associates

2. Projects applied evaluation findings and other learning practices to produce 

integrated service delivery system/approaches; and 

3. Projects initiated significant changes. 

1. Technical Assistance 

Technical assistance was especially important to Round Two projects because it served as 

a valuable improvement and feedback mechanism. The task given to the technical 

assistance team by DOL was to design and conduct conferences for the grantees, monitor 

grantees technical assistance needs, and provide on-going technical assistance. 

In general, specialized technical assistance plans were developed independently for each 

project and focused on each project's specific needs. Issues that applied to all or most of 

the projects became topics for conferences and conference calls involving all the project 

teams. The technical assistance team developed a listserv and a toll-free telephone line to 

encourage interaction among projects and between projects and the technical assistance 

team. The technical assistance team used the listserv to disseminate news of funding 

opportunities, research on topics related to the project, and conferences or workshops that 

could benefit staff. Telephone calls to projects on a regular basis kept the technical 

assistance team apprised of project development. Planning conference calls with 

consultants and DOL staff preceded any technical assistance event. Staff from Research 

and Evaluation Associates visited every project at least once, in addition to the consultant 

visits. 

During initial site visits and telephone conference calls, the technical assistance team met 

with project stakeholders, discussed project implementation, and available technical 

assistance. More specifically, the team arranged special-topic consulting visits, specialtopic conference calls and peer-to-peer site visits followed by technical assistance at the 

home site. Staff found that peer-to-peer visits were particularly useful when they were 

followed by technical assistance at the home site to develop the local application. 

Over the course of the demonstration, the technical assistance and evaluation teams 

developed an interactive relationship. Specifically, information gleaned during site visits 

by the evaluation team that indicated a need for technical assistance was shared with the 

technical assistance team for follow-up action as part of the continuous improvement 

process. The technical assistance team participated in the evaluator debriefings described 

earlier that occurred after each round of evaluation site visits. 

In addition, evaluators and technical assistance specialists collaborated in developing 

grantee conference agendas and workshops. Grantees and key partners participated in 

three conferences: Arlington, VA, in October 2001, New Orleans, LA, in April 2002, and 

Chicago, IL, from April 29 to May 1, 2003. Each conference was designed to have a final 

product developed by each grantee team. An implementation plan came from the first 

conference; projects developed a sustainability plan during the second, and worked on 

special topics during the third. At all three conferences, the evaluators and the technical 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 95

assistance team met with project teams individually before or after the general sessions of 

the day to review issues and plan for the future. 

During these conferences, the evaluators described the Public Management Model and 

used examples from the grantees’ experience to support their use. One session focused on 

the many uses of data: accountability, problem solving and sustainability. Sustainability 

was a topic at each conference. Project teams shared their experiences and received help 

and advice from their counterparts in other projects. 

The PMM guided the technical assistance effort. In general, all but two projects reflected 

on their technical assistance needs, requested technical assistance, and then attempted to 

use the ideas and other advice offered by the technical assistance team. Technical 

assistance was generally requested and provided in the following areas: 

• Partnership development; 

• Implementation and strategic plan development; 

• Job retention; 

• Linkages to the workforce; 

• Case management (route counseling); and 

• Sustainability. 

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. Special emphasis was 

placed on sustaining the projects after grant funding ended. 

Second round projects also could request help through the technical assistance team from 

the National Youth Employment Coalition (NYEC) to augment assistance provided by 

the technical assistance team. NYEC makes awards to exemplary youth employment 

programs around the country, and it received grant funds to send members of these 

award-winning programs as expert consultants to other youth employment efforts. Two 

such opportunities occurred during the demonstration project: a consultant advised 

Hartford on stakeholder development and a consultant advised New York on 

employment retention. 

All second round projects participated in multiple technical assistance sessions or events 

conducted by a Research and Evaluation Associates staff member or a consultant. 

Technical assistance visits provided staff an opportunity to review each project’s progress 

and needs for additional technical assistance. During the visits, technical assistance staff 

provided projects with a summary of their observations, including feedback and 

recommendations to project managers. Often, the need for technical assistance in specific 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

96 Research and Evaluation Associates

areas became apparent to both the technical assistance staff and the project during site 

visits. In some cases, projects submitted technical assistance request forms that led to a 

technical assistance event arranged through the joint efforts of the technical assistance 

team, the project staff, DOL, and a consultant. (See Table 16 on pages 104-108 for a list 

of technical assistance activities directed to individual projects.) 

Although most responses to technical assistance requests were addressed through the use 

of a consultant with expertise on a specific topic, the technical assistance team also 

promoted peer-to-peer direct technical assistance. In one instance, a Round Two project 

visited a Round One project to learn how it implemented its plan. In another instance, a 

cross-site program visit was coordinated involving four Round Two sites. 

Three sites interested in developing plans for sustainability visited a project that had 

developed effective sustainability strategies that were yielding good results. Cross-site 

visits appeared to be an effective means to provide projects with an opportunity to 

actually see other sites’ operations and were also opportunities for peers to engage in 

discussion around common issues. Specific examples of technical assistance are 

described in the following paragraphs. 

Colorado’s project made an early request for technical assistance to help coordinate 

aftercare and workforce development services (it went to Avon Park, a first round project 

that was also a Category II project). In addition, the staff had twice refined its 

management information system because of issues that occurred with DOL’s Quarterly 

Data Elements Report. The project requested and received assistance in developing an 

employer network and in increasing employment retention. 

After a baseline visit by the technical assistance team, project staffs from Des Moines

and Erie attended a peer-to-peer group technical assistance event at the West Palm 

Beach project. Both projects received follow-up assistance in designing a sustainability 

plan for their own projects. The evaluator reported that the staffs said they appreciated 

the assistance. After attending the post-award conference in Arlington, the project in New 

York City organized its implementation plan around the nine attributes, based on the 

technical assistance provided at the conference. The staff also was open to a 

recommendation to go to West Palm Beach to attend the group peer-to-peer session on 

sustainability. New York, too, received follow-up assistance in applying the experience 

of West Palm Beach to its project. New York also asked for assistance to improve job 

retention among project participants through NYEC. 

After implementation delays, Chicago’s project received technical assistance to get it 

going. Pittsburgh’s project staff used technical assistance and found it helpful. The 

project changed its route counseling approach after a technical assistance session on bilevel route counseling. 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 97

2. Use of Evaluations and Other Learning Practices 

Another way that projects instigated a continuous improvement approach was to use 

evaluations as tools to improve operations. Evaluators reviewed the evaluation report 

findings with the project staffs at subsequent evaluation visits, and projects introduced 

assessment practices into their on-going operations. (See Table 13.) 

The project in Des Moines, for 

example, revised its management 

structure within the first six months of 

operation, which occurred at least in 

part as a response to the evaluation 

report from the first site visit. 

Hartford’s project used its advisory 

committee of partners to get input on 

the design of the Hartford Connects 

database system and on the training 

curriculum for front-line youth. Both 

components were revised and refined 

based on continuing feedback. For 

example, the training curriculum was 

revised several times to reflect varying 

needs of agencies’ staff so that it 

would not be a one-time workshop but 

become a more extensive program for 

professional development. 

The project in West Palm Beach

included an evaluation coordinator, 

who provided a monthly review to 

focus on objectives and outcomes. The 

project in essence had its own 

evaluation plan apart from the DOL 

evaluation process. It included not 

only record keeping, but also information obtained from: 

 Focus groups of clients and parents; 

 Formal and informal reports from health occupations school’s faculty; 

 Instructors and guidance counselors at the high schools; and 

 Route counselors, as well as employers during the clinical work experiences 

of youth. 

Table 13. Projects’ Use of Evaluation 

Chicago  Grantee closely monitored 

compliance of subcontractors 

 Subcontractor formed consortium 

that met monthly to assess progress 

Cincinnati  Periodic review of implementation 

plan to track performance 

Colorado  Coalition of partners provided 

oversight 

Des 

Moines 

 Responsive to findings from external 

evaluators 

Erie  Used TQM to review progress 

Hartford  Advisory committee of partners 

provided ongoing feedback 

New York  Project units and leaders met weekly 

to determine progress and needs 

 Collected and analyzed data to 

correct deficiencies and improve 

operations 

Pittsburgh  Informal information sharing and 

reflection during quarterly meetings 

to identify problems and possible 

solutions 

West 

Palm 

Beach 

 Internal evaluation coordinator 

focused on objectives and outcomes 

 Used implementation plan to 

monitor progress and realign 

objectives as needed 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

98 Research and Evaluation Associates

The project also received regular reports and held meetings with staff from juvenile 

justice, the corrections department, the anti-gang unit, and probation officers. 

Project managers in Pittsburgh used assessment for continuous improvement in an 

informal way, using primarily informed observations rather than quantitative data 

analysis to identify implementation problems and develop solutions. The information 

sharing and self-reflection that occurred at quarterly meetings with project partners 

seemed to be especially useful. The meetings were well attended and partners discussed 

substantive issues/problems and identified solutions. 

In Cincinnati, the grantee staff was committed to project self-assessment, but the selfassessments led to few changes in the project. The primary tool for project assessment 

appeared to be the project’s 50-page implementation plan. Periodic review of the plan 

provided an opportunity to determine where things were not “on track” and when to take 

corrective action. The written record of these reviews suggested, however, that the action 

generally was to revise the deadline for task completion. Although some of the originally 

planned evaluation and continuous improvement activities were not implemented, project 

staff expressed an interest in an internal evaluation to supplement their current project 

monitoring. 

The grantee in Chicago closely monitored the performance of the subcontractor that 

managed the project’s day-to-day operations. The staff also provided technical assistance 

and sometimes intervened to help the project correct deficiencies and improve operations, 

such as when problems surfaced with other governmental agencies. A consortium of 

partners met monthly to consider how the project was progressing and offered advice on 

how to provide services more effectively. 

Each unit of New York City’s project met weekly to review what was working and what 

needed improvement. Philliber Associates made an in-kind contribution of data entry and 

analysis, and the project staff collected the data for this. Philliber already pointed out to 

the staff that the agency had a participant retention problem, and the project designed 

outreach and education activities partially in response to that need. During the last 

technical assistance visit, the staff received technical assistance for job retention, as well. 

Colorado’s project used an outside facilitator to develop stakeholder buy-in; they had 

gone through their “storming-and-norming” phase and became a coalition of strong 

partners. The partners developed a work readiness curriculum that the staff revised twice 

until it began to achieve the results it wanted. The staff for Erie’s project used the “total 

quality management” (TQM) approach to organizational improvement. Staff reviewed 

progress using continuous improvement teams. If there was a problem that needed 

addressing, these teams made the recommendations to the appropriate supervisor. They 

made a number of changes in the BroadReach project based on an informal review of the 

first year effort. 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 99

All nine Round Two projects improved their service delivery as a result of other learning 

practices within the organizations. Some changes and improvements during the first two 

years of the demonstration were 

small, but many others were 

major and important to help the 

projects provide more efficient 

and effective service delivery. 

(See Table 14.) 

Colorado’s project, for example, 

had a strong aftercare process 

overseen by the client manager 

(parole officer); the employment 

component was added and 

became part of the “client 

manager's discrete case plan.” 

The workforce specialists, who 

were funded by DOL, worked 

with the youth while they were 

incarcerated and then maintained 

that support upon release. The 

specialists received all the 

training needed to attend events 

and sessions with the youth at the correctional facility. The project also sent them to the 

National Youth Development Practitioners Institute. Policies and operations were 

systematically reviewed by the project’s consortium of stakeholders, with improvements 

in mind. 

In Des Moines, once a youth became involved in the project, a “wrap around” process 

was scheduled, which became the central method for ensuring integrated service delivery, 

which also involved the youth in developing his/her own plans. The route counselor 

convened a session where what the project termed “supporters” (representatives of 

relevant service providers) worked with the youth to identify strengths and barriers he/she 

faced. The range of services encompassed all types of services envisioned by the 

demonstration and produced a fully integrated service approach. As the project 

developed, the staff convened project participants every morning for a check-in period. 

The staff found that they could respond to youth’s needs better as they saw them every 

day and could detect troubles before they affected the youth’s participation. 

Development of a comprehensive system for improving the integration of delivery of 

services to the target population was a key component of Hartford’s project. The central 

feature of this system was Hartford Connects, an Internet-based database of route 

counseling information on youth receiving services. The staff members of youth service 

delivery organizations participated in the planning and development of this system 

change. 

Table 14. Learning Practices for Integrated 

Service Delivery 

Chicago  Developed consortium of 40 CBOs to ensure 

that youth receive an adequate array of 

services 

Cincinnati  Working with partners on long-range plan to 

create seamless system of service delivery 

Colorado  Aftercare process overseen by client manager 

 Trained workforce specialists work with youth 

while incarcerated and continue after release 

Des Moines  “Wrap around” process ensure integrated 

services 

 Project “supporters” work as a team with 

clients to identify strengths and weaknesses 

Hartford  Developed an Internet-based database of route 

counseling information 

 Agreements with 23 agencies 

New York  Convened an advisory board to increase 

visibility and connect with other organizations 

West Palm 

Beach 

 Used route counseling to ensure provision of 

relevant services 

 ISS continuously reviewed and updated 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

100 Research and Evaluation Associates

Cincinnati’s project identified appropriate partners and worked with them on a longrange plan that had the potential to create a seamless system of effective service delivery. 

Implementing the system was delayed by frequent turnovers in staff and a new agency 

configuration. In New York City, the grantee made a series of significant changes during 

the demonstration based on its effort to assess operations continually. It developed an 

advisory board of stakeholders to overcome the project’s isolation. It redesigned its 

education and work readiness components following careful assessment of its operations. 

It received a grant to evaluate its organizational structure and operations. Based on this 

evaluation, the project reorganized, reduced staff and simplified its accounting system. 

West Palm Beach used route counseling as the principal means for ensuring that clients 

received a full range of services. The focal point of this process was the Youth Goals and 

Individual Service Strategy form, which the youth completed with his/her route counselor 

when the youth entered the program. They updated the plan as services were received and 

as other needs were identified. The grantee provided services that directly related to 

occupational training, job placement, and job retention, and obtained other services 

through partners and community agencies, including: health care, housing, mental health, 

substance abuse treatment, alternative sentencing, and aftercare. 

Chicago’s project got off to a slow start, apparently because its initial implementation 

plan failed to include a broad-based and coordinated service delivery strategy. By 

assessing the situation early, the grantee made significant changes. The initial project 

plan called for splitting service delivery between two service providers. By late 2001, the 

grantee had, with guidance from the technical assistance team, rethought how the project 

should proceed and sought help from Goodwill Industries, which had established a 

consortium of community-based organizations. 

3. Significant Changes 

Projects closed the continuous improvement loop by making significant changes in their 

operations. Some of these changes have already been described in the previous 

paragraphs as projects changed based on evaluations or through other learning practices. 

The evaluation team found evidence that this was the case to some extent among the 

projects. (See Table 15) 

The projects were encouraged to keep changing their implementation strategies until they 

served youth effectively. New York studied the patterns of enrollment and realized that it 

was losing youth with the deepest problems before they had even finished enrolling; it 

changed the enrollment process to administer an early screening to identify high-need 

youth. These youth then began to receive services even before completing all the steps in 

the enrollment process. New York changed its relationship to existing advocates and 

added additional supporters and funders, as well. 

Colorado’s staff reported that it needed to reach a newly released youth with an incentive 

within two days or risk losing the youth. It began offering transportation cards to them to 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 101

attend work or school as a quick way to assure them that the project could help. It 

changed its work readiness curriculum and altered its data collection procedures. It 

designed a management information system that allowed each county to maintain its data 

as usual, yet produce an integrated project-level information system with common data 

elements. Youth were not returning directly to their home counties, so the workforce 

specialists had to work out of other counties' satellite and main One-Stop offices. Project 

staff continued to reach out for ways to improve, finishing the demonstration period with 

workshops on employer 

network development and job 

retention strategies. 

Four projects realized within 

their first operating year that 

the partnership configurations 

were not workable, and they 

reconfigured the partnerships 

and service delivery 

processes. 

When the Chicago project 

found problems with the 

initial design, for example, it 

completely overhauled it and 

broadened the project’s reach 

by seeking a subcontractor 

better suited to handle the 

project’s day-to-day 

management. By the time of 

the third evaluation site visit, 

the project, faced with several 

pressing issues, replaced the 

original route counseling unit 

because of inadequate 

performance and was 

planning additional 

realignments with partners to 

streamline service delivery to 

youth. 

Perseus House in Erie used 

Quality Improvement Teams 

that met every two weeks to 

discuss the project’s progress. 

Based on the demonstration 

experience, Erie designed a 

charter school that would use 

Table 15. Significant Changes Identified for Projects 

Chicago  Sought subcontractor that was better able to 

handle daily management; 

 Overhauled project design to broaden 

project reach; and 

 Replaced route counseling unit. 

Cincinnati  Changed contractor to provide route 

counseling; and 

 Changed key personnel. 

Colorado  Developed an MIS that allowed counties to 

collect data as usual and contribute to 

integrated project-level system with 

common data elements and 

 Revised STEPS until it was useful. 

Des 

Moines 

 Revised management structure and 

 Developed a daily check-in procedure. 

Erie  Discontinued workforce prep activities at 

Bayfront, but developed a new charter 

school that uses the work readiness tools. 

Hartford  Revised training curriculum from one-time 

workshop to extensive training counting 

toward associate’s degree; and 

 Changed database system elements based 

on user recommendations. 

New York  Expanded education program to meet youth 

needs; and 

 Worked with more partners and trained 

peer mentors. 

Pittsburgh  Changed route counseling system, 

substance abuse assessment and treatment 

plan; 

 Expanded target area; 

 Resolved confidentiality concerns; and 

 Implemented incentive plan for employers 

to hire youth. 

West 

Palm 

Beach 

 Began project with multiple industry 

targets planned, and changed to limit 

training to health care industry; and 

 Identified employment retention as an issue 

by using its comprehensive database 

system to better track clients. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

102 Research and Evaluation Associates

the teaching approaches and materials from the project. The grantee, Perseus House, and 

a major partner, the Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies, found that the short-term 

program at the Bayfront Center was insufficient to meet the needs of target youth. As a 

result, the 8-week program for workforce preparation at the center was to be discontinued 

at the end of the DOL grant funding. The design for workforce activities developed by 

the project will continue and expand at Perseus House, however, through the new charter 

school. 

The project in New York City had not intended to offer many education activities but 

found that it had to do so to meet the needs of its youth. It has acquired three certified 

teachers, one with funding from the school board. The project also began collaborating 

with new partners, acquired new space, and began training peer mentors. 

Hartford’s project used its advisory committee to get input on the design of the Hartford 

Connects database system and on the training curriculum for the Youth Development 

Practitioners Academy. Both components were revised and refined, based on continuing 

feedback. The training curriculum, for example, was changed several times to reflect 

varying needs of agencies’ staff, so that it would not be simply a one-time workshop but 

a more extensive program for professional development. The project also continually 

sought feedback from users of the Hartford Connects database system so that it would be 

responsive to the varying needs of the agencies and thus increase the likelihood of buy-in 

and commitment to the system over time. 

 

There have been several significant changes in Pittsburgh’s project during the past year. 

Changes were made in the route counseling system, substance abuse assessment and 

treatment plan, and the target area was expanded. Confidentiality concerns that limited 

partners’ ability to share information were also addressed and resolved. As an incentive 

for employers to hire project youth, the project began using a YouthWorks program that 

paid part of a youth’s salary for the first six months. There were several other important 

changes over the project’s course. The project: 

• Dropped the justice liaison role as unnecessary; 

• Added group orientation sessions to make expectations clearer to youth and to 

start the process of their considering themselves part of a group of youth; 

• Began to use more small group activities to increase a sense of connection 

with their peers; and 

• Revised its approach to developing individual service strategies to be more 

efficient and put more responsibility on the youth to identify needs. 

By virtue of using its implementation plan to monitor progress toward realigning 

objectives, the project in West Palm Beach made a commitment to continuous 

improvement from the beginning. Staff devised a comprehensive database system for 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 103

developing a thorough profile of clients and for tracking individual progress through all 

components of the program, from basic skills to occupational training to placement. 

Probably the best example of organizational learning was reflected in the experience with 

employers outside the health care industry. Originally, youth offenders with whom PEG 

worked were expected to go through a work readiness and training process that enabled 

them to be placed in a range of jobs. When the project recognized that many employers 

were reluctant to hire youth offenders, project staff began to work with youth coming out 

of the justice system whom they felt could be encouraged to consider occupational 

training in health care. This approach proved successful as these youth made substantial 

progress in completing health programs provided by the grantee and then gaining jobs in 

the health care industry. 

On-Going Struggles 

Despite these advances, projects continued to struggle, even with issues that received 

considerable attention during the project. As the text described earlier, few projects made 

the best use of project data, and many projects failed to link successfully with the local 

One-Stop workforce development system. The demonstration did not develop a 

consistent approach to the design and delivery of workforce development activities. 

Despite repeated urging, sustainability strategies were not in place for several projects 

when DOL funds were depleted. 

Many of these struggles can be traced to the difficulty of implementing the cross-system 

service delivery strategies envisioned by the demonstration. Projects had implemented 

the various services listed in the SGA, but the delivery mechanisms and the coordination 

were still being developed. While Round Two projects developed data collection 

systems, few had developed the management skills to incorporate data findings into their 

stream of administrative decision-making. 

One-Stop systems (even when the grantee was a One-Stop center) were still learning how 

to serve youth better and were preoccupied with the press of displaced workers. The 

economic atmosphere within which the demonstration operated made the plight of 

displaced workers a higher priority, and these workers were generally easier to place than 

project youth. One subtle finding from the Colorado project was that there had been no 

negative incidents involving project youth at One-Stop centers, and staff admitted that 

they were indistinguishable from other youth they served. 

Each project designed its workforce development curriculum and activities. Projects did 

not develop or use certified curricula, nor were the curricula a major concern. The goal 

was to incorporate these services into youth support activities, and the structure, quality, 

intensity and duration were issues that did not surface in some projects. The Colorado

STEPS curriculum and the West Palm Beach workforce development activities are 

notable exceptions. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

104 Research and Evaluation Associates

Sustainability was a stretch for many projects during the short duration of the 

demonstration. Project staffs were generally preoccupied with the struggle to implement 

the basic project at the time they should have been searching for ways to complete and 

sustain it. Cincinnati embedded the project within WIA as a path to sustainability; West 

Palm Beach and New York collaborators wrote multiple proposals for additional 

funding; and Pittsburgh continued to solicit foundation and corporate funding for its 

projects. Erie will continue to draw on community resources, but all these projects were 

affected by the difficult economic climate during the demonstration. 

Summary 

The projects in Round Two demonstrated the value of learning from technical assistance, 

evaluations, and structured organizational learning methods. While some projects 

changed more than others, all the projects demonstrated organizational learning by 

closing the continuous improvement loop on some aspects of their designs. 

Evaluators and technical assistance specialists collaborated on the design of conferences 

and on presentations and workshops. Projects received technical assistance from the 

Research and Evaluation Associates team, but also from NYEC, or from sources local to 

the project. A listserv and frequent telephone calls maintained an interactive relationship 

between the technical assistance staff and the projects. 

Projects engaged in learning practices. Some used regular meetings of staff and 

administrators while others used quality teams or an outside evaluator to provide 

guidance and feedback. 

Projects changed and, in some cases, changed multiple times until they were better at 

meeting project goals. Nonetheless, projects struggled with elements of the demonstration 

and were affected by the economic downturn of the period. 

The next section will summarize the strategies projects used to address the goal of better 

serving youth offenders and youth at risk of gang or court involvement. 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 105

Table 16. Technical Assistance Requested and Provided 

Chicago, IL 

1. January 16, 2002: Technical assistance staff met with key project staff, provided review 

of project’s status and offered recommendations for next steps. Specifically, project has been 

inactive since grant was awarded and was considering modifications to the proposal. However, 

appropriate notifications were not submitted to DOL. Technical assistance staff offered 

guidance to project staff regarding what next steps to take to notify DOL. It conducted a 

review of proposed modifications and met with the prospective partner, Goodwill.

2. November 14-15, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted a technical assistance

status update visit. Since the last visit in January 2002, the project made significant progress 

towards implementation. 

3. July 10-11, 2003: Technical assistance staff conducted a site visit to the YouthLink 

project. This served as the final on-site visit by the technical assistance staff before the end of 

the federal funding period. 

4. August 21, 2003: A consultant co-facilitated a meeting between the YouthLink project 

partners and grantee agencies to assist them to develop a mission, goals, and objectives and to 

process challenges among the partners. 

Cincinnati, OH 

1. December 11, 2001: A consultant facilitated a planning meeting with the City of 

Cincinnati Employment and Training Division and key stakeholders of the local youth service 

delivery system. The objectives for the meeting were to assist stakeholders to gain an 

understanding of the goals and objectives of the demonstration project, give stakeholders an 

opportunity to provide input into the development of the local vision and mission, and reach 

consensus on the best approach for working together to implement the project. 

 

2. May 8-9, 2002: A consultant provided training to address fundamentals of Bi-Level Case 

Management. Training was intended to provide frontline case managers with the skills to 

effectively provide services to their clients. 

3. June 27-28, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted a site visit to review the status of 

the project and assess its progress to enroll clients. This visit led to lengthy conversations with 

the technical assistance staff, the DOL Project Officer, and project staff about how to facilitate 

the move from planning to action. 

4. July 16-17, 2002: Technical assistance staff and the federal Project Officer conducted a 

joint site visit to assess the status of the project and provide recommendations to facilitate 

implementation. 

5. August 14-15, 2003: Technical assistance staff conducted a site visit that served as the 

final on-site visit by the technical assistance staff before the end of the federal funding period. 

Staff encouraged administrators to review its eligibility policies for demonstration enrollment 

and to strengthen relationships with the Department of Corrections to facilitate outreach to 

youth before release. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

106 Research and Evaluation Associates

Denver, CO

1. March 26-27, 2002: The project staff made a cross-site project visit to the Round One 

StreetSmart project to observe, learn and adapt their strategies on transitioning youth to the 

community. 

2. May 30-31, 2002: A consultant facilitated a session with the Colorado project staff and 

partners to assist the group with assessing the status of the project. The group reviewed 

organizational structure and operations using the public management model as a guide for the 

assessment. 

3. June 26-27, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted site visits to both Rounds One 

and Two project sites in Colorado. These were initial visits for the new Senior Technical 

Assistance Specialist. The visits were an opportunity for technical assistance staff to become 

familiar with both projects’ operations and to meet with the project managers. Staff was also 

able to view both a Category I and Category II demonstration model. 

4. July 31-August 1, 2003: Technical assistance staff conducted a final site visit to the 

Colorado project. 

5. August 25-27, 2003: A team of consultants provided training and facilitation to Colorado 

project staff, consortium members, and other partners on engaging employers and helping 

youth adequately address questions on employment applications regarding criminal history. 

The consultants also assisted key stakeholders to develop a plan to establish an employer 

network. 

Des Moines, IA

1. September 27, 2002: A consultant recommended career assessment instruments in 

response to Des Moines' request for recommendations of vocational/career assessment tools. 

Based upon the information included in the technical assistance request as well as additional 

information provided during the August 27, 2002 planning conference call, the consultant 

researched a variety of automated tools and identified a couple of assessments that would meet 

Des Moines' needs. 

2. October 30-31, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted a Round Two baseline site 

visit. During the visit, staff made several observations and recommendations to the project 

administrators. 

3. January 10, 2003: Technical assistance staff coordinated a visit to the West Palm Beach 

demonstration project in response to Des Moines' request for assistance with sustainability 

challenges in light of the impending expiration of their DOL grant. This was an opportunity for 

Des Moines to learn how West Palm Beach had implemented a successful sustainability 

strategy and to identify elements that may be applicable for their project. 

4. February 19, 2003: Technical assistance staff and a consultant conducted a follow-up 

session to the January 10, 2003 sustainability cross-site visit in West Palm Beach. The goal of 

the session was to help Des Moines develop a sustainability plan. 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 107

Erie, PA

1. September 11-12, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted a Round Two baseline visit 

and made recommendations to project managers on areas to enhance the project. 

2. January 10, 2003: Technical assistance staff coordinated a visit to the West Palm Beach 

demonstration project in response to Erie's request for assistance to address sustainability 

challenges in light of the impending expiration of their DOL grant. This was an opportunity for 

Erie to learn how West Palm Beach had implemented a successful sustainability strategy and 

to identify elements that may be applicable for their project. 

3. February 11, 2003: Technical assistance staff and a consultant conducted a follow-up 

session to the January 10, 2003 sustainability cross-site visit in West Palm Beach. The goal of 

the session was to help Perseus House, Inc. develop a sustainability plan. 

Hartford, CT

1. January 29, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted site visit to facilitate planning, to 

meet partners, and to develop a training institute for frontline staff who provide services to 

youth. Staff from the National Youth Employment Coalition (NYEC) conducted a presentation 

to the group via speakerphone as part of our collaborative technical assistance effort. 

2. November 12-13, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted a technical assistance

baseline visit. The Hartford Youth Development Practitioner Academy was unveiled in 

October 2002 and began training youth workers in February 2003. Technical assistance staff 

and the project staff agreed that route counseling training would enhance the delivery of 

services among the Hartford Youth Access partners. 

3. February 5, 2003: A consultant conducted Bi-Level Case Management training for front 

line youth workers and case managers. The training participants included the two Hartford 

Youth Access case managers and direct service providers from partner agencies throughout the 

city. The training was well received and the project indicated an interest in receiving additional 

case management training. 

4. June 19-20, 2003: A consultant conducted a follow-up session to the February 5, 2003 

case management training session. This technical assistance was designed as a two-day 

session. Day one was targeted for the individuals who attended the February 5th session and 

day two was targeted to new participants. 

5. July 28-29, 2003: Technical assistance staff conducted a final site visit. Staff 

recommended that the project strengthen relationships with employers and identify ways to 

access mental health and substance abuse services for youth. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

108 Research and Evaluation Associates

New York City, NY

1. January 30, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted site visit and met with key project 

staff and several program participants. Staff recommended strategies for promoting the 

program to secure additional support to sustain services. 

2. October 10-11, 2002: Technical assistance staff and consultant conducted a Round Two 

baseline visit. Technical assistance staff did not observe any significant issues, but it provided 

several recommendations to enhance service delivery. 

3. January 10, 2003: Technical assistance staff coordinated a visit to the West Palm Beach 

demonstration project in response to Friends of Island Academy's (FOIA's) request for 

assistance to address sustainability challenges in light of the impending expiration of its DOL 

grant. This was an opportunity for FOIA to learn how West Palm Beach had implemented a 

successful sustainability strategy and to identify elements that may be applicable for their 

project. 

4. February 7, 2003: Research and Evaluation Associates collaborated with the National 

Youth Employment Coalition (NYEC) to respond to the Friends of Island Academy (FOIA) 

technical assistance request for assistance to improve employment retention among their 

project participants. NYEC arranged for Mr. Thomas M. Buzbee, Executive Director of Gulf 

Coast Trades Center, to visit FOIA and work with them on identifying job retention strategies. 

Gulf Coast Trades Center had realized some success in the area of employment retention and it 

serves a similar youth offender population. 

5. February 17, 2003: Technical assistance staff and a consultant conducted a follow-up 

session to the January 10, 2003 sustainability cross-site visit in West Palm Beach. The goal of 

the session was to help FOIA develop a sustainability plan. 

6. August 4-6, 2003: A consultant provided case management (route counseling) training to 

Friends of Island Academy staff. The training emphasized the essential need for management 

and staff to work together as a team and to be a high performance work organization, followed 

by an overview of the case management process at the service delivery level emphasizing six 

essential elements for both project success and service effectiveness. 

Pittsburgh, PA

1. March 7-8, 2002: A consultant provided a one-day training to case managers on route 

counseling. 

2. November 25-26, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted a status update visit. 

Technical assistance staff did not observe any significant issues, but it provided several 

recommendations to enhance service delivery. The project staff requested technical assistance 

to train its case managers on route counseling principles. 

3. April 21-23, 2003: Consultant provided route counseling training for staffs from 

BluePrint, YouthWorks, Inc., a mentoring project and an adult justice service worker. 
Section VI – Public Management Model: Continuous 

Improvement and Technical Assistance 

Research and Evaluation Associates 109

West Palm Beach, FL

1. September 19-20, 2002: Technical assistance staff conducted a Round Two baseline site 

visit. Technical assistance staff realized that the project received on-going advice and guidance 

from the local evaluator. Technical assistance staff observed that the West Palm Beach project 

had established an effective and collaborative strategy for sustainability. 

2. January 10, 2003: Technical assistance staff facilitated a peer-to-peer cross-site visit. The 

visit was designed in response to technical assistance requests from three Youth Offender 

Demonstration Projects for assistance to address sustainability challenges in light of the 

impending expiration of their respective grants. Based on the September 2002 baseline site 

visit to West Palm Beach, technical assistance staff recognized the unique and effective 

sustainability approach the project and its partners had established. The cross-site visit 

provided an opportunity for the Des Moines, IA, Erie, PA, and New York, NY project staffs to 

learn how West Palm Beach implemented a successful sustainability strategy and identify 

aspects that would be replicable for their projects. A consultant attended the session and 

provided follow-up sessions with each of the three projects to assist them in the planning a 

customized sustainability plan for their projects. 

3. August 28-29, 2003: Technical assistance staff conducted a final site visit. 

4. September 19, 2003: A consultant conducted a technical assistance conference call for 

West Palm Beach in response to its technical assistance request for strategies and best 

practices to improve employment retention among project participants. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

110 Research and Evaluation Associates
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 111

Section VII 

STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH OFFENDERS AND YOUTH 

AT RISK OF COURT OR GANG INVOLVEMENT 

The report has described the demonstration projects according to the components of the 

Public Management Model as a means of understanding the facets that constitute them. 

This section summarizes the strategies each project used to achieve the overall goal of 

assisting youth offenders and youth at risk of court or gang involvement become ready 

for work and gain employment at wages that would prevent further dependency and 

recidivism. 

Overview 

The report of strategies projects used to realize their goals of serving the target youth is 

divided by funding categories: 

 Category I projects were funded at the $1,500,000 level to expand work 

readiness and job placement services with gang prevention and suppression 

activities, alternative sentencing, aftercare and route counseling to youth 

offenders and youth at risk of court or gang involvement. 

 The Category II project was funded at the $2,000,000 level to provide 

comprehensive school-to-work education and training to incarcerated youth 

while they were in residential confinement and work readiness, job placement, 

and aftercare/reentry services after they return to their home community. 

 Category III projects were funded at the $350,000 level to develop linkages 

that strengthened the coordination of prevention and aftercare services. 

Projects differed as to the extent that the grantee and the community had already been 

delivering services to the target population. Some projects had years of experience 

serving the target population while others were initiating such services. Some of the 

partners had years of experience working with each other while others worked together 

for the first time during the proposal preparation or even after the grant was awarded. 

Projects also differed in whom they identified as target youth. Within the age range of 14 

to 24 years, some focused on 14-17 year olds while others focused on youth 18 years old 

and older. Some projects limited eligibility to youth offenders while others included both 

youth offenders and youth at risk of gang or court involvement. Generally speaking, 

project activities did not vary much by offender status, but they varied considerably by 

the age of participants. In other words, the services the youth received were not 

dependent on whether the youth was an offender or not, but younger youth were more 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

112 Research and Evaluation Associates

directed to education activities than to employment activities and older youth were more 

directed toward work readiness and employment, regardless of their offender status. 

With only nine projects, nine points of observation, and these multiple differences, the 

report on strategies projects employed does not intend to rank the projects, only to 

describe the strategies the nine projects used in their particular circumstances. 

In the following paragraphs, the report identifies the strategies that projects used for: 

 Recruitment and service delivery, and 

 Addressing the components of the Public Management Model. 

Category I Projects

The Model Community projects in Round Two were located in Chicago, New York and 

Pittsburgh. These communities are all large cities, and the focus for Chicago and 

Pittsburgh were specific neighborhoods. The New York project enrolled youth exiting 

from confinement of Rikers Island, and they could be from anywhere in New York City. 

Chicago 

Recruitment and Services. Initially, Chicago intended to serve youth of all ages and of 

both offender status and at risk of court involvement in three neighborhoods: North 

Lawndale, South Lawndale, and Austin. The initial partnership arrangement did not 

work out, so the grantee, the Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development (MOWD), 

initiated discussions with Goodwill Industries, which had organized a consortium of 

youth service providers. At about the same time Goodwill received a Round Three 

demonstration award, so Goodwill became a MOWD subcontractor and focused on 

younger youth with Round Two funds. As a grantee in its own right, Goodwill focused 

on older youth using Round Three funds. By the last year of the Round Two grant, the 

funds for Round Three were depleted while some Round Two funds remained. MOWD 

returned to the initial plan of serving both older and younger youth for the remainder of 

Round Two funding. Participation in the project was voluntary for all youth. 

With the frequent changes in partner and subcontractor arrangements, the project did not 

meet its enrollment goals. Parole officers initially were reluctant to refer youth because 

they were not pleased by the activities and documentation of the original service 

providers. When Scholarship and Guidance and Latino Youth received subcontracts for 

direct services, parole officers increased the number of referrals, almost to the point that 

the project worried about receiving more youth than they could serve. Latino Youth and 

Scholarship and Guidance continued, however, to struggle with retention of youth in the 

program. Latino Youth sponsored field trips and involved youth in planning activities as 

retention strategies; it also created a friendly atmosphere where the youth were 

encouraged to spend their free time. 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 113

Case managers at Latino Youth and Scholarship and Guidance administered counseling 

assessments to recruited youth; they received some assessments from the courts; and they 

assessed and referred them to partner agencies for psychiatric, psychological, 

educational, and vocational needs, if they thought that they were necessary. Route 

counseling was divided between the two agencies by Zip code with Scholarship and 

Guidance serving youth in North Lawndale and Austin and Latino Youth serving youth 

in South Lawndale. While subcontracts were the vehicle for obtaining services through 

the demonstration grant period, MOWD believed that fees for services would provide 

more flexibility in the future. 

Latino Youth operated an alternative school, so some youth attended school on site. 

Other school-aged youth were encouraged to stay in the Chicago Public Schools. Latino 

Youth provided work readiness training to younger youth, and Youth Employment 

Services (YES) provided work readiness services to older youth. YES provided job 

placement services to older youth. 

The anti-gang component was delivered to project youth through the YMCA. There was 

no alternative sentencing or reentry component to the project. Latino Youth offered 

graphic arts activities that it hoped would help the youth with employment; there were no 

other vocational training activities provided by the project. Roseboro and Associates 

offered substance abuse interventions to the youth who required this service, and youth 

with mental health needs were referred to Scholarship and Guidance for counseling. 

Should there be a need for health or dental services, youth were referred to Sinai 

Community Institute. While some youth could be referred to Latino Youth or the YMCA 

for short-term housing needs, there were not adequate shelters for youth who needed 

them. 

The Chicago project succeeded, by the end of the DOL grant, in providing the services 

the youth in the project needed. It did not have project-specific strategies for client 

retention or service duration and intensity. The effort focused on finding partners for 

service delivery and sustainability. 

PMM. Chicago demonstrated many of the features of the Public Management Model. 

While its initial plan proved inadequate, the project staff revised it as part of its move to 

subcontract with Goodwill. The second plan proved to be workable. MOWD and the 

other partners planned to apply for WIA and juvenile justice funds to maintain the 

activities begun with the grant; the active partners reported that they would remain 

involved with serving target youth through a combination of existing and new funds. 

The demonstration did not have a working partnership with the courts at the beginning 

of the grant, and problems with the initial route counseling subcontractor limited 

referrals. With the new arrangement, referrals were forthcoming, and the project’s staff 

aspired to become an alternative sentencing contractor with the city courts. The project 

developed a few community advocates, but the main consortium was constituted of other 

youth service providers. Of the 40 or so partners, only about five were active in 

delivering services. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

114 Research and Evaluation Associates

With the number of changes the project experienced, the active involvement of the 

grantee was key to keeping the project on track. MOWD provided technical assistance, 

oversight and MIS support to the project. The project was resourceful in bringing 

representative agencies from the education, health, work force and justice systems into 

partnership to serve youth in the North and South Lawndale and Austin neighborhoods. 

Many of these partnerships were new, and expectations were still being negotiated at the 

end of the grant. If the planned partnerships do continue, a task will be developing mutual 

expectations. Perhaps when these linkages are strengthened, they will leverage more 

resources for serving area youth. Through the vehicle of the 40-member consortium, 

project information and leadership were shared. 

Over the course of the demonstration, Chicago developed and refined an MIS that 

improved the documentation of services delivered. While it served the accountability 

function, it was not useful for analysis or for building support for sustainability. The 

Chicago project demonstrated, through a series of major reorganizations, that it was 

committed to continuous improvement in its effort to serve target youth well. 

New York 

Recruitment and services. While there were many strategies Friends of Island Academy 

(FOIA) used to serve the youth leaving Rikers Island detention and correctional facilities, 

the overall strategy was to create a transformative atmosphere for the youth. Participation 

in FOIA was voluntary, and participants were called members. Families were encouraged 

to participate in monthly meetings to learn more about FOIA plans and ways families 

could help their children. Youth were encouraged to participate in the Thursday evening 

meetings where members shared their achievements and their struggles. 

To recruit youth to FOIA, peer counselors (members of FOIA), spent the better part of a 

day in each of the four Rikers Island facilities encouraging the youth to come to FOIA 

upon release. Once at FOIA, the resident psychologist administered a risk assessment; if 

the youth scored high on this assessment, services to the youth began at once. FOIA staff 

realized early in the demonstration that they were quickly losing the youth with the most 

serious problems, so the staff began services to these enrollees before completing the 

remainder of the assessments: education, GED predictor, and employment. Many youth 

arrived at FOIA with serious mental health and substance abuse issues, histories of 

violence and personal abuse. The psychologist took an informal approach to getting 

youth into counseling, suggesting, “Let’s talk.” If the youth needed residential care for 

either substance abuse or mental health issues, FOIA referred them to agencies with 

which it had established a referral relationship. Despite these measures, FOIA 

experienced a 40% drop out rate in the early weeks after enrollment. Staff members 

believed that they needed at least six months of working with youth to redirect them to 

more constructive behaviors. Housing for homeless youth was a constant struggle. There 

were a few agencies that took homeless youth, and their beds were often full when FOIA 

was looking for a place to house one of its members. 

The strategy for retaining youth was essentially keeping the youth busy at the FOIA 

offices all day every workday and some evenings. Staff cited a major improvement from 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 115

the DOL grant in the expansion of the educational offerings: literacy, pre-GED, GED 

preparation, and GED test preparation. Certified teachers (one paid for by the school 

board) worked with the youth, and peer counselors led discussions and presentations on 

special topics. Staff believed that, with the educational achievements they have made, 

youth have more skills and more confidence when they are ready for job placement. 

Through referrals to the school board offerings or to nonprofits, youth received 

vocational training in barbering, electronics, computers and A+ certification, asbestos and 

lead abatement, building maintenance, and plumbing. 

Initially, FOIA had no formal route counseling system; each department serving a youth 

(education, work readiness, etc.) took responsibility to assure that he/she received the 

services in her/his plan. By the end of the grant period, however, staff members instituted 

formal route counseling as an accountability measure. 

FOIA had not had alternative sentencing clients until the DOL grant. As a trial, FOIA 

agreed to take 60 referrals from the court of Judge John Corriero, hoping that the court 

would inaugurate an alternative sentencing program based on the FOIA experience. 

Despite the fact that the “Alternatives to Incarceration” clients did well, the city budget 

cuts meant that no new programs were initiated. There was no direct gang suppression 

activity, but gang colors and insignia were forbidden at the FOIA office. The project 

offered no aftercare activities. 

The work readiness component was divided after the first few months of the project. 

Work Readiness1 was offered to youth who needed extra help becoming work ready, and 

Work Readiness 2 was offered to those who needed less help or who had completed the 

first course. Toward the end of the demonstration, staff returned to offering one work 

readiness experience. They found that those who were doing well with GED preparation 

had little trouble finding work. Those who were not progressing through the educational 

component were particularly difficult to place; these received a 6-hour work skills class, 

followed with one-on-one assistance until he/she was placed in employment. 

With the DOL grant, FOIA offered an employment retention effort. One staff member 

worked with employers to find work opportunities, and she worked with both employers 

and the youth to assist with the adjustment to the job. She identified three employers who 

hired employees on an on-going basis: restaurant, drug store, and clothing retail chains. 

Toward the end of the grant, FOIA no longer had the funds for an employment retention 

specialist, and the staff member returned to work readiness activity. She believed, 

however, that she prepared youth better for the job market from her experience with 

employers. 

PMM. The New York project demonstrated many of the components of the Public 

Management Model. 

The grantee had a plan that guided its development; it planned for sustainability by 

writing grant proposals. Because it delivered all the essential services to its clients, 

however, the anticipated expenses were beyond what it could raise by itself. Toward the 

end of the demonstration period, staff reached out to agencies and organizations with 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

116 Research and Evaluation Associates

whom it could partner to provide services. While the grantee had years of experience 

with the justice system, it had very little workforce development experience. Because 

the One-Stop system in New York City was not very well developed, FOIA provided all 

the work readiness services itself. 

FOIA was well known in the community among certain foundations and drew good 

media attention. It strengthened these bonds over the grant in searching for operating 

partners, advocates and funders. The grantee was FOIA, and it supplied almost all the 

services to the members by itself. It did receive state funding to assist youth with mental 

illnesses find employment, and the school board paid for a GED teacher as well. Before 

the DOL grant, FOIA had relationships with the health and education systems. Over the 

period of the grant, probation and parole officers were more likely to see their clients at 

FOIA than before the grant. At the end of the grant, FOIA was seeking funding from the 

justice, health, and education systems for long-term sustainability. As the One-Stop 

system developed in the city, FOIA reached out to connect youth to WIA services, but 

few of these services were yet available. Sharing leadership and information was a 

struggle for FOIA; by the end of the grant period, it had an active advisory board that met 

regularly. 

As described elsewhere, Philliber Associates made an in-kind gift to FOIA of data entry 

and analysis for an annual report. With the DOL grant, FOIA staff expanded the list of 

data items it was collecting and beginning to develop its own MIS. During the grant, 

however, it depended on the annual report from Philliber and Associates, which focused 

chiefly on client characteristics. 

New York used technical assistance in employment retention, sustainability and route 

counseling to close the continuous improvement loop. It listened to the evaluation 

team’s concern about its sustainability approach and expanded these activities 

substantially. Staff met regularly to assess the progress of its programs and clients, 

changing the enrollment process to retain those with the most serious problems. The staff 

changed the route counseling system and the work readiness program. It redesigned its 

educational offerings, as well. 

Pittsburgh 

Recruitment and Services. The strategy Pittsburgh’s BluePrint staff used to serve the 

target population was the very personal involvement of the administration and staff with 

the youth and with the community from which the youth came. The target neighborhoods 

have been marked by violence, and one client was killed as a result of local violence. 

Staff has been active in the community trying to reduce retaliation activities. BluePrint 

provided all its services in the YouthWorks building, and it provided clients with clothing 

that identified them as BluePrint members rather than as members of a gang. 

Virtually all the youth were referred to the project by probation or parole offices; some 

families referred siblings or other relatives based on the progress their children made 

while they were clients. Staff visited correctional facilities to establish rapport with youth 

from the neighborhood before they were released. The staff believed that younger youth 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 117

were harder to retain after their period of parole or probation. The administrators reported 

that it was the case managers who made the project work, staying engaged with the youth 

and following up if they were not attending regularly. 

Partners, Addison Behavioral Care (ABC) and Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic 

(WPIC), came to the YouthWorks building to provide substance abuse and mental health 

assessments and treatment respectively. Many of the youth had substance abuse and 

mental health problems, and the project struggled to attract youth to the services it 

provided through ABC and WPIC; a greater emphasis on getting help became part of the 

orientation, and staff saw more youth taking advantage of these services. 

BluePrint also provided assessments for education, employment and personal/social 

skills. BluePrint provided route counseling for all the clients, and it provided virtually all 

the work readiness and job placement services. The Pittsburgh Board of Education, 

through its traditional and alternative schools, provided educational services. Pittsburgh 

schools also provided some vocational training, and the project had other vocational 

training organizations to which it could refer clients. 

The local workforce development board was not involved with the project. Youth 

registered with the One-Stop from the YouthWorks office. Staff reported that high local 

unemployment kept the focus of the One-Stop on displaced workers, and the offices were 

not youth-friendly. 

Virtually all the jobs youth found were in retail. They were low-paying jobs with little 

advancement opportunity. Case managers followed-up with employed youth and their 

employers, assuring that youth were adjusting and that the employer was pleased. 

Although the project focused on offenders, several judges made referrals to BluePrint as 

an alternative sentencing site. The judges asked BluePrint before assigning a youth. 

Aftercare services were not offered by BluePrint, but case managers monitored the 

youth’s status as part of his plan. The entire project was considered a gang-suppression 

effort, keeping the youth constructively involved, changing their clothing, and giving 

them direction toward work. 

PMM: The Pittsburgh project demonstrates many facets of the Public Management 

Model. 

BluePrint had a solid plan from the beginning. After it had trouble with its subcontractor, 

it brought all the services within the YouthWorks building. It recruited the number of 

youth it planned, and they were the youth the project targeted. The foundations and 

agencies that provided funds to YouthWorks will sustain it. The project had strong ties to 

the justice system before the DOL grant, but it lacked a connection to the workforce 

development system. The project did not have a strong connection with the workforce 

development system at the end of the grant. YouthWorks was recognized in the 

Pittsburgh community for its work with youth in the target neighborhoods, and the 

organization received funding from agencies and corporations in the city. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

118 Research and Evaluation Associates

The grantee was very involved in the project, and the executive director of the grantee 

agency met with most, if not all, the youth who were recruited. The grantee monitored the 

project and maintained good ties within the community for its support. The grantee had 

strong ties to the health system before the grant; it developed links to the education and 

the justice systems. The gap was a strong tie to the workforce development system. The 

grantee raised funds to bring services to the target youth, but it did not develop operating 

partnerships that would leverage resources from their own funding streams. Similarly, 

the project maintained the central decision-making function for the demonstration effort 

rather than developing shared leadership and information. 

Because of the DOL requirement to submit data reports quarterly, the project developed 

an MIS of those data elements. Decision-making and fundraising were based, however, 

on anecdotes of success stories. Case manager files were maintained but were not useful 

for analysis. The Pittsburgh project was open to change on other aspects: it changed its 

route counseling provider, its route counseling system, and its substance abuse 

assessment and treatment plan. The project expanded its boundaries and implemented a 

plan to encourage youth employment. 

The Category II Project 

The Education and Training for Youth Offender Initiatives grants were awarded to states 

rather than local communities as in the other categories. The only Category II grant in 

Round Two went to the State of Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of 

Youth Corrections. Within the Division of Corrections, the award went to the Central 

Region to serve the youth incarcerated at Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center 

(LMYSC) who would be returning to any of seven counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Clear 

Creek, Denver, Douglas, Gilpin, and Jefferson. The all-male population also included 

youth from other parts of the state that were incarcerated at LMYSC because of mental 

illness, trouble at another facility, or the nature of the crime they committed. There was 

on-going tension because the project youth and those from other counties who were not 

given equal access to work opportunities. 

The grantee subcontracted all the funds to other organizations. A small amount went to 

the Center for Network Development to assist with developing an employer network and 

with generating stakeholder understanding and ownership. The bulk of the funds went to 

the Tri-county Workforce Development Board, which subcontracted further to include 

Adams, Arapahoe-Douglas, and Denver Counties workforce development organizations. 

Colorado 

Recruitment and Services. The Colorado project built on a foundation of strong 

programs at LMYSC and a strong aftercare component. Youth received intensive 

treatment for substance abuse and mental illness, and work readiness was built into their 

school curriculum. Youth engaged in inter-mural sports and regular arts experiences. The 

school at LMYSC tried to insure that every young man had a GED or high school 

diploma before release. Youth participated in a number of industry-specific training 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 119

programs, and the facility had a career explorations room that included a miniature 

weather station. 

While any young man from the designated counties was eligible for the “Youth 

Employment and Academic Resources” (YEARS) project, youth participated voluntarily. 

Workforce specialists (case managers) worked with the youth before release, learning 

about his employment interests and seeking opportunities for the youth upon release. 

These specialists also noticed that it was harder to engage the youth after the period of his 

parole was over. They found that if they connected with families and explained their 

services to them, some families would help keep the youth engaged with the program 

after parole. 

Youth received an entire battery of assessments as part of their orientation to the 

correctional system, and these became the basis of the service plan developed for each 

youth. The DOL project did not reassess the youth because the employment component 

the DOL grant provided became a piece of the individual service plan that guided youth 

from the time of incarceration. In effect, the client manager (parole officer) and the 

workforce specialist both carried route counseling responsibility for the youth. They 

collaborated and shared insights as part of their joint responsibility for the youth’s case. 

The initial strategy was that young men would leave LMYSC ready for work and utilize 

the county One-Stop centers for job leads and placement services. The youth would not, 

however, come to the One-Stop centers on their own—even after the workforce 

specialists brought them to the offices and showed them the resources they could use. 

The workforce specialists began to call themselves the “go-everywhere” rather than the 

One-Stop resource because they would meet the youth at work, in a library, or 

somewhere near their homes to keep them engaged with the job search or job retention 

activities. This strategy worked to keep the young men engaged, but it created tension 

within the One-Stops that reported they had all the clients they could serve among the 

people willing to come to the One-Stop center. By the end of the grant period, some of 

the youth were coming to the One-Stops on their own, and the staff appreciated that this 

hard-to-serve target youth had responded to the outreach by the workforce specialists. For 

their part, two of the centers were developing youth rooms to make the atmosphere more 

attractive to youth—not just youth offenders. 

Incentives were a part of the YEARS project from the beginning. Youth received money 

incentives for good grades and for completing goals, such as the GED or diploma. Staff 

also found that they needed to give the youth something helpful within 48 hours of 

release or risk losing their involvement. Bus cards were often the first incentive youth 

received to keep them involved. 

Early in the transition to the community process, the workforce specialists realized that 

the work readiness the youth received was inadequate preparation. They devised and 

twice revised the “Striving Toward Employment and Personal Success” (STEPS) 

curriculum. The workforce specialists reported that the young men were better prepared 

for employment after the revised STEPS, but some young men still needed one-on-one 

coaching. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

120 Research and Evaluation Associates

Initially, workforce specialists used job listings and cues from colleagues to locate job 

openings. During the last year of the project, workforce specialists were using local 

market information to identify jobs that were in demand in the area. Youth were still 

taking entry-level positions, but the effort was to find entry-level positions in industries 

that were likely to offer career opportunities beyond the initial job. 

The YEARS project did not offer reentry services since those were provided through the 

Division of Youth Corrections, but the project did pay for some mental health and 

substance abuse services youth needed after release. 

PMM. The Colorado project demonstrated many of the features of the Public 

Management Model. 

The project had a good plan from the start, and it revised it to focus on the PMM 

components. The YEARS project focused resources on the link between justice and 

workforce development systems; the Division of Youth Corrections had helped to 

pioneer the Intensive Aftercare Program innovation and the aftercare activities were 

mature before the DOL grant activities began. Staff knowledge about the target 

population and transition issues added the workforce component to this mature system of 

assessments, services, and coordination. The grantee helped to identify a broad coalition 

of state and county service partners to form a consortium of community leaders to 

support the program, and the project had the political support of the governor and the 

department. Severe budget cuts that eliminated the jobs of even the leaders in the 

consortium jeopardized the sustainability efforts that had begun early. Nevertheless, the 

project did leverage the support of the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation to assist 

youth with disabilities find work. 

The grantee remained a strong support of the project and guided it through the difficult 

period toward the end of grant funds. Before the DOL grant, the project already had the 

support of the health and education systems. The missing piece had been the workforce 

development system; even with the budget restrictions, the division assured that 

workforce development activities would remain a part of LMYSC. The workforce 

development centers were not sure that they would hire the workforce specialists funded 

by the grant, but they reported that they had learned how to serve target youth who would 

come to them for services. 

The project developed a good MIS, and it needed to develop better strategies for using 

the data for decision-making. The Division of Youth Corrections monitored recidivism, 

and it reported that recidivism rates at LMYSC had been dropping steadily. The YEARS 

project was only one component of the division’s efforts to improve the young men’s 

chance of returning home safely. The YEARS project supported the continuous 

improvement loop through monthly review meetings by consortium members and 

weekly meetings of the staff. During the staff meetings, the dissatisfaction with the 

original STEPS curriculum surfaced that led to the revisions. The Arapahoe-Douglas 

workforce development center has already adapted the YEARS reentry strategies to their 

adult offender population. 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 121

Category III Projects 

Round Two included five Category III projects: Cincinnati, Des Moines, Erie, Hartford, 

and West Palm Beach. Funded primarily to develop infrastructure that improved the links 

among key service systems, these projects received smaller grants than projects in other 

communities. Of the five communities, three had an infrastructure partially in place; 

Cincinnati and Hartford used the grant funds to begin the process of building such an 

infrastructure. 

Cincinnati 

The DOL grant to Cincinnati occurred at a difficult time in the city’s history. The grant 

award came just as the city was emerging from civil disturbance over a police shooting, 

and a police work stoppage slowed arrests during the first year. The school system 

adopted a zero-tolerance policy for violence and drugs that led to more youth being 

expelled from school with nowhere to go but the streets. High unemployment within the 

city limited the opportunities for youth seeking work. 

Recruitment and Services. The city’s overall strategy in response to these conditions 

was to assemble a low-maintenance system with the WIA approach to serve youth 

offenders. In the city, all WIA services were subcontracted to the Service Navigator Unit 

(SNU) of the Work Resource Center, which provided all the youth services for WIA in 

Cincinnati and Hamilton County. SNU did not deliver services, except as a last resort, but 

it referred youth to the service resources in the community. For the demonstration, the 

city planned to assemble a broad coalition of youth-serving agencies to form a network of 

resources to which youth offenders could be referred. After the grant built the 

infrastructure for services, the system could be maintained through WIA dollars. 

During the first year, service delivery organizations met regularly to prepare an audit 

report of community assets and gaps for serving the target population and several 

members became official service providers for WIA services. Youth were not enrolled 

until 16 months after the grant award, and the enrollment built slowly because all 

recruited youth had to meet WIA eligibility requirements. Eligibility determination took 

weeks, and some youth drifted away. Families resisted providing the income information 

required for eligibility. Even then, some youth did not meet the low-income criterion, but 

eventually all youth offenders became eligible regardless of income level. An additional 

eligibility criterion was that the youth could not have a substance abuse problem or a 

history of violence. This criterion had the effect of eliminating a substantial number of 

potential demonstration clients. 

The Cincinnati plan was always to provide only the services authorized under WIA 

legislation. The project did not assess youth for health, mental health, substance abuse, or 

homelessness issues. Should the project staff find out that a youth had one of these 

problems, there were resources within the community to which the youth could be 

referred. Funding would be covered by the agency receiving the youth, so the narrow list 

of services was not determined by budget limitations. Rather, the vision of the project 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

122 Research and Evaluation Associates

was to provide WIA services to youth offenders, who typically did not receive workforce 

development services. 

SNU referred youth to various agencies that met the WIA qualifications as service 

providers. SNU did not record the vendors’ patterns of intensity or duration of services. 

In other words, two youth sent to different workforce development service providers 

might have very different amounts of service, different degrees of personal attention and 

different patterns of follow-up. 

Eligible youth received assessments for basic skills; this was the main focus. Other 

assessments (readiness, occupational skills, living situation, mental and physical health) 

could be given if the case managers (called navigators) thought they were needed. The 

individual service plan emphasized education (tutoring, secondary education, work 

experience, leadership development, mentoring, guidance, route counseling, and summer 

employment), but some youth qualified for the limited occupational skills training 

available. Youth did not receive reentry services although staff believed that the services 

it was offering served as anti-gang measures. Follow-up continued for one year, and it 

was the responsibility of the service provider to whom the youth was referred. 

PMM. The Cincinnati project demonstrated some features of the Public Management 

Model. 

The project staff developed a 50-page implementation plan, but it failed to serve as a 

guide for the project. Frequent staff turnover led to revising the timeline of the plan rather 

than revising it to reflect the changed circumstances of the project. The workforce and 

justice systems had not collaborated before the DOL grant, and some progress was made 

during the grant to develop a relationship; this is a feature that staff reported will continue 

to develop. The main focus was to develop a broader community support system for the 

youth; again, progress was made during the grant. 

Grantee involvement in the Cincinnati project was complicated. The City of Cincinnati 

did not have the project high on its priority list, and the administrators and staff changed 

positions or left the employ of the city or subcontractor frequently during the grant 

period. Stronger grantee involvement might have kept the project focused and addressed 

policy issues, such as the exclusionary character of eligibility rules, during the grant. 

Toward the end of the grant, city staff reported that such policies were under 

consideration for all of the WIA youth programs. This step was attributed to the concerns 

raised by technical assistance and evaluation recommendations relating to the grant. 

The vision of the city for target youth did not include developing a cross-systems

infrastructure to provide a wide array of services to youth offenders. In fact, the project 

identified a broad array of service delivery providers, but the focus was the delivery of 

workforce development services. Similarly, the project did not set out to develop 

partnerships that would leverage services, but the city had service resources if the 

navigators thought the youth needed more help than they were able to provide. Few 

referrals for such services were noted in the reports. The service delivery providers did 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 123

meet regularly to share information, but the vision and leadership remained that of the 

grantee. 

SNU developed a comprehensive database on all the youth it referred for WIA services, 

but the project-specific data were limited to the data elements required by DOL. The data 

reports were used by the grantee only for accountability. SNU did use data it collected to 

study service gaps youth were experiencing. Administrators also pulled a number of files 

randomly every month to verify that navigators were consistent in documenting services. 

The project documented several changes in its continuous improvement efforts: 

 Better connection to the justice system, 

 Adding new service providers to the WIA network, 

 A better attitude by staff toward youth offenders, and 

 Highlighting goals and policies that need review and adjustment. 

Des Moines 

Recruitment and Services. The Des Moines project did not focus primarily on 

infrastructure development. Rather, the grantee and its partners considered the DOL 

grant as a way to deliver services to additional needy youth. The strategy for serving 

more youth was to divide youth between two service providers based on the client’s age. 

Iowa Comprehensive Human Services (ICHS) served younger youth by keeping them in 

school and offering them paid work experience after school and over the summer. 

Spectrum Resource Program served older youth by offering them GED classes, life skills, 

some unpaid work experience and job placement. Over the course of the project, these 

partners expanded the range of assessments and services they offered youth to the point 

that they offered the range of services listed in the SGA to which they responded. 

By the end of the project, youth received assessments for health, substance abuse, and 

mental health from a new partner, Polk County Primary Health Care. Individual service 

plans included, as needed, education, training, barrier reduction, acquisition of a driver’s 

license, and health care. All the youth received route counseling and work readiness 

training from one of the two partners. 

As a strategy to retain older youth, participants met for an hour of life skills every day 

before GED classes. The youth were expected to write what they were going to do that 

day to meet the expectations in their individual service plans. The following morning, 

they reported to the group how well they succeeded with the previous day’s plan and 

prepared a new plan for the coming day. Staff reported that they got to know the youth 

better from seeing and listening to them every day. Youth realized that staff cared about 

them and their progress, and the youth experienced peer support in their efforts to change. 

Retention in the program and progress with individual service plans improved 

dramatically with this innovation. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

124 Research and Evaluation Associates

While the project did not offer reentry services, the requirements of probation or parole 

were considered part of the “barriers” in the individual service plans. Route counselors 

considered the court requirements in scheduling activities and accompanied youth to 

court to testify on their behalf if they had progressed in their service plans. Staff believed 

that the efforts to keep all the youth engaged all day was an anti-gang activity. 

Occasionally youth were asked to provide community service, not as a court requirement. 

Painting the GED classroom is one example of service the project youth performed. 

PMM. The Des Moines project illustrated several aspects of the Public Management 

Model. 

The two service providers developed separate plans, and both used the plans during the 

demonstration. The project used grant funds to develop partnerships and community

support for sustainability. While the grantee (a workforce development agency) had not 

worked with the justice system before the grant, over the course of the grant period, 

ICHS and Spectrum Resources staff initiated connections with the justice system. Staff 

reported that most of the referrals came from parole and probation staff who appreciated 

the preparation for employment services which the court did not provide. 

Grantee involvement was limited in Des Moines. The grantee assumed that the two subcontractors would run their operations without much involvement. When the first 

evaluation report noted the lack of engagement, DOL requested that the grantee become 

more involved. This occurred for several months, but the press of other responsibilities 

pushed the project down on the priority list until the last months of the project. The lack 

of engagement was felt in two aspects of the project: MIS and sustainability. The grantee 

organization was expected to develop the project-based MIS, but the shared database did 

not develop when confidentiality issues were not adequately addressed. Eventually, the 

two subcontractors developed their own databases, but they were limited to the required 

data elements. The two subcontractors worked well in coordinating the project between 

them, but until the end of the project the grantee and the two subcontractors worked 

without reaching out to the community. At this time, the staff realized that many youth 

had made real progress, and they did not have the data to demonstrate how well they had 

done. They also realized that they were going to need the partnership of other service 

delivery providers in the community to sustain the effort. The grantee could have 

facilitated the development of both the MIS and the sustainability infrastructure had it 

been more engaged. Similarly, information sharing and leadership remained with the 

three key stakeholders until the end of the demonstration period. 

The Des Moines project made several significant changes to demonstrate its interest in 

continuous improvement. The project added services and a new partner by the end of 

the project so that it was able to offer all the services that DOL requested in the SGA. It 

developed paid and unpaid work experiences based on what staff learned from youth 

about retention in the program and their need to earn some money. The older youth met 

for a life skills experience every day before GED classes in the last months of the project, 

and retention and progress in their individual strategy improved with this innovation. 

Spectrum Resources asked YouthBuild to offer some training to youth who did not 

qualify for the YouthBuild program because such skills made them more employable. 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 125

When the value of a deeper infrastructure became clear to the project leadership, they 

reached out to the community, developed a MIS, and prepared a sustainability plan. 

Erie 

Erie was experiencing severe problems at the time of the grant award. Unemployment 

was high; the available jobs required credentials beyond those of the majority of city 

residents (both adult and youth), and the academic achievement of the youth in the city 

school district was ranked among the lowest 10 in the state. 

Perseus House, the Erie grantee, is a well-established nonprofit agency to serve youth 

who are court referred for out-of-home placements and alternative school services. 

Already in place before the grant was an infrastructure to serve the youth’s health and 

educational needs. Workforce development activities were new with the grant as were 

the partnerships with the local workforce investment board (WIB) and Bayfront Maritime 

Center. The project was called BroadReach. 

Recruitment and Services. Two-thirds of the enrolled youth were at risk of court 

involvement, and one-third were offenders. Courts, Perseus House staff from one of its 

other programs, area school districts, the probation department, and other communitybased organizations referred youth to the program. The initial recruitment efforts yielded 

fewer youth than the project anticipated. In collaboration with “Career Link,” the local 

One-Stop center, the project began to offer a stipend of $3.25/hour for participation in the 

Workplace Essential Skills curriculum, Bayfront Maritime Center curriculum, and 

subsidized work experience. The stipend increased enrollment and retention. 

The strategy Perseus House employed was to develop educational materials and 

approaches to improve the academic and occupational skill achievement of project youth. 

Most of the enrolled youth were under 18 years of age, so the emphasis was on education, 

work readiness and work experience activities. Youth received support to remain in 

school, attend alternative school at Perseus House, attend the Bayfront Maritime Center 

for work experience, or search for employment. Perseus House purchased “Workplace 

Essential Skills” software for its alternative school. In groups of 20, youth attended the 

Bayfront Maritime Center all day for eight Saturdays. The curriculum focused on both 

the academic and craft skills youth needed for boat building and navigation. The French 

Creek Boy Scouts of America offered “Learning for Life,” a monthly career exploration 

activity, until the council’s grant funding was depleted. 

Youth received assessments for medical issues, drug and alcohol problems, education, 

employment, criminal history, family background, workforce preparation, and mental 

health. Based on these assessments, the youth received individualized service plans. If the 

youth resided at Perseus House, in-house staff provided medical, mental health and 

substance abuse services; if the youth were not residing at Perseus House, they were 

referred to community resources to receive these services. 

All the youth received route counseling through Perseus House staff, and all were 

registered with Career Link. Perseus House had not linked with the One-Stop before the 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

126 Research and Evaluation Associates

grant, but during the grant, the partners realized how many activities they could develop 

together: work experience, summer jobs programs, and career exploration. The parole 

office provided the reentry services needed, and Perseus House reported that youth had 

generally completed their aftercare before being referred to the project. 

PMM. The Erie project demonstrated many of the elements of the public management 

model. 

The project had a strong plan, and it reflected how well Perseus House understood the 

needs of the youth they were serving. While Perseus House had an existing relationship 

with the justice system before the DOL grant, the partnership with the workforce system 

was new. Over the course of the grant, Career Link and Perseus House became strong 

collaborators and developed “Learn and Earn” as a follow-on to the grant. Before the 

DOL grant, Perseus House had a well-developed reputation within the Erie community 

for serving troubled youth. 

Perseus House staff and administration, as the grantee, were clearly involved with the 

DOL grant, monitoring its progress and forging new partnerships as needed. By the end 

of the grant, justice, workforce, education, and health systems were all sharing in 

delivering the services to project youth. Most of these relationships pre-dated the DOL 

grant; the workforce system was the new partner. The partnerships Perseus House 

established leveraged services for the youth from these systems. Staff from both Perseus 

House and Bayfront Maritime Center reported that the DOL grant raised their credibility 

with the state, as well. Perseus House moved on to establish a charter school whose 

curriculum included the Workplace Essential Skills software. The state funded the 

Bayfront Maritime Center to build a new facility to continue offering its program to 

disadvantaged youth. Leadership remained with Perseus House. The advisory group met 

rarely, although partner staff met regularly. 

Perseus House had an established reporting system that did not change over the time of 

the grant. Written reports rather than electronically generated reports were the norm for 

accountability, decision-making, and proposal preparation. The MIS was designed to 

report the required data elements to DOL. 

A number of changes indicate the Erie project’s commitment to continuous 

improvement. Perseus House trained its staff in the Total Quality Management (TQM) 

approach to continuous improvement. Staff formed quality improvement teams that 

reviewed every aspect of program functioning. The project asked for and received several 

technical assistance interventions, as well. Both Perseus House and the Bayfront 

Maritime Center realized that the 8-day experience was not enough for the youth, but the 

staff developed an 8-week Learn and Earn project with Career Link, the city schools, the 

county office of children and youth, and the county probation department. Over the 

course of the project, Perseus House hired staff with vocational education or work 

readiness skills background to meet the workforce development needs of the youth. 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 127

Hartford 

Like several other communities that received demonstration grants in Round Two, 

Hartford experienced serious economic difficulties; unemployment was high, and the 

public agency budgets were cut. The city anticipated 9,000 youth and adult offenders 

returning to Hartford after release from incarceration during the three years after 

receiving the DOL grant. 

Recruitment and Services. The grantee, the Capitol Region Workforce Development 

Board, is part of a leadership group, the Mayor’s Taskforce on Hartford’s Future 

Workforce Investment System, that conceived of a time when all youth would be served 

by a community-wide network for service providers linked together through “Hartford 

Connects,” a common database, and common cross-agency training through the Hartford 

Youth Development Practitioners Academy. The Capitol Region Workforce 

Development Board envisioned the DOL grant, “Hartford Access,” as the seed money to 

begin building the infrastructure for Hartford Connects and the Hartford Youth 

Development Practitioners Academy. The city leadership assumed that the entire effort 

would take five years or more to build the network and train the youth service providers. 

This grand vision caused some tension with DOL, which expected the project to be 

serving youth while it was still building infrastructure. 

During the project, Hartford Youth Access completed Hartford Connects and graduated 

its first class from the training academy. As of the final evaluation visit, the project had 

negotiated memorandums of understanding with 30 youth service providers, and a few of 

them had begun serving youth and entering data into the Hartford Connects database. 

The project encountered resistance on the part of smaller community-based organizations 

that were reluctant to put in the staff time to learn the database and use its comprehensive 

data fields. Several key partners, the school district for example, were also reluctant to 

participate given the lean staff they had after the budget cuts. The mayor and other 

leaders on the task force for Hartford’s Future Workforce Investment kept all the 

stakeholders engaged. The long-term program began to address the stakeholder 

ownership issues that demanded the human resources to attend the academy, learn 

Hartford Connects, and maintain a more comprehensive database than many agencies had 

supported heretofore. 

About 28 months into the project, Hartford Youth Access began enrolling youth. By the 

final evaluation visit, the project had enrolled 138 youth; only 35 were offenders. Ninetysix of the 138 were less than 18 years old. 

The youth received what services were available from agencies that had signed the 

memorandums of agreement. All youth received assessments of their education, life, and 

employability skills from the two route counselors hired by Hartford Youth Access. 

These assessments were reported in a “plan” that included information but not many 

services; service plans would develop as the appropriate range of service providers joins 

the project. Once the youth were referred to a community organization, that organization 

became responsible for route counseling. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

128 Research and Evaluation Associates

Most of the effort was to encourage the youth to remain in or return to the Hartford 

public schools. The only workforce development component developed as of the final 

evaluation visit was a summer jobs program that included work readiness skill 

development. Community Partners in Action, a community-based organization that 

focused on the needs of offenders returning to the community, operated the Coalition 

Employment Service. The Capitol Region Workforce Development Board funded a 

position at Coalition Employment Service for a work retention specialist, and this person 

will provide 12 months of post-employment follow-up. Few youth had progressed to the 

point of employment, but they would have access to this service when they were ready. 

Coalition Employment Service would also be a resource for transportation or other work 

readiness services to assist youth in their employment search. Should youth need health, 

mental health, or substance abuse assistance, he/she would be referred to the Health and 

Human Services Department of the City of Hartford. 

PMM. While the Hartford Youth Access project is clearly a work-in-progress, it 

demonstrates a number of the Public Management Model components. 

Hartford Youth Access was driven by a vision for serving all of Hartford’s youth, and the 

plan for the grant was tailored to what could be accomplished with the grant dollars. The 

project will have the effect of linking the workforce and the justice systems more 

effectively, but the linkage was still not strong. The mayor requested that the One-Stop 

center use Hartford Connects as its MIS, and Hartford Youth Access is working with the 

probation department to have some of its staff attend the next Youth Development 

Practitioners Academy. Another link to the workforce development system was the 

collaboration between Hartford Youth Access and the DOL-funded Youth Opportunity 

Grant (YO Hartford) project. 

The long-term goal was to have the entire community of service providers linked in 

support of vulnerable and offender youth. The Mayor’s Taskforce on Hartford’s Future 

Workforce Investment System Leadership Committee includes the senior administrators 

of the city, Hartford Public Schools, Capitol Region Workforce Investment Board, 

Hartford Metro Alliance, Hartford Foundation for Public Giving, and the United Way of 

the Capitol area. One goal of the long-term effort was to have local funders support the 

youth services effort in collaboration with the city, rather than funding separate projects 

independently. The mayor used his office to keep the stakeholders engaged as they resist 

the level of effort each were required to make to participate. The grantee remained 

involved at every step of the process, and it funded an employment retention specialist 

position. 

When the system is in place, justice, workforce, education, and health and human service 

systems will be linked. The health and human service agency began to use Hartford 

Connects, had staff attend the academy and was providing services. The school district 

was also providing services. The partnerships have begun to leverage resources across 

systems, and program leadership was negotiating with the partners to invest in their 

participation. The initial experience of Hartford Youth Access was that it was open in 

sharing leadership and information. Agency staff made a point of affirming how their 

feedback was used during the development of Hartford Connects, and the Hartford’s 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 129

Future Workforce Investment System Leadership Committee met regularly to monitor 

progress and shape the evolving system. 

Although the work is not completed, the vision of Hartford Connects was a shared MIS

of service records of youth. Confidentiality issues have been resolved, and the hurdle the 

project must clear is getting agencies to learn and use the system. Hartford Youth Access, 

itself, had a backlog of data that needed to be entered into the system. The continuous 

improvement loop in an evolving system is different from reshaping an existing one. 

Staff was trying to affect every service delivery system in the city in one overall strategy. 

Substantial progress was made, and the head of the Capitol Region Workforce 

Development Board was committed to the long-term system change that was at the heart 

of the Hartford Youth Access vision. 

West Palm Beach 

With the size of the retired population in southern Florida, the need for health care 

workers remains high. The general employment market is tight, with most positions 

going to experienced workers with no troubled history. The West Palm Beach project 

served youth living in the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities of Palm 

Beach County. A high proportion of the residents is impoverished and many are recent 

immigrants. The crime rate is high, and gang activity is prevalent. 

Recruitment and Services. The Academy for Practical Nursing and Health Occupations 

(APNHO) was the grantee in West Palm Beach. APNHO was a well-established 

nonprofit educational organization with an extensive history of preparing low-income and 

first-time workers for careers in the health industry. The vision for the DOL grant was to 

establish the infrastructure with the justice, workforce, and health systems to serve youth 

offenders and other vulnerable youth by preparing them for health care professions. 

Youth received a range of assessments at entry into the project: learning styles, reading, 

math, mental and physical health, family health history, and aptitude. Each youth 

received an individual service strategy. Work readiness, reading and math were also 

evaluated as the youth completed the program. 

With its focus on infrastructure development, the grantee limited enrollment to 103 

students. The project achieved that level of enrollment before the end of the grant period; 

it continued to enroll youth after reaching the cap, but all the reports are limited to the 

services and characteristics of the 103 youth. The youth enrolled from two sources, the 

local high schools and from the justice system. APNHO faculty went to the four target 

high schools (two traditional and two alternative high schools) to teach health 

occupations during a 2-hour class every day. The out-of-school youth attend classes 

every day at the APNHO facility from morning to mid-afternoon. 

The faculty and staff of the project focused on the youths’ desire to get a job, and they 

emphasized that they were preparing youth to be professionals. Youth wore health 

worker clothing to class and formed a health professions club to increase their ownership 

of a professional identity. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

130 Research and Evaluation Associates

The project did not require the youth to earn a GED before beginning training. A careful 

assessment at entry included an assessment for reading and math, and tutoring in reading 

and math were offered. The major strategy for improving skills was to tie reading and 

math improvement to the health careers training. The project measured substantial gains 

in the students skills scores during the project, supporting its contention that the youth 

would learn the skills if they were tied to the practical preparation for work. 

The project did not attempt to offer the range of services the youth needed. All the youth 

registered with the local One-Stop center, and students were referred to community 

agencies for health, substance abuse, mental health, housing, and other services they 

needed to remain engaged in the program. Faculty served as route counselors; as 

experienced health professionals they were alert to changes in health and behavior among 

their students. The caseload was kept low, as well, to assist them in knowing and guiding 

their students. 

Probationers Educational Growth, the third partner with APNHO and the One-Stop 

center, recruited youth from the justice system, including visiting youth before release. 

Probationers Educational Growth also monitored the youths’ reentry requirements to 

assure that they complied, but the project did not offer reentry services directly. 

A 90-hour work readiness curriculum was embedded in the health careers training. Staff 

earned national certification to teach employability skills. The One-Stop center awarded a 

work readiness certificate to any youth completing the full work readiness curriculum, 

and youth could take this certificate to potential employers to demonstrate their 

preparation for employment. The project developed “Linking People With Careers,” with 

non-DOL funds as a job retention strategy. Students began Linking People With Careers 

before they completed health care worker training, and the project provided some degree 

of follow-up after placement. 

APNHO developed a network of health care employers before receiving the DOL grant, 

and it used this network to place graduates. It favored putting students into settings that 

have hired APNHO graduates before because the staffs knew each other. If the employer 

had been satisfied with previous APNHO graduates, he/she was likely to hire youth 

despite a troubled history. Because these relationships were ongoing, APNHO had an 

incentive to match the employer and youth well. 

Part of the infrastructure development involved the partners in a sustainability strategy. 

The partners agreed to work jointly for continued funding, and they received 17 grants 

among them over the period of the project to maintain the project activities to serve the 

target population. Probationers Educational Growth began the project as a subcontractor, 

but by the end of the grant it had received funding of its own to participate as an 

operating partner. 

PMM. The West Palm Beach project demonstrated many of the characteristics of the 

Public Management Model. 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 131

Not only did it have a solid plan from the beginning, it reviewed the plan with an outside 

evaluator every month of the project. APNHO had a partnership with the workforce 

development agency for many years, and Probationers Educational Growth had a 

partnership with justice. Among the three partners, therefore, the project knew the justice 

and workforce systems well. APNHO was an active member of the health care 

community in West Palm Beach, including potential employers and the state health care 

workers standards committees. It used this entree to gain employment exceptions for 

youth who had proved themselves. APNHO was also a respected agency with the local 

schools. The project reached out to the youths’ families to gain their support in keeping 

youth on track. 

The grantee was involved in both leadership and service provision, developing 

partnerships and insisting on credentialed work readiness training. The grantee provided 

peer-to-peer technical assistance both directly and at conferences to Round Two projects. 

As mentioned earlier, the combination of partners brought workforce, justice, health and 

education systems into partnership. The partnership was particularly resourceful in 

leveraging resources among its members, and had the sustainability funding it needed 

before the end of the DOL grant. In fact, it recruited and served another cohort of youth 

with non-DOL funds before the DOL grant activity was completed. The agreement to 

fund activities jointly allowed different members of the partnership to develop 

leadership in its area of expertise. 

West Palm Beach developed and used a comprehensive MIS during the project. The data 

elements went far beyond those required by DOL. A monthly meeting with the outside 

evaluator provided the opportunity to monitor student progress and make adjustments as 

needed. Data were also used to support sustainability. The project had the documentation 

to show that more than 90% of the youth completed the health careers project training; 

74% had found at least one unsubsidized job, and 65% remained employed at the time of 

the last evaluation visit. Among the older youth offenders, 78% remained employed. 

Developing a system to educate, train, and place youth offenders and other vulnerable 

youth was an ongoing continuous improvement loop of assessing need, responding, and 

assessing the response. Already mentioned was the monthly meeting with an external 

evaluator to review project progress. One significant change came early in the project 

when Probationers Educational Growth realized how tight the job market was in fields 

outside of healthcare. From that point on Probationers Educational Growth focused on 

recruiting youth only for health careers. 

Summary 

Round Two projects demonstrated a range of circumstances and models of service 

delivery. Developing broad partnerships and attracting and retaining youth were on-going 

struggles for every project. At the beginning of Round Two, there was some optimism 

that learning from Round One projects which systems needed to collaborate to provide 

the needed services to the youth would make the second round easier. To some extent it 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

132 Research and Evaluation Associates

did, but overcoming the entropy of a fixed way of doing things provided a challenge to 

projects. The coordination of systems will likely always be hard work. 

Project youth have generally not felt successful within public or private systems: family, 

school, etc. Projects were always challenged by the need to attract youth, develop trust, 

and serve them; many youth did not persevere through this process. Meeting the youth 

while they were still incarcerated jump-started the trust building process, and many more 

Round Two projects than Round One incorporated some level of pre-project outreach. 

Projects that knew the youth well seemed to fare better. These projects saw the youth 

often, encouraged them to be in the office, had activities for them every day, etc. Des 

Moines staff members found that when they began to meet the youth daily, youth and 

staff got to know each other better and retention improved. Projects that paid the youth 

for participation or paid for reaching milestones, believed that the incentives kept at least 

some youth from dropping out of the program. 

Almost all the projects’ staff remarked at some point during the evaluation visits that 

keeping the youth busy was an important feature in itself. The youth needed the work 

readiness experience of structured time and accomplishing tasks within a specified time. 

Youth needed an alternative to “hanging out;” busy and engaging projects served both as 

work readiness and as anti-gang activities. 

Projects typically kept an open door policy to drop outs, encouraging them to pick up 

again where they left off. Staff with experience in substance abuse treatment went so far 

as to tell other project staff to expect dropouts and backsliding. It was part of the recovery 

process. 

Several projects made an effort to change the youths’ loyalties and developed peer 

support to reinforce these changes. By having the youth in one place to receive services, 

projects developed a sense of belonging as an alternative to the gang or rough crowd the 

youth had bonded with before the project. Projects went so far as to establish different 

clothing or professional identity to reinforce the new path on which the youth had set 

foot. 

Based on December 31, 2003 quarterly data reports, four projects moved the majority of 

clients to employment: Pittsburgh (56%), Colorado (51%), Des Moines (67%), and 

West Palm Beach (96%). Some projects served youth too young for full time 

employment. The older youth, too, lacked the credentials that would position them for 

employment at wages that would break the cycle of dependency and recidivism. An 

exception is West Palm Beach, which reports almost all its clients found employment and 

were not required to earn a credential before beginning industry training. It will be 

important for future projects to learn which factors made the most difference for West 

Palm Beach. Was it because the demand for health occupations was high? Was it because 

the demonstration focused on preparing youth for an industry it knew well and had 

contacts in? Was it because the agency was well-established and had a sound reputation 

for its training? Was it because it focused youth on industry preparation rather than 

earning a general credential, like the GED or a diploma? 
Section VII – Strategies for Serving Youth Offenders and 

Youth At Risk of Court or Gang Involvement 

Research and Evaluation Associates 133

Although several projects boasted of the number of service delivery partners they had 

attracted through the demonstration, none used more than a handful of partners to deliver 

services. It may take more coordination resources than communities can manage to keep 

a large group of organizations working together. Hartford will be interesting to watch 

because it has such high level support for a community-wide service network. 

With the exception of Cincinnati and Hartford, all the projects eventually assembled the 

range of services DOL thought necessary to serve the target youth effectively. 

Negotiating service availability is only a first step, as each service provider needs to 

develop shared expectations, training, and standards of quality for its part of the program. 

With all the progress made, only West Palm Beach implemented a nationally certified 

work readiness program. 

All the projects in Round Two developed an MIS to report the required data elements to 

DOL. All the projects and their partners collected reams of data, but few had developed 

effective ways of collecting data in a way to provide more than accountability. Part of 

this missed opportunity seemed more an organizational cultural issue than a technical 

skill issue. 

In the next section, the report will turn to accomplishments observed at both the 

individual and organizational levels. 

 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

134 Research and Evaluation Associates
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 135

Section VIII 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

In the earlier sections of the report, projects have been analyzed from various 

perspectives. In the previous section, some of the strategies for serving youth were 

synthesized by project level. This section synthesizes findings by accomplishments to 

date. With the exception of New York, the tables and graphs report the final project data 

collected by DOL as of December 31, 2003. Because the New York project depleted 

DOL grant funds by June 30,2003, its data are as of June 30. Whether grant funds were 

depleted or not, all the projects will continue to evolve, and the findings presented reflect 

that they are still developing. 

Overview 

Section VIII consists of three parts that consider accomplishments from the second round 

of Youth Offender Demonstration Project: 

 

• Individual accomplishments, 

• Systems-level accomplishments, and 

• Project accomplishments, as reported by the nine Round Two projects. 

The part on individual-level accomplishments provides an overview of youth-specific 

outcomes at an aggregate level. Tables and graphs present outcomes such as employment, 

job training and education services received by youth enrolled across the nine Round 

Two projects. 

The second part on systems-level accomplishments discusses four major types of 

outcomes where the projects seem to have made significant strides achieving the 

demonstration’s objectives: building partnerships, garnering new resources, achieving 

sustainability, and involving the community and employers in the program. 

The final part of the section records the on-going challenges the projects are addressing, 

but it also presents the projects’ perspective on what they believed they accomplished 

over the grant period since 2001. 

Individual -Level Outcomes 

Table 17 shows data reported to DOL in the final quarterly report of the demonstration. 

In looking at the data presented in Table 17, one needs to examine several issues 

regarding definitions of the data elements. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

136 Research and Evaluation Associates

First, the “total employed” data element refers to the number of youth who had worked 

for a wage or a stipend during the demonstration. This number includes the number of 

participants who could submit proof of wages earned for the period for either full-time or 

part-time work. Wages could be provided entirely by an employer, or partially or entirely 

by grant or WIA funds. If an employer paid all the wages, the work was classified as 

unsubsidized. If a youth received both subsidized and unsubsidized work during the 

demonstration, he/she is counted once in the total employed category. (Evaluators know 

that this way of calculating the total proved confusing for some project staff, but 

Research and Evaluation Associates staff reviewed the definition with the person 

responsible for data if the total seemed out of proportion.) (Definitions of DOL data 

elements are found in Appendix I). To calculate percentages of unsubsidized and 

subsidized for total employment the analysis used the total number of youth enrolled as a 

denominator instead of the total number of youth employed. 

Table 17. Individual Results at Aggregate Level 

*Percentages based on total enrollment. Total employed includes youth who may have 

received both subsidized and unsubsidized employment opportunities through the 

demonstration. 

DOL data definitions indicated that if a participant was arrested and convicted of a crime 

while enrolled in the project then the participant was to be counted under the “convicted 

Category Value Total 

 Enrolled 1852 

Percentage 

 within group 

Subsidized 218 12%* 

Unsubsidized 445 24%* 

Employment 

Total Employment* 591* 

Employment Age Subsidized 126 48% 

14-17 Unsubsidized 139 52% 

Employment Age Subsidized 92 23% 

18-24 Unsubsidized 305 77% 

Federally Funded Job 

Training 

Workforce 639 62% 

Development 

Services Other Job Training 384 38% 

High School 650 50% 

College 116 9% 

GED Preparation 238 18% 

Educational 

Services 

Other 300 23% 

Convicted of a crime 71 

Incarcerated 83 

Juvenile Justice 

Community Service 92 
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 137

of crime” column. Similarly, if a participant was arrested, convicted and incarcerated for 

a crime during the program he/she was counted under the “incarcerated” column. The 

reliability of these data elements across the nine projects is, however, arguable. If a youth 

entered the program without a conviction, it would be possible to know whether he/she 

was convicted of a crime in that part of the data report (convicted of a crime); if a youth 

entered the program after a conviction, it was possible to know that the youth was 

convicted of a new crime by a notation in the same data field. Evaluators’ concern with 

data reliability surfaced during visits when staff reported that some youth they reported as 

convicted of a crime were returned to custody because of a parole violation – not because 

of a new crime. (Notice in Table 17 that the number of incarcerations is higher than the 

number convicted of a crime.) 

The percentage of enrolled youth who were convicted of a crime or convicted and 

incarcerated cannot be determined with the data from the projects’ quarterly report. 

Enrolled youth did not always complete the project, and after they dropped out, case 

managers could not always locate them. Youth could have been convicted of a crime and 

incarcerated without project staff realizing it. That would understate the percentage of 

enrolled youth who were convicted of a crime or incarcerated. 

The number of youth reported participating in community service may not accurately 

reflect the actual number of youth doing community service as part of a court-mandated 

action. Community service was defined as the number of participants who were in courtdefined, program-defined assignment or 

who made a voluntary choice of 

employment for a stipend rather than for 

a market wage. 

The evaluation team realized that many 

youth were required to do community 

service as part of their court-required 

restitution to the community, but few 

projects were responsible for reentry and 

aftercare services. Hence the number 

reported by the projects is certainly an 

undercount of the actual number of 

assignments. 

Employment 

Using the data in Table 17 to calculate across the nine projects, the analysis shows that 

24% of Round Two youth at one point were in unsubsidized employment. In addition, 

12% of Round Two youth were in subsidized employment at one point. 

Figure 11 shows the numbers for subsidized and unsubsidized employment by the two 

age categories. Note that for younger youth, almost equal proportions were in each type 

(48% and 52%), whereas three times as many older youth have been able to obtain 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Age 14-17 Age 18-24

Subsidized

Unsubsidized

Figure 11. Employment by Age Group 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

138 Research and Evaluation Associates

High School

50%

College

9%

GED 

Preparation

18%

Other

23%

High School

50%

College

9%

GED 

Preparation

18%

Other

23%

unsubsidized employment (77%) than subsidized employment, a major step toward 

realizing a demonstration goal. 

Job Training 

Of the total youth enrolled in the Round Two projects, 34.5% of youth received federally 

funded job training. Moreover, 21% of the youth enrolled in some form of other jobtraining category. Of those receiving work readiness services (1,023 youth), 62% 

received federally funded job training. Since some projects used both federal and nonfederal dollars for work readiness, the total number of youth receiving these services 

cannot be calculated precisely. 

Educational Services 

 Frequently, project youth 

progressed from one educational 

service to another, so Figure 12 

reports the number of services

youth received rather than the total 

number of youth receiving 

educational services. (In other 

words, if a youth progressed from 

basic literacy to high school or 

GED preparation, he/she would be 

counted twice, once in each 

educational category.) Figure 12 shows that 1,304 educational services were received by 

project youth. Fifty percent of the services were high school classes; 23% of the services 

were in other programs, primarily these were literacy, basic education, and pre-GED 

classes. Almost all the youth enrolled in a high school setting were in alternative schools, 

rather than traditional high schools. In all, 18% of the educational services were GED 

preparation classes while 7% were college experiences. 

System-level Outcomes 

As discussed in Section II, Round Two projects planned to establish a series of program 

objectives consistent with the requirements for the demonstration as stated in the SGA. In 

effect, the program objectives developed at the beginning of the grant became the 

expected outcomes for the end of the grant period. Consequently, this part of the section 

discusses four major types of outcomes where projects seem to have made significant 

strides in achieving the demonstration’s objectives: 

• Building partnerships, 

• Garnering new resources, 

Figure 12. Educational Services Youth Received 
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 139

• Achieving sustainability, and 

• Involving the community and employers in the program. 

In reading this section, it becomes evident that these four types of outcomes are actually 

closely interconnected, so it is not easy to establish the outcomes as independent of one 

another. In fact, it appears that the act of developing partnerships and collaborative 

arrangements has a direct impact on the ability of a project to leverage resources, to 

sustain the project (whether through new funding sources or through a collaborative 

approach to service delivery), and to facilitate community and employer involvement. 

If an outcome is viewed as the result of changes brought about through an intervention, in 

the case of the demonstration the intervention is the receipt of a grant with expectations 

that the grantee would be able to do more things or do things differently as a consequence 

of the grant funding. Thus, this part of the section looks at the changes at the system-level 

that resulted from each project implementing the plan it developed for its program. A 

major system-level outcome – development of a coordinated service delivery system – 

will not be repeated here since that was discussed in detail in earlier sections. 

Project Partnerships 

A basic principle underlying the demonstration is that the “whole” is greater than the sum 

of its parts. In the SGA, DOL clearly outlined the critical importance of partnerships and 

linkages for all three categories of grantees. To accomplish the objective of enhancing 

and expanding services and programs for youth, DOL stated that: 

“...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.” 

Further, it was through partnerships that DOL expected to develop the services necessary 

to meet the youths’ needs adequately, including: 

• Implementation of an education and employment program, including 

provision of work-related or work-oriented activities such as exposure to the 

workplace, on-the-job training, work experience, job shadowing, etc.; 

• Establishment of alternative sentencing and community service options; 

• Expansion of gang suppression activities; and 

• Development of connections to local workforce systems. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

140 Research and Evaluation Associates

Based on prior experience, including that of the demonstration’s first round, DOL 

expected that projects would be better able to provide a more coordinated system for 

delivering services to youth if the project could bring together partners who may not have 

worked together to much, if any, extent in the past. There was substantial evidence in 

Round Two that demonstration grants produced new partnerships that did not exist prior 

to the grant, and that were also likely to be sustained. 

In addition, the collaborations produced through the partnerships seemed to have actually 

changed the way in which partnering organizations operated and served youth. Evaluators 

found evidence in all nine projects that people within the partnering organizations came 

together and talked about the needs of target youth and how to better meet those needs, to 

an extent that had never happened before. There also was evidence in most, if not all, 

projects that partners were continuing to meet regularly, thus alleviating a concern that 

the partners might only be involved in the initial application and planning stages. 

New Ways of Operating 

Evaluators for all nine projects reported that service providers and other organizations 

that worked with youth had changed the way in which they operated as a result of the 

demonstration in their community. The degree of change, of course, varied across the 

nine projects, but it seemed clear that one outcome of the demonstration was that 

organizations – and their managers and front-line staffs – were working together more 

closely than they had prior to receipt of the grant. Consistently, evaluators found that 

project partners reported that they would not revert to the “old ways” of working, which 

were often independent of one another, and instead would naturally continue to work 

together to expand and improve service delivery, plan for sustainability, etc. 

Cincinnati provided an example of the multiple effects of new partnerships at the 

system-level, including: 

• The workforce development system is now better connected with the justice 

system; 

• More use of non-WIA providers has built relationships and partnerships and 

opened opportunities for staff development, which will benefit all youth; 

• Attitudes in the community about working with youth offenders have 

changed; 

• Experience with the demonstration raised issues about appropriate goals for 

workforce development programs (e.g., whether contracts with the city and 

county should specify a required minimum of six months for achieving 

improvement in basic skills and whether basic skills improvement should be 

the primary focus with older youth); 
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 141

• Future workforce development services for youth offenders will be improved 

by the strategies developed to recruit and serve demonstration clients; and

• Administrators are considering that several local policy decisions for the 

project and WIA may have been too restrictive and in need of change. If they 

can be changed, the benefit will be to all WIA youth, not just youth offenders. 

In Erie, the grantee, Perseus House, developed a new emphasis on workforce 

preparation, placement and retention, and it developed new partnerships with the 

Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies and the local WIB. Since the grant, Perseus House 

has been involved in the creation of the new “Earn-N-Learn” program with the Erie City 

School District, the Erie County Office of Children and Youth, the Erie County Juvenile 

Probation Department, and the WIB. The evaluator especially noted the establishment of 

a strong relationship with the WIB as a project outcome. The WIB became a partner in 

the project in its second year when it paid stipends for students who completed the 8-

week program at the Bayfront Center. The project introduced Perseus House and The 

Bayfront Center staff to the resources of the WIB and also introduced the WIB to the 

resources and programs at the project sites. 

In Colorado, staff members at the four workforce development centers are no longer 

anxious about working with offenders from LMYSC. They see them as similar to other 

youth they serve. Two workforce centers are creating youth offices, and the division of 

youth corrections is committed to making work readiness a part of each youth’s 

individual service plan. 

From conception of the project in Hartford, the Capital Region Workforce Development 

Board envisioned a comprehensive system for improving the integration of service 

delivery to target youth. In fact, the grantee used DOL funds to change the way that 

service providers met the needs of all community youth, not just project youth. With a 

goal of this magnitude, an assessment of “outcomes” at the system level would be 

premature after only two years. Probably the best evidence of the potential for systemlevel change was the creation of the Future Workforce Investment System Leadership 

Committee, featuring a group of “champions” in major stakeholder organizations, led by 

the city’s mayor. A review of a working document prepared by the committee found 

numerous references to the central efforts of the grantee: the Hartford Connects database 

system and the Youth Development Practitioners Academy. In the view of the evaluator, 

the demonstration grant provided a significant impetus and foundation for changing the 

workforce development system for target youth in the Hartford community. 

Types of New Partnerships 

The variety of new partnerships was evident throughout the nine projects, covering a 

range of types of organizations. In Des Moines, project staff believed a major 

accomplishment of the demonstration was creation of new partnerships among the 

grantee, Juvenile Court, Polk County Decategorization, Polk County Primary Health 

Care, YouthBuild, Des Moines Area Community College, and the local YMCA. All of 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

142 Research and Evaluation Associates

these relationships were expected to continue after the end of the grant period. In the 

view of the evaluator, the grant also enabled staff at the two main partners, Iowa 

Comprehensive Human Services and Spectrum Resource Program, to have time to 

identify service providers and other key organizations and work with their counterparts in 

those organizations to ensure that youths’ needs can be met. 

Hartford also provided a somewhat different example of partnerships from that seen in 

most projects in Round Two, through the creation of the Hartford Youth Development 

Practitioner Academy. While the project could have concentrated its grant resources on 

training for just demonstration staff, it instead used its resources to develop a training 

program for youth workers throughout the community. Partners included the grantee, 

Hartford Youth Network, United Way, City of Hartford, Goodwin College, and Hartford 

College for Women. By involving a broad range of agencies’ staff members in 

professional development, there would seem to be an increased likelihood that the 

agencies would work together in the future on this and other activities that would 

improve services to the target population that went beyond demonstration youth. 

The collaboration formed for the Pittsburgh project was expected to continue beyond the 

original grant period. Partners included representatives from Allegheny County 

Department of Human Services, Allegheny County Juvenile Court, Pittsburgh Public 

Schools, Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board, Youth Places, Western Psychiatric 

Institute and Clinic, Addison Behavioral Care, and other organizations involved in youth 

workforce development issues. Quarterly meetings with these partners became important 

forums for discussing changes to project plans. 

New Resources 

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. Strong linkages and collaborative partnerships, 

which allow organizations to participate in joint activities, also encourage development of 

innovative approaches for problem solving and delivery of services within the projects. 

Without strong partnerships, projects often found themselves without political and 

financial support for their efforts. When reviewing the accomplishments for the nine 

Round Two projects, the evidence was rather mixed as to whether the effects of 

developing partnerships extended to leveraging of resources. Though it might be argued 

that simply forming partnerships brought more services to targeted youth, the net increase 

in resources may have been modest. This was especially true if the partnering 

organizations had already been providing services to these youth, but not necessarily in a 

coordinated fashion. 

In some projects, where the development of partnerships occurred later in the grant 

period, the “payoff” in terms of leveraged resources was just starting or was anticipated 

for the near future. In other words, even though evaluators found evidence of new 
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 143

partnerships in all nine projects, they did not necessarily find that these partnerships had 

yet produced net new resources for serving youth. 

Among those projects with a clear record of attracting new resources, Pittsburgh’s

grantee has been especially effective at raising millions of dollars for various projects that 

target youth, though much of this success pre-dated the receipt of the demonstration 

grant. 

Hartford’s project developed a close working relationship with the local Youth 

Opportunity grantee to create an impressive group of more than 20 community-based 

organizations that agreed to provide services to youth. There was evidence that more 

resources in the form of services delivered were being directed toward youth offenders 

and youth at risk of court involvement than had been the case prior to receipt of the 

demonstration grant. One project goal was to have community funders such as United 

Way and Hartford Foundation focus their resources on building and supporting the Future 

Workforce Investment System, which may actually mean shifting away from traditional 

approaches to funding local nonprofit social service organizations. 

The grantee of New York’s project received funds from other sources, but it was just 

beginning to leverage funds and resources through partnerships and collaborations at the 

end of the grant period. Partners that had been recruited over the past year, however, were 

beginning to focus on bringing in more resources to serve youth than the grantee had 

been able to do on its own. The Cincinnati project was especially successful in getting 

community partners to collaborate on problem solving about the needs of target youth 

and ways to better serve them. For example, a multi-partner work group was exploring 

ways to streamline information sharing among the justice, health, and workforce systems. 

The project brought together a large number of partners who, once the project is fully 

operational, may contribute funds and resources to the project and help it become 

sustainable. 

Colorado’s project, which is operated by a state agency, tied the Division of Youth 

Corrections and the four workforce centers into collaboration. The model is now being 

replicated elsewhere in Colorado. The project also attracted the involvement of the 

Colorado Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, which provided work readiness, 

placement and follow-up to youth with developmental or mental health disability barriers 

to employment. 

Efforts of projects to attract new funding were mixed. Chicago’s project, whose grantee 

is the city’s workforce development agency, had not extensively leveraged resources in 

support of the project at the time of the third site visit in fall 2003. Erie’s project, 

however, leveraged resources through its many relationships with other CBOs. Several 

provided in-kind services to project youth, including recreational services. In Des Moines 

the project planned to use its experience with the demonstration to broaden its political 

and financial support, thus enabling it to draw on increased resources in the future. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

144 Research and Evaluation Associates

The project in West Palm Beach attracted new resources. The Academy for Practical 

Nursing and Health Occupations enlisted two partners that were fully committed to a 

collaborative approach where the stakeholders recognized they could accomplish more 

together than separately. After being awarded the grant, the grantee kept intact the 

consortium that was organized to apply for the DOL grant. The consortium sought to 

identify funding opportunities that assisted new or existing initiatives in the target area 

and assisted in writing grant proposals to procure those funds. As of the final evaluation 

visit, 17 separate projects had been funded, often because one project was able to build 

on the success of another. 

The consortium’s approach to pooling resources among partners benefited both the 

projects and the community as a whole. From a financial perspective, this team approach 

to collaboration avoided competition among local agencies for the same funds. Further, a 

single consortium seeking grant funds for a jurisdiction may be more attractive to 

granting agencies. This approach shows a community’s true commitment to resolving its 

problems through cooperation, compromise and flexibility among all providers. Pooling 

of other resources such as staff and available services helped to build a truly integrated 

system of delivery that ensured that the multi-faceted needs of the youth were being met. 

Sharing these resources avoided duplication and fragmentation of services. 

Sustainability 

This discussion focuses on the likelihood that the project will be able to become an ongoing program of service delivery to target youth in some form. According to the 

Institute For Educational Leadership (Blank et al, 2000), a project is sustained if: all or 

part of the project is “institutionalized” into the larger service system; it is the catalyst 

that leads to reform across the larger service system; or, it leads to the development of 

new policy and practices that become an accepted way of “doing business” in that field. 

There were indications that the demonstration had an effect in several communities on 

the accepted ways of “doing business,” as discussed in the outcomes concerning project 

partnerships. As grant funding came to a close for Round Two projects, there was 

substantial evidence that most, if not all, projects would continue to exist in some form. 

To some extent, the form the projects will take seems to relate to the form they adopted at 

the beginning of the process. Projects, such as Pittsburgh that were relatively selfcontained, appeared likely to continue in that form. Projects such as West Palm Beach

that brought together partnering organizations in new ways seemed ready to evolve into 

yet newer forms. 

Projects, such as Des Moines and Hartford, were not clear what form they were likely to 

take in the next phase. Des Moines, at the time of the third site visit, was just beginning 

an effort to develop a broad base to sustain the initiative to serve more youth in a more 

coordinated manner. Hartford, on the other hand, envisioned from the beginning that the 

project would evolve through development of a comprehensive route counseling system – 
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 145

with broad buy-in from numerous community agencies – intended to serve all youth in 

Hartford, not just the youth enrolled in the project. 

During the third site visit, which occurred in about Month 26 of the demonstration, 

evaluators specifically addressed the question, “Which components of your project are 

likely to continue after DOL funding and which are not?” Table 18 presents a summary 

of the findings. 

Table 18. Program Components Likely to be Sustained 

Projects Program Components 

Chicago  Route counseling provided by Latino Youth and Scholarship and Guidance 

 Education 

 Substance abuse treatment 

 Mental health services 

 Health care 

 Job readiness 

 Gang intervention 

Cincinnati  All service delivery components will continue through WIA 

Colorado  Relationships: workforce, parole, LMSYC 

 STEPS – work readiness 

 Workforce specialists: trying to get on permanent staff. Recognized for their 

expertise 

 Vocational rehabilitation services 

 Aftercare 

 Horse trailer renovation, if it can pay its way 

 On-grounds: work experience without stipends 

 Other services might continue if Department of Justice grant funds are allocated 

to project 

Des Moines  Partnerships with YouthBuild, the justice system, Polk County Decategorization, 

Des Moines Area Community College, Human Service Planning Alliance 

(United Way), and Grubb YMCA 

 Some route counseling, mostly for currently-enrolled youth 

 Daily life skills class for out-of-school youth 

 Some subsidized work experience programs 

Erie  Workforce services and activities, including the new Workforce Essential Skills 

program, for youth in residential treatment, community treatment, and alternative 

education 

 Software will continue to be available 

 New 8-week summer work experience program “Earn and Learn” 

 New partnerships with the Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies and the local 

WIB 

Hartford  Hartford Connects route counseling system 

 Youth Development Practitioners Academy 

 Some route counseling; potentially full route counseling depending on training 

and agreements with participating agencies 

New York  Education 

 Substance abuse treatment 

 Mental health services 

 Work readiness 

 Job placement 

 Route counseling 

 Gang/crime/substance abuse outreach to high school students 

Pittsburgh  All program components expected to continue 

West Palm Beach  Current partner Probationers Educational Growth becomes the central focus, with 

support from the WIB, for continuation of all existing services for new youth 

being recruited by PEG 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

146 Research and Evaluation Associates

In several projects, there were program components that may not be sustained without 

new sources of funding. If these projects are able to obtain additional resources as a result 

of ongoing efforts, this may enable them to provide a level of service comparable to that 

achieved during the demonstration. 

Education and employment components in Chicago were expected to continue through 

other funding sources. The project, however, said it needed to limit enrollment, primarily 

because the population it serves, which is generally legally involved, has greater needs 

and requires more attention. Partners will try to absorb youth being served after DOL 

funds end. The project should have enough funds to carry it through June 2004. Part of 

the larger vision was to create such a solid linkage with the Juvenile Justice system that 

the project becomes institutionalized as another alternative sentencing option. A second 

goal was to create youth One-Stops in an area where there are few service providers. 

Cincinnati’s project was designed to continue with WIA funds, and it limited the range 

of services offered to those eligible under the WIA regulations. Colorado is committed to 

maintaining its strong aftercare program and to include in it the employment component. 

Workforce centers, funded by the grant, were still working to hire the workforce 

specialists that were paid for with the grant. If LMYSC can receive some funds through 

the CARES project, awarded under the Department of Justice Serious and Violent 

Offender program, full project activities will continue. If this does not happen, the 

Division of Youth Corrections will use these experienced workforce specialists to train 

staff at other facilities in the approach to work readiness and placement. 

In Des Moines, project staff believed it would be difficult to provide support services that 

the demonstration grant paid for, such as bus passes, books, cost of drivers education 

classes (required in the state of Iowa to get a license), emergency needs such as rent, and 

the stipends for the three hours of daily participation in the life skills and GED classes. 

Two components of Erie’s project will not continue. Budget cuts resulted in the loss of 

the coordinator for employment awareness activities provided by the French Creek 

Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Staff did not anticipate that funding would be 

available to restore this position and these services. Also, 8-week boat-building 

experience at the Bayfront Center was discontinued in favor of longer-term efforts within 

the existing Perseus House programs and its new charter school. 

The form that the Hartford project will take depends heavily on the success of the efforts 

of the Future Workforce Investment System Leadership Committee. If successful, the 

Hartford Connects route counseling system will become a central feature of an 

“institutionalized” approach to delivering services to youth throughout the community. 

At the time of the third visit, however, the strength of the Leadership Committee’s 

initiative was not clear, and consequently the level of service that will be maintained was 

difficult to envision. 
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 147

In New York, staff at FOIA continued to write proposals to support its efforts, and it had 

trimmed its staff to a sustainable level. Even before the DOL grant ended, West Palm 

Beach had moved beyond grant funding to continue and expand its activities. 

Finally, a separate issue beyond the scope of this evaluation was the extent to which 

projects may be able to not only sustain the basic level of service to youth currently 

enrolled in their programs, but also extend services to other youth. At this point it appears 

that most projects will be able to sustain services comparable to those available under the 

demonstration. It was difficult for both evaluators and project staff, however, to assess 

the extent to which resources would be available into the future for other youth beyond 

those it was serving at the time that the grant funding was ending. 

Community and Employer Involvement 

According to the demonstration SGA, grantees were expected to work with local WIBs 

and WIA youth councils “to ensure coordination of workforce development services.” 

Entities other than a WIB or a political subdivision of the state had to submit an 

application for demonstration grant funds “in conjunction with the WIB(s) and its Youth 

Council for the area in which the project is to operate.” These requirements set the 

foundation for a working relationship between the grantee and the workforce system in 

the community. 

WIBs typically include business representatives as well as representatives of educational 

entities, labor, economic development agencies, and each of the One-Stop centers. Youth 

councils, which are subgroups of the local WIBs, are required to develop parts of the 

local plan relating to youth, recommend providers of youth services, and coordinate local 

youth programs and initiatives. Membership in youth councils is expected to include 

representation from: the local WIB with special interest or expertise in youth policy, 

youth service agencies (e.g. juvenile justice and local law enforcement agencies), local 

public housing authorities, parents of eligible youth seeking assistance, individuals (e.g. 

former participants and representatives of organizations having experience relating to 

youth activities), Job Corps, and others the chairperson of the local board determines 

appropriate. Thus, there was an existing entity with established relationships in the 

community that projects could use during the planning and implementation phases. 

While each project had an advisory board that would naturally have connections within 

the community, this did not necessarily ensure that the connections extended beyond 

participation in board meetings. Consequently, a positive outcome for the demonstration 

would be better relationships among community organizations, employers and the target 

youth. The catalyst for change would be the projects themselves, since they had an 

opportunity through the grant to use staff to connect to local entities. 

One challenge in reviewing evidence concerning the nine projects in Round Two, was to 

differentiate between connections to the community and employers that existed prior to 

receipt of the DOL grant funds and connections that evolved as a result of actions taken 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

148 Research and Evaluation Associates

by each grantee. Projects in Chicago, Colorado, Erie, and Pittsburgh already had 

established relationships, some going back a number of years, with the community in 

which the project was based. Thus, it was more difficult to assess the extent to which the 

demonstration grant fostered a higher level of involvement, and thus greater commitment 

to the actual delivery of services and hiring of target youth. Consequently, it may be 

useful to concentrate on projects that achieved greater community and employer support 

over the grant period. In addition, since the outcome of new partnerships discussed earlier 

in this section inevitably implies greater community involvement, the following 

discussion emphasizes employer involvement. 

In Erie, the BroadReach project gave a new focus to collaborative efforts for youth 

associated with juvenile justice or those at risk of becoming involved with the court 

system. While Perseus House and many community partners worked collaboratively on 

programs before the grant, the demonstration brought them together, with the WIB as a 

new partner. Through this connection, project youth obtained subsidized employment 

and the promise of summer jobs through the new Earn and Learn project. 

Hartford’s project intended to get all key stakeholders – especially Hartford Public 

Schools and the city’s Department of Health and Human Services – to work with a range 

of community-based service providers to develop a fully integrated, comprehensive 

system to help every youth in the community who needs help. At this stage in the 

process, Hartford emphasized increased community involvement in terms of service 

providers and entities such as the justice system that regularly interact with target youth. 

Community leaders, however, have a larger vision in mind that encompasses workforce 

development, and consequently employer involvement over the longer term. The grantee 

sees the capacity-building initiatives under DOL funding as vital components to gaining 

long-term buy-in from both service providers and funders. The expectation is that since 

the Hartford Connects route counseling database system results in a highly 

interconnected system of comprehensive service delivery, all participating agencies will 

have an increasing commitment to its continuation. 

The project in West Palm Beach envisioned employer involvement as a crucial 

component of success from the project’s inception. The focus on jobs and careers in the 

health care industry seemed to produce multiple advantages to the project. The grantee 

already had an extensive network of employers who accepted graduates of their 

programs. This meant that once employers started hiring demonstration youth who were 

successful on the job, they continued to contact APNHO for more hires. Also, in this type 

of occupational program, the students have clinical experiences with employers in the 

field they are entering; and employers are prone to subsequently hire the same persons 

who had a successful clinical experience in their organization. In addition, these 

employers now know they can get more employees from the same source because 

APNHO produces a steady stream of graduates in the health care field. This was an 

important distinction from other projects, where an employer may have had a successful 

experience with a project youth, but the project may not have other youth available for 

placement in that particular type of business when the employer needed to hire. 
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 149

In summary, evaluators found substantial evidence that the demonstration resulted in 

outcomes that reflected real change in communities. There was every indication that the 

extent of this change would not have been possible without the demonstration funding 

and the project initiative acting as a catalyst. Over the course of the grant, and into the 

indefinite future, the way in which community agencies and other entities work together 

to meet the needs of youth offenders and youth at risk of court involvement will be 

markedly more integrated and coordinated. Attitudes toward target youth also have 

changed in many organizations recruited as partners. While long-term changes in 

attitudes and behaviors are always difficult to predict, there is cause for being optimistic 

that the outcomes detected at the end of the grant period are likely to have a lasting effect 

in most, if not all, of the communities where the projects operated. 

The demonstration projects continue to address challenges to the implementation of 

coordinated services to target youth, and the last section reports on these challenges and 

the summary of accomplishments as the project staff saw them. 

Project Challenges 

Table 19 compares the internal challenges faced by projects at midpoint in the 

Demonstration and at the time of the third site visit. At midpoint, evaluators were asked 

to identify challenges specifically related to the organizational attributes of the PMM. 

Evaluators were not so constrained for the third and final visit, thus the challenges 

reported at the endpoint portray a wider range of internal issues. Nevertheless, challenges 

faced by projects at the end of the demonstration were fairly consistent with challenges 

reported at midpoint, namely having to do with partnerships, growth and sustainability. 

Late-stage challenges can be classified as follows: 

• Fragile linkages with partners, employers, and stakeholders from other 

systems, including juvenile justice and mental health, that threatened to some 

extent the integration and coordination of services; 

• Collecting, using, and sharing outcome data in a continuous improvement 

loop within a project and among partners; 

• Uncertainty about sustaining the project and ramping it up to the next level, 

both meeting the myriad needs of more enrolled and troubled youth and its 

related concern, broadening the base of project support in terms of services 

and funding. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

150 Research and Evaluation Associates

Table 19. Challenges of Round Two Projects 

At the Time of the 2nd Visit At the Time of the 3rd Visit 

Chicago  Difficulty connecting with One-Stop 

delivery system; 

 Slow start of project because design 

caused enrollment delays; 

 Data system not fully developed for 

sharing information on youth. 

 Cautious partnership development with 

the courts for fear of too many referrals; 

 Support from community agencies to 

maintain project; 

 Implementation delays due to early 

planning difficulties and missteps. 

Cincinnati  Weak link between capacity building 

and service delivery. 

 Late to focus on youth outcomes rather 

than enrollment goals; 

 Lack of attention on use of data for 

continuous improvement. 

Colorado  No employer network; 

 Workforce development centers not 

committed to hire staff; 

 Plans for sustaining project after grant. 

 Difficult relationships among partners 

due to budget cuts; 

 Enrollment will stop without new 

funding. 

Des 

Moines 

 Plans for sustaining project after grant; 

 Too few partners; 

 Data collection system to track youth. 

 Engaging stakeholders from other 

systems; 

 Bringing in a network of employers; 

 Lack of buy-in from employers in OneStop system; 

 Slow to develop an integrated, 

comprehensive data management system 

to foster sustainability. 

Erie  Plans for sustaining route counseling; 

 Weak route counseling support in 

Juvenile Justice and workforce 

development systems; 

 Project staff and Bayfront not working 

together in congruence. 

 Unclear how an increasing number of 

youth will receive an adequate level of 

individualized assistance and support. 

Hartford  Very ambitious project design slowed 

start of project; 

 Lack of information on results; 

 Turnover in key staff position. 

 Ongoing need to hold training sessions 

for front-line staff from agencies 

expected to participate; 

 Slow buy-in by community agencies; 

 Lack of results due to long development 

period; 

 Too few case managers. 

New York  Lack of partnerships; 

 Lack of shared leadership; 

 Plans for sustaining project. 

 Sustainability efforts started late; 

 Funding to maintain core staff. 

Pittsburgh  Data collection and use; 

 Connections with mental health and 

substance abuse; 

 Employer involvement. 

 Lack of commitment to using data to 

monitor project implementation; 

 Effectively addressing youths’ substance 

abuse and mental health needs; 

 Finding employers and decent jobs. 

W. Palm 

Beach 

 Low enrollment of males.  Low enrollment of males; 

 Lack of non-health care occupations 

reduces replicability of project. 
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 151

Projects’ Report of Accomplishments 

Despite these challenges, project staff reported its observations of what the projects had 

succeeded in accomplishing. Evaluators asked project administrators and staff what they 

believe they have accomplished. For the third site visit, evaluators posed the following 

question to the projects: 

What do you want to be able to say your project has accomplished 

when the DOL funds are depleted? 

Table 20 presents what the staff of the nine projects had to say. 

Table 20. Project Accomplishments from the Grantees’ Perspective 

Projects Accomplishments 

Chicago  Change in route counseling structure and discontinuation of contract with Project 

C.I.T.Y. Two agencies assumed route counseling: Latino Youth and Scholarship and 

Guidance; 

 Working on getting project as an alternative sentencing program; 

 Positive impact on youth who have been touched by the project; 

 Have helped empower communities targeted; 

 Strengthening partnership with probation officers; 

 Would like to expand and make project citywide, especially expand it to the Southside. 

Cincinnati  Improved relationships and partnerships in the community; 

 Increased knowledge of how to serve this population; 

 Improved focus on employer needs; 

 Policy changes to improve workforce development for all youth; 

 A better model for way of serving offenders; 

 Reduction in the stigma of being an offender; 

 Community knowledge of success stories; 

 Better understanding of how demonstration grants work. 

Colorado  Common vision of project among stakeholders, problem solving without blame; 

 Stipend trust fund started for work experience for youth before release; other work 

experience without stipends developed; 

 Work readiness services at 90 days before release; STEPS curriculum; 

 Learned what works for transition and engagement; 

 Value of incentive program for accomplishments; 

 Workforce centers will bring career and job exploration computers to LMYSC. 

Des 

Moines 

 Provided needed services to 94 youth to date; 

 Created new partnerships with Juvenile Court, Polk County Decategorization (probation 

and parole), Polk County Primary Health Care, and the YMCA; 

 Many positive outcomes for youth – much higher percentage stayed in school than 

projected. Similarly, a higher percentage: received a high school diploma, received a 

GED, gained life skills for better personal problem solving, and have taken 

responsibility for their own actions. 

Erie  More youth were served; 

 The staff had the opportunity to network with other professionals across the country; 

this provided fresh new looks at what was being done locally and modifications for 

improvement in existing services and activities; 

 The project provided funds for a new collaboration between the Perseus House and the 

Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies; future collaborations are envisioned as a result; 

 The BroadReach project gave credibility in the community and state to the Perseus 

House and the Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies; 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

152 Research and Evaluation Associates

Projects Accomplishments 

 The project gave the participating organizations a large access to WIA 

resources; it also opened the eyes of the local workforce investment board and staff as to 

what the Perseus House and Bayfront Center were doing; 

 This new partnership with the One-Stop system and the BroadReach activities have led 

both the Perseus House and the Bayfront Center into new directions in workforce 

preparation for needy youth; 

Hartford  Development of new Hartford Connects internet-based route counseling system; 

 Creation of Youth Development Practitioners Academy, providing intensive training to 

front-line staff in youth-serving agencies throughout the community; 

 Getting all key stakeholders – especially Hartford Public Schools and the city’s 

Department of Health and Human Services – to work with a range of community-based 

service providers to develop a fully integrated, comprehensive system that would assist 

every youth in the community that needs help; 

 Formation of the Future Workforce Investment System (FWIS) Leadership Committee, 

with mayor of Hartford, and strong involvement from the grantee as well as other 

community “champions,” to produce a true system with commitment from the 

stakeholders and a coordinated strategy for collaboration and leveraging of resources. 

New York  DOL grant legitimized project; it opened the door to other government funding; 

 Robin Hood Foundation helped project get new space and helped to refurbish it. It was 

impressed with the validation of the DOL grant; 

 Project was a small player, and now staff is asked to be at the table for policy and 

planning; 

 The grant gave the leadership the opportunity for perspective and a chance to rethink the 

organization; 

 The grant allowed FOIA to build the education department; it can now meet the youth’s 

needs where he/she is and move from there; 

 Staff has seen youth who arrive at a 4th grade reading level, out of school for years, 

reengaged and move to read at the 7th grade level; 

 The project is serving more youth; it is attacking deficits in education and backgrounds; 

youth get more individual attention; 

 Staff has the time to evaluate, support, assess the youth; 

 Employers are willing to hire FOIA (project) youth; 

 Boosted from just an employment project to one where there are relationships with 

employers. 

Pittsburgh  Added partnerships with University of Pittsburgh and AmeriCorps for special projects; 

 Added mandatory monthly orientation sessions for all youth entering project in that 

month; 

 Project service delivery put under the grantee instead of being subcontracted—this has 

meant more contact with grantee’s Executive Director, easier access to co-located other 

projects of the grantee, greater administrative support for BluePrint, ability to increase 

compensation for case managers, but less and different space for project activities; 

 Philosophical shift to put more responsibility on youth to do things for themselves, less 

“hand holding”; 

 ISS developed in a different way: input from multiple partners but no single face-to-face 

meeting to discuss the youth’s needs and develop a plan. Also, as recommended by 

expert, start the process with information provided by youth, and then build on it. More 

time efficient but possibly some loss of connection with Western Psychiatric Institute 

and Clinic and Addison Behavioral Care partners. 

West Palm 

Beach 

 Development of an infrastructure that builds new and enhances the existing community 

services and capacity of the Workforce Investment Board, youth council, and One-Stop 

centers so as to prepare youth for high quality employment with career ladder 

opportunities; 

 Prevention of recidivism and promotion of recovery by building strong partnerships that 
Section VIII – Accomplishments 

Research and Evaluation Associates 153

Projects Accomplishments 

promote and enhance year-round youth training for employment, school-to-work 

programs and academic enrichment; 

 Development of strong linkages with employers, criminal justice and law enforcement 

agencies, Workforce Investment Board services, and grass roots community-based 

services; 

 Maximization of cost sharing, leveraging of funds and investments of public and private 

educational agencies, employment organizations, businesses, Workforce Investment 

Board, and other community partners committed to community improvement and 

investment in youth beyond the period of the demonstration grant; 

 Continuation of services to demonstration youth and new youth as a means for 

measuring the ongoing effectiveness of the infrastructure, and making adjustments as 

needed over time. 

Summary 

The demonstration projects provided educational, support and workforce development 

services to more than 1,800 youth. A majority of older youth obtained work experience 

and a majority of all were in school for at least a part of their time in the project. During 

their active period in the project, very few youth came under court supervision through a 

new conviction. 

The projects varied in the degree to which they achieved systems-level outcomes, but all 

progressed in establishing partnerships, uncovering local youth service resources, 

achieving some degree of sustainability, and involving community and employers in 

activities, boards, funding, and/or changing attitudes to the youth. 

The work of implementing the demonstration was not finished in any of the Round Two 

projects. Challenges that projects identified during the second evaluation visits continued 

to be challenges at the third visit. 

The accomplishments cited by grantees surface several themes: 

• First, there was a great diversity of types of accomplishments across the nine 

projects. This diversity may be a function of the nature of a demonstration – 

that grantees are encouraged – indeed, expected – to develop objectives that 

they believe to be important to their communities. While there are certainly 

common elements required of all grantees, they also took the opportunity to 

develop approaches that fit the local context and local needs, as they saw 

them; 

• Second, the projects found that development of new partnerships was an 

important step in building collaborations and support for working with youth; 

• Third, there seemed to be evidence that people in the community representing 

service providers, employers, and other organizations were becoming more 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

154 Research and Evaluation Associates

receptive to working with youth offenders and youth at risk of court 

involvement; and 

• Fourth, the projects were simply able to provide more and/or new services to 

youth than would have been possible without grant funding – and project staff 

have seen considerable evidence of positive outcomes for youth. 

Finally, it might be useful to quote from a report summary the West Palm Beach project 

prepared to share with other projects. The project has in many ways been a model that 

has provided valuable lessons not only in the area of sustainability and gaining new 

resources, but in terms of how it viewed its role as a catalyst for change within its 

community. The project explained: 

The local Workforce Investment Board included youth offenders, 

gang members, and at-risk youth in its priority plan for provision of 

services, however, reports showed that service providers and 

educators were fearful and ill-equipped to offer services to this 

population; local employers had not supported hiring these youth; 

and existing case managers had to reject referrals for services because 

they reported being unable to effectively serve their existing case load. 

In response to this problem, the Probationers Educational Growth 

program formed and developed partnerships with the educational, 

business and employment community. Such services have been 

identified as being so successful and the need so great that a dramatic 

expansion took place. 

The next and final narrative section of the report will draw together the major themes and 

identify lessons learned for the future of serving the target youth. 
Section IX- Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 155

Section IX 

SUMMARY 

The previous eight sections have examined the nine projects in Round Two of the 

demonstration in several ways: 

 Section I provided an overview of the demonstration and its foundation in 

theoretical literature and previous experience. 

 Section II introduced the projects and the characteristics of the youth they 

served; 

 Section III introduced the Public Management Model (PMM) and described 

how it applied to the projects; 

 Section IV described the services and the service delivery mechanisms 

implemented by each project; 

 Section V described the organizational attributes and the data collection and 

analytic components of the PMM. 

 Section VI documented the projects’ approaches to continuous improvement 

and their use of technical assistance as a part of continuous improvement; 

 Section VII summarized the projects’ overall strategies for improving services 

to youth offenders and youth at risk of court and gang involvement; and 

 Section VIII summarized the accomplishments of the projects during the 

demonstration period. 

Overview 

This section will summarize what we have learned, and what lessons for the future are 

observable at this point in the projects’ evolution. 

The second round of the Youth Offender Demonstration Project was still evolving when 

this report was written. The project’s nine grantees were completing month 27 of the 30-

month-long demonstration. Several of the projects had requested and received no-cost 

extensions from DOL: Chicago, Colorado, Erie, Hartford, Pittsburgh, and West Palm 

Beach. In addition, six projects received supplemental funding for one of three programs 

that would carry them for an additional one to two years: 

• Academic Skills Program: Colorado, Erie, Hartford and New York; 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

156 Research and Evaluation Associates

• Employment Bonus Program: West Palm Beach; and 

• AmeriCorps/Job Corps Program: Pittsburgh. 

Only when all rounds of the demonstration projects have ended and enough time has 

passed to examine their long-term outcomes will it be possible to state more explicitly 

and confidently the findings from the demonstration. It is possible at this time, 

nonetheless, to identify and discuss several factors that appeared to contribute to 

implementation progress experienced by many of the projects. 

Findings 

Context and Environment 

The projects in Round Two operated in a difficult economic climate that affected agency 

budgets and the ability of projects to find employment for clients when displaced 

workers’ needs and abilities ranked them higher in priority. 

Grantees were workforce development, justice, or community-based organizations. 

Projects developed partnerships to provide the range of services youth needed to become 

ready for employment. The task of building sustainable partnerships demanded 

considerable negotiation to establish and maintain. 

Youth Characteristics 

The demonstration enrolled youth who were generally offenders, almost evenly divided 

between younger and older age categories. The youth were overwhelmingly male and 

somewhat over half were black. Most were in school at some point in the demonstration. 

Projects reported that the clients being referred to them over the course of the 

demonstration were presenting deeper developmental needs and problem behaviors. 

Recruitment and Retention 

Youth were recruited generally by referral from another agency within the community. 

Several projects focused on youth offenders and began recruitment by meeting youth 

before their release from incarceration. 

Retention proved to be a challenge for all the projects. Projects retained youth primarily 

by getting to know youth personally and following up if they began to miss activities. 

Several projects reported that using financial incentives improved attendance; others used 

in-kind incentives, like bus cards and gift vouchers, to show youth that participation 

would help them meet their needs. Intangible incentives were introduced in several 

projects: positive peer pressure, new clothing in place of gang colors, a professional 

identity, and/or an atmosphere combining challenge and support. 
Section IX- Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 157

Public Management Model 

The Public Management Model focused attention on the larger system changes that 

needed to occur if the youth were going to experience the range of services they needed 

in a coordinated way. Projects learned about the PMM during conferences and they were 

encouraged to monitor the implementation of the project according to the components of 

the model. The technical assistance team used the PMM to assess the progress projects 

were making toward implementation, and the evaluation team used it to “unpack” and 

understand the dynamics of implementation during the analysis. 

Driving the implementation and earning the central focus of the PMM was the 

implementation of the range of services outlined by DOL in the SGA. All the projects 

provided a range of workforce development services. Projects did not offer reentry 

services; rather the projects cooperated with the justice system staff to support the 

youth’s probation or parole requirements. All the projects offered educational services to 

improve the skills youth needed for employment. Youthful clients required an extensive 

array of support services to meet their developmental, therapeutic and financial needs. 

Seven organizational attributes characterized projects that were making steady 

improvements in implementing their youth offender employment projects. Projects varied 

on the range of the attributes that they exhibited, but all made progress over the course of 

the demonstration. 

The PMM emphasized that projects attempting to implement a cross-agency project 

needed data that reflected the cross-agency activities in order to make decisions that kept 

the project on track. While all the projects developed a project-specific database, many 

relied on their habit of using anecdotal information to make decisions. 

The approach to implementation embodied in the PMM leads systems to progress 

incrementally toward greater coordination through a continuous improvement loop: offer 

services through sound management tactics, collect information about performance 

success and gaps, and close the gaps in performance. The continuous improvement loop 

completes the PMM. 

Service Delivery Mechanisms 

Projects differed in whether the grantee delivered services directly or through partners. 

In all cases, youth received an individual service plan based on assessments of the 

youth’s needs. Depending in large part on the youths’ age, clients were assigned 

primarily to educational activities or primarily to workforce preparation activities. 

Projects coordinated services through the oversight of route counselors, housing services 

in one facility, maintaining service information in an accessible management information 

system, and/or regular team meetings. 

Incentives were used by most projects with transportation aids being the most common. 

Some offered financial incentives for participation or for achieving milestones in the 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

158 Research and Evaluation Associates

individual service plans. Staff reported that using incentives was an important retention 

device. 

System-level Accomplishments 

Partnerships played a crucial role throughout all aspects of a project – from planning 

through service delivery to sustainability. The experiences of Round Two confirmed that 

partnerships are critical for sustaining an initiative as complex as the youth offender 

projects. Planning for sustainability at the beginning of the demonstration gave grantees 

the time needed to develop partnerships that offered the promise of sustainability. 

Bringing workforce and justice systems into partnership remained a crucial relationship. 

Projects that did not have this partnership in place made progress over the demonstration 

period, but entering the demonstration with this relationship in place eased the 

implementation efforts. Projects made good use of their relationships with health and 

education agencies, and both health and education agencies tended to provide some 

resources from their budgets for serving the youth. Relationships with One-Stop centers 

remained challenging. These agencies operated under tight budget constraints, and they 

focused on finding work for the more experienced dislocated workers. Several admitted 

that they did not think that their agencies had the capacity to work with troubled youth, 

but those that worked with project youth gained confidence that they could serve the 

target population. 

For Round Two projects, building successful partnerships did not mean more partners 

were necessarily better. The evaluators were not in a position to determine why projects 

that had gathered dozens of youth service delivery agencies used only a few of them. In 

some instances, all the active partners were subcontractors, but this was not always the 

case. Perhaps the time required to coordinate service deliverers limits the number that can 

be more deeply engaged. 

One of the most challenging elements of the demonstration was developing a network of 

employers willing to hire youth offenders and youth at risk of court involvement. Few 

projects actually assigned staff to develop employer networks. Few staff members were 

assigned employment retention duties, and these two features could be related. 

Youth Accomplishments 

More than 1,800 youth received services through the demonstration grants. The majority 

of the youth clients were male and offenders. The majority of the youth received some 

additional education under the auspices of the grant and a majority of the older youth 

received some type of employment experience. While they were active in the project, few 

youth were convicted of a new crime or incarcerated for a new crime. Counselors 

frequently reported that a value of the demonstration was keeping youth constructively 

engaged in activities all day as a crime prevention factor. Given all the factors that 

affected projects and project youth, no one can interpret these findings, but the 

achievements of the young people augur an optimistic assessment of the efforts to 

support these youth through the process of becoming work ready. 
Section IX- Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 159

Lessons Learned 

Demonstrations by their nature are essentially learning experiences for all those involved 

in them – stakeholders, sponsors, evaluators, technical assistance providers, and others 

who support the effort. Indeed, the process evaluation of the second round of 

demonstration projects showed this was the case. 

Value of Coordinated Services 

Round Two projects universally used assessments to design individual service strategies 

that encompassed a range of workforce development, education, health, and other support 

services. While not every youth needed all these services, every project needed the range 

of services to support some youth clients. Projects worked with youth who had not been 

successful in other system settings, justice and education especially, but the youth began 

to achieve demonstration goals through the range of services provided. 

Route counselors and administrators reported consistently how difficult it was to keep the 

youth engaged and the services coordinated; the effort remained challenging. These same 

administrators and route counselors also reported that they would not return to having 

“service-silos” because they could see that the youth were more likely to meet their goals 

when they received services through a coordinated approach. 

A major lesson from Round Two is that youth needs will vary, and lock-step curricula are 

unlikely to address their different developmental and therapeutic needs. 

Another lesson learned is the value grantees placed on route counseling, the “glue” that 

holds the cross-agency service delivery system responsive to individual youth. 

Discussions of sustainability generally came down to the struggle to fund the route 

counseling system that kept youth on track and service providers engaged. 

Economic Environment 

Despite the poor economic environment, budget cuts, and high unemployment, youth in 

Round Two were finding employment. A lesson to be observed is that a discouraging 

environment is not a basis for avoiding youth offender employment efforts. 

Youth Employment 

Youth were attracted to the demonstration because it offered them hope of employment. 

Parole officers cooperated with the demonstration because it offered their clients the 

opportunity to work. It is hard to overestimate the importance of employment as a 

component of the services to youth offenders. When staff reported that they would never 

return to their former ways of serving target youth, they generally meant that they wanted 

a work readiness and job placement component in the youths’ service plan. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

160 Research and Evaluation Associates

Use of Technical Assistance 

At the initial grantee conference in Arlington, VA, projects were oriented to the 

continuous-improvement approach that would be stressed during the evaluation and how 

the technical assistance and evaluation teams could be used as part of the process. To a 

large degree, Round Two demonstration projects actively sought and used technical 

assistance as an important tool to help them succeed with implementation. While a few 

projects feared that requesting help would reveal their inadequacies and weaknesses, the 

projects became more comfortable working with the technical assistance team and 

learned how the team could help them identify problem areas and strengthen their efforts 

to reach their objectives and goals. As the projects progressed, they became more willing 

to ask for help – and to receive it. 

 

A lesson especially for administrators is the importance of finding coaching/training 

resources for staff who commit to the difficult work of serving youth who have multiple 

problems and to serve them through cross-agency alliances. 

Delivery Is Not Enough 

Round Two projects were successful at assembling a wide range of services, but the 

services themselves were not always developed using standards of quality and 

sufficiency. 

Evaluators observed almost every project designing its own work readiness curriculum. It 

would make a timely contribution to the workforce development field to collect and 

examine these curricula to offer communities some guidance and promising practices, 

rather than having every community starting from nothing. One project leader advised 

that DOL would be wise to support the development of a nationally accredited work 

readiness curriculum for youth offenders and other hard-to-serve groups. 

Some work readiness curricula lasted for a few hours while others lasted for weeks. It 

would be valuable to learn what duration and intensity of work readiness most youth need 

to be truly work ready. 

While almost everyone appreciated the role of route counselors as hinges connecting the 

youth and the services, projects exhibited different route counseling philosophies: some 

route counselors had heavy case loads while others had fewer than 20 youth. It would be 

valuable to learn under what conditions route counselors need to be heavily engaged with 

a few clients and when their role is more a way to coordinate services for a larger group. 

Evaluators noted that some projects controlled the numbers of enrollees and others tried 

to serve all eligible youth. It would be important to learn how to calculate the resourcesto-client ratios for best effect. 

While all projects offered some incentives for youth, others offered systematic stipends 

or scheduled awards for progress. It would be important to learn the value of incentives 
Section IX- Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 161

and whether predictability of award (hourly wage/stipend or milestone achievement) 

makes any difference. 

Projects spent most of their funds on preparing youth for employment and less effort on 

developing employer networks, job retention, and developing career-directed activities. 

Communities need some help in developing demand-side strategies to assist youth. 

The lesson learned is that offering the range of services was a challenging task, but it is 

only part of what needs to be understood to serve these youth effectively. 

Importance of the PMM 

The process evaluation of the nine Round Two projects demonstrated the utility of the 

Public Management Model as a lens for grantees, evaluators, and technical assistance 

specialists. The language of the PMM became a way for grantees, evaluators, and 

technical assistance specialists to communicate about the projects in an analytic way. 

Evaluators were able to organize their observations according to the presence or absence 

of organizational attributes, as well as the other PMM components, to judge the strength 

and success of a project’s implementation effort and whether continuous improvement 

was occurring within the project. Technical assistance specialists were able to structure 

their observations through this lens as well, and this helped them to identify what projects 

needed. The PMM helped projects focus on the system-level changes they were 

undertaking rather than be overwhelmed by the operational detail of serving many youth 

with deep and differing needs. 

From the process evaluation conducted during the past two years there were practical 

findings, which using of the PMM as an analytical framework made clearer. The team 

found that: 

• The strength of partnerships that were either in place before the demonstration 

or developed during the planning and implementation phases often appeared 

to affect whether the projects were able to develop strong working 

partnerships quickly with the workforce development, juvenile justice and 

health care systems. 

• Successfully implemented projects developed well-conceived implementation 

plans by involving stakeholders and front-line staffs. Clear vision resulted 

from consensus reached among partners and stakeholders early in a project’s 

life cycle, often through advisory councils. 

• It took a long time for some projects to develop strong partnerships, perhaps 

beyond the demonstration period. Visits by the evaluation team in the fall of 

2002 to four first round projects to find out how the projects were doing after 

grant funding ended appeared to confirm that the short demonstration period 

did not allow the projects enough time to develop strong partnerships. An 

important lesson learned was that although most projects experienced 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

162 Research and Evaluation Associates

considerable success in strengthening old partnerships and building new ones, 

the partnership arrangements needed on-going support and leadership to 

continue after DOL funding ended. 

• The needs of many youth were too numerous and too deep for any one agency 

to meet within the grant period, especially given that projects were still 

recruiting youth at the time this report was written in fall 2003. Again, time 

appeared to be a limiting factor. Some youth had dropped out of school after 

ninth grade and read and calculated at the elementary school level. Others did 

not speak English as a first language. Such deficits were taking a longer time 

to address than the period of the demonstration. 

• Another dimension of partnership development is including partners with 

special expertise. For example, youth with substance abuse problems needed 

staff with specific expertise to overcome this barrier to employment. Route 

counselors hired because they worked well with youth often did not have the 

workforce development expertise to use labor market information in guiding 

clients toward employment with a future. 

• The PMM helped to identify sustainability planning as a thread that needed to 

weave through the entire project period. The project needed to learn what the 

community wanted to sustain. It needed to develop community awareness and 

support, a level of support that could not be gained in the last months of the 

demonstration. The sustainability plans projects were encouraged to develop 

also addressed questions, such as, “Will the youth be handed off to one or 

more agencies during a transition and which agency will take primary 

responsibility for major activities and resource seeking?” 

• The organizational attributes of the PMM surfaced from the observations 

made by evaluators and technical assistance specialists during Round One. A 

question for Round Two was whether grantee staffs could be taught to 

develop these attributes as they implemented their projects. Presentations on 

the PMM were made at each grantee conference to develop a system-level 

awareness by grantees. At the mid-point of Round Two, the evaluation team 

looked at the organizational attributes displayed by the projects and compared 

them to those of Round One projects, which also had also been assessed at 

midpoint of their grant period. The analysis indicated that 36% of Round One 

projects showed that they had developed some level of the attributes 

compared to 67% for Round Two projects. Round Two projects that 

demonstrated the attributes were also the more successfully implemented 

projects at the time the comparison was made. It appears possible to teach 

projects’ staff to focus on the key system changes needed to implement a 

cross-agency service delivery project. 

• The PMM brought attention to the uses of data. In Round One, every partner 

collected and reported data within its administrative structure, but most 
Section IX- Summary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 163

projects struggled to develop an integrated database that would allow an 

observer to “see” the project. DOL called for a project-level database for 

Round Two projects, but evaluators realized that solving the technical aspects 

of designing a database did not alter the culture of decision-making. More 

will have to occur for decisions to be data driven and for future fundraising to 

be supported by systematically analyzed data. 

Design Specifications: Several of the improvements of Round Two compared to Round 

One stemmed from the specifications in the SGA prepared by DOL staff. One such 

aspect was the call for a project-specific database, just mentioned. Another has been 

alluded to: the SGA listed the main and support services DOL expected grantees to 

implement, including partnership development. 

The lesson learned is that grantees will attempt difficult issues such as cross-agency 

partnership development and coordination if it is clear that receiving funds is tied to their 

compliance. 

Recommendations and Closing 

This Final Report assesses the implementation process undertaken by the nine Round 

Two projects. The process evaluation confirms many initial findings from Round One of 

the demonstration. Although the demonstration continues with additional projects into 

2004 and the findings of formal outcomes studies have yet to be completed, some 

recommendations seem clear. 

Recommendation # 1 

The effort to prepare youth for employment through coordinated services across the 

spectrum of workforce, reentry, education, health, housing, and other support activities is 

grounded in theoretical and evidenced-based research. Despite the difficulty of 

implementing such complex service arrangements, communities should be encouraged to 

develop coordinated service delivery mechanisms for youth for the sake of the youth and 

for the economic and public safety well being of the community. 

The alternatives are doing nothing or offering services in piecemeal fashion. 

Communities already had enough experience with these options to know that they had to 

do better. 

Recommendation # 2 

System-by-system accountability standards are intended to focus agencies and 

subcontractors on performance, but these accountability structures may impede 

partnership arrangements where multiple organizations could take both responsibility and 

credit for accomplishments. Communities should be encouraged to support cross-
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

164 Research and Evaluation Associates

agency/cross-system partnerships that share the burden of high-need clients and share the 

credit for their progress as well. 

Recommendation # 3 

While the discussion of sustainability can be very theoretical—what should be sustained, 

who will take responsibility, etc. The ultimate concern should be for the youth, especially 

youth who are suspicious of civil systems in which they have experienced failure (e.g., 

school and juvenile justice). Projects that have raised their hopes of a better life need to 

be resourceful in accommodating enrolled youth’s needs for service or redirecting those 

they can no longer serve to other service providers. 

Recommendation # 4 

The risk conditions that increase the probability that youth will come under court 

supervision are not changing notably in our communities. Communities need to 

anticipate that youth will continue to be referred for a broad range of services to become 

work ready. Communities will be better served by more study of such factors as route 

counseling, duration and intensity of services, incentives use, or developing personal 

relationships with youth. 

The evaluators considered participating in the Youth Offender Demonstration a rare 

privilege. Evaluators were awed by the vision, commitment and hard work of so many 

project administrators and staff, and they appreciated the struggle of many young people 

to change the direction of their lives. Despite the headlines that opened this report, dayto-day project activity matched earnest youth and dedicated staff in learning activities 

that moved the youth closer to constructive life paths. The evaluators are grateful to the 

Department of Labor for the opportunity to collaborate on this important initiative to 

improve the lives of both youth and their communities. 
References 

Research and Evaluation Associates 165

REFERENCES 

Affholter, D. P. (1994). Outcome monitoring. In J. Wholey, et al. Handbook of practical 

program evaluation.

Bennett, D. (2000). Aftercare in the real world. Southwest Training Conference 

presentation. San Antonio, TX: Department of Justice. March 14. 

Benson, P.L., Galbraith, M.A., and Espelund, P. (1995). What kids need to succeed: 

Proven ways to raise good kids. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute and Free 

Spirit Press. 

Blank, M.J., Rollins, S.K., and Ignacio, C. (2000). Building sustainability in 

demonstration projects for children, youth, and families. Washington, DC: 

Institute for Educational Leadership. 

Brown, D., DeJesus, E., and Schiraldi, V. (2002). Workforce and youth development for 

young offenders: Barriers and promising approaches to workforce and youth 

development for young offenders (Toolkit). Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey 

Foundation. 

Buck, M. (2000). Getting back to work: Employment programs for ex-offenders. New 

York City, NY: Public/Private Ventures. Fall, p.4. 

Cohen, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders. Chapter 3 in Snyder, H. and Sickmund, M. 

Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, D.C.: 

Department of Justice, National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Esbensen, F. (2000). Preventing adolescent gang involvement. Washington, D.C.: 

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin, September. 

Hawkins, J.D. and Catalano, R.F. (1993). Risk-focused prevention using a social 

development strategy. Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. 

Howell, J. C., Krisberg, B., and Jones, M. (1995). Trends in juvenile crime and youth 

violence. In J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, et al. (Eds.) Sourcebook on serious, violent 

and chronic juvenile offenders (pp 1-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Huber, G. 1991. Organizational learning: Contributing processes and the literatures. 

Organization Science. 2, 1. pp. 88-115. 

Lerman, R. (2000) Improving career outcomes for youth: Lessons learned from the U.S. 

and OECD Experience. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor. 

 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

166 Research and Evaluation Associates

Miller, E. and MacGillivray, L. (2002). Youth offender demonstration project process 

evaluation (Final Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training Administration. 

 

Mukamal, D. (2001). From hard time to full time. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Labor Employment and Training Administration, Office of Adult Services, 

Division of Welfare-to-Work. June, p. 11. 

Nathan, R.P. (1988). Social science in government. New York: Basic Books. 

National Association of State Budget Officers. (December 2002). Budget shortfalls: 

Strategies for closing spending and revenue gaps. Washington, DC: author. 

National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers (June 

2003). The fiscal survey of states. Washington, DC: authors. 

Reclaiming futures: Building community solutions to substance abuse and delinquency. 

A pilot project funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and 

headquartered at the Graduate School of Social Work at Portland State University. 

Reinvesting in Youth: Transforming juvenile justice and youth services in Seattle/King 

County (2001). In Ashley, N.R. (Heliotrope) and Cutler, I.M. (The Cornerstone 

Consulting Group, Inc.). Reinvesting in youth feasibility Study. 

Rossi, P. and Freeman, H. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Newbury 

Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

Scheirer, M.A. (1994). Designing and using process evaluation. In J. Wholey, et al. 

Handbook of practical program evaluation. 

Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Search Institute (2003). Developmental assets: An overview. Minneapolis, MN: 

http://www.search-institute.org/assets. 

Stufflebeam, D.L. and Shinkfield, A.J. (1985). Systematic evaluation. Hingham, MA: 

Klumer Academic Publishers. 

Torres, R.T. and Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, 

present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 22, Fall 2001. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (May 16, 2002). 

Workforce development applied demonstration research: The goals and principles 

of the youth offender demonstration. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. 
References 

Research and Evaluation Associates 167

Yin, R.K. (2003) Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications, Inc. 

Yohalem, N. and Pittman, K. (2001). Powerful pathways: Framing options and 

opportunities for vulnerable youth. Discussion paper of the youth transition 

funders group. Takoma Park, MD: The Forum for Youth Investment, 

International Youth Foundation. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

168 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 
Employment and Training Glossary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 169

Employment and Training Glossary 

AmeriCorps— A federally funded 

network of national service programs 

that engage more than 50,000 Americans 

each year in intensive service to meet 

critical needs in education, public safety, 

health, and the environment. Created in 

1993, AmeriCorps is part of the 

Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

Apprenticeship (registered)—A 

relationship between an employer and 

employee during which the worker, or 

apprentice, learns an occupation in a 

structured program jointly sponsored by 

employers and labor unions or employee 

associations. Registered apprenticeship 

programs meet specific federally 

approved standards designed to 

safeguard the welfare of apprentices. 

The programs are registered with the 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 

Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training 

(BAT) or one of 27 State apprenticeship 

agencies or councils approved by BAT. 

Basic skills training—Instruction, 

normally conducted in an institutional 

classroom or one-on-one tutorial setting, 

that is designed to upgrade basic skills 

and prepare individuals for further 

training, transition to postsecondary 

education, future employment, or 

retention in present employment. It may 

be provided within the framework of 

competency in basic skills, including, 

but not limited to, reading, writing, 

mathematics, literacy training, speaking, 

listening, problem solving, thinking, 

reasoning, study skills, computer skills, 

and GED preparation. 

Cooperative education—Situations in 

which students alternate or coordinate 

their high school or postsecondary 

studies with jobs in fields related to their 

academic or occupational objectives. 

Students and participating businesses 

develop written training and evaluation 

plans to guide instruction, and students 

receive course credit for their classroom 

and work experiences. Credit hours and 

intensity of placements vary with the 

course of study. 

Employment and Training 

Administration—DOL agency 

responsible for administering 

employment and training programs for 

economically disadvantaged, 

unemployed, and displaced workers. 

Federal Bonding Program (FBP)—

The DOL-supported FBP makes fidelity 

bonds available to help ex-offenders and 

other high-risk individuals obtain 

employment. A fidelity bond is a 

business insurance policy that protects 

the employer in case of any loss of 

money or property due to employee 

dishonesty. 

Intermediaries—Community-based 

organizations, nonprofit groups, or other 

job brokers who provide a consistent 

point of contact between employers and 

low-income and less-skilled workers and 

job seekers, including court-involved 

youth. Intermediaries can help youth 

connect with employers and community 

services, and they can provide the level 

of monitoring required during the early 

stages of transition and employment. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

170 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 

Job Corps—A DOL-funded program 

that began with the passage of the War 

on Poverty programs in 1964. The 

program’s goal is to help severely 

disadvantaged youth between the ages of 

16 and 24 become more responsible, 

employable, and productive citizens. 

Job Corps is distinguished from other 

youth programs by the intensive 

education, training, and support services 

it provides in a residential setting. 

Job search training—A process that 

enhances the job readiness of 

participants by teaching them job 

seeking techniques and increasing their 

motivation and self-confidence. The 

training may consist of job skills 

assessments, résumé writing, job-finding 

clubs, job placement services, or other 

direct training or support activities. 

Job shadowing—A technique to allow a 

student to observe an employee or 

several different employees at a 

company location to learn about a 

particular occupation or industry. Job 

shadowing can help students explore a 

range of career objectives and select a 

career major during the latter part of 

high school. 

Job Training Partnership Act 

(JTPA)— The purpose of the Job 

Training Partnership Act was to 

establish programs to prepare youth and 

adults facing serious barriers to 

employment for participation in the 

labor force by providing job training and 

other services that would result in 

increased employment and earnings, 

increased educational and occupational 

skills, and decreased welfare 

dependency. It has been superceded by 

the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. 

Occupational skills training—

Instruction conducted in an institutional 

or worksite setting, but not on the job, 

that teaches entry-level skills or 

upgrades the primary/technical and 

secondary/ancillary skills required to 

perform a specific job or group of jobs 

in fields such as auto mechanics, health 

services, or clerical work. May include 

job-specific and customized training, 

internships, and pre-apprenticeship 

preparation. 

On-the-job training (OJT)—Training 

in the public or private sector that is 

given to an individual while he or she is 

engaged in productive work. It is 

designed to provide the basic skills or 

upgrade the primary/technical and 

secondary/ancillary skills that are 

essential to full and adequate 

performance on the job. Typically, a 

training plan is established by the 

employee, the employer, and an external 

agency, if matching wages are being 

paid by that agency. 

One-Stop Centers—The 1998 

Workforce Investment Act required local 

areas to develop a one-stop delivery 

service system for employment and 

training services. Open to both adults 

and youth, One-Stop Centers provide 

access to a wide variety of services, 

including assessment and career 

counseling, vocational training, job 

listings and placement, unemployment 

compensation, vocational rehabilitation, 

adult education and literacy, trade 

adjustment assistance, the Job Corps, 

and other education and training 

services. 

PEPNet—The Promising and Effective 

Practices Network (PEPNet) created and 

managed by the National Youth 
Employment and Training Glossary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 171

Employment Coalition, highlights what 

works, documents successes, plans 

improvements, gives recognition, shares 

information, and contributes to a 

database of effective practices in 

workforce and youth development. 

Private Industry Councils (PIC’s)—

Entities established by local elected 

officials in each service delivery area 

(SDA) to provide guidance and 

oversight for job training programs. 

PIC’s are key mechanisms for bringing 

representatives from various segments of 

the private sector into the active 

management of job training programs. In 

some jurisdictions, PIC’s operate as 

local workforce development boards. 

School-to-Work—A collaborative 

initiative between DOL and the U.S. 

Department of Education to help young 

people acquire the knowledge, skills, 

abilities, and information about the labor 

market that they need to make an 

effective transition from high school to 

career-oriented work and/or further 

education. 

Work experience—A short-term or 

part-time work activity in the public or 

not-for-profit sector that provides an 

individual with the opportunity to 

acquire the skills and knowledge to 

perform a job, including appropriate 

work habits and behaviors. 

Work-based learning—Innovative 

instruction that uses real-world examples 

to provide authenticity and relevance. 

Hands-on instruction, project-based 

learning, service learning, school-tocareers, and other methods that relate 

academic learning to real life are 

particularly successful. 

Workforce Development 

Boards/Workforce 

Investment Boards—Entities 

designated by States to oversee 

workforce development initiatives 

within a specified service delivery area 

(SDA). They may serve as the 

administrative entities for JTPA, 

Welfare-to-Work, School-to-Work, OneStop Centers, and Food Stamp 

Employment and Training programs, or 

for a host of other authorized workforce 

development programs funded by 

Federal, State, local, and other sources. 

Under the new Workforce Investment 

Act (1998), Workforce Development 

Boards are the designated entities that 

oversee workforce development 

initiatives for DOL-designated service 

delivery areas. 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA)—

Passed by Congress to promote a new 

approach to youth employment and 

training, WIA replaced JTPA in 1998. 

The act combined the old Summer 

Youth Employment and Training 

Programs with the Job Training 

Partnership Act’s year-round program, 

replaced Private Industry Councils with 

Workforce Investment Boards, and 

promoted stronger links between the 

workforce development and juvenile 

justice systems. About a third of WIA 

funds must go to programs for out-ofschool youth, requiring a shift in 

resources from stand-alone summer jobs 

programs to year-round programming. 

Youth Council— WIA requires that 

local Workforce Investment Boards 

establish Youth Councils as subgroups to 

assist in developing the youth portion of 

the local workforce development system, 

determining eligible youth service 

providers, and overseeing WIA youth 

services and activities. Youth Council 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

172 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 

members are appointed by local 

Workforce Investment Boards in 

cooperation with the chairperson. 

Youth Opportunity—A DOL-funded 

movement that was initiated with the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998. 

Funds allocated under Youth 

Opportunity are intended to complement 

the Job Corps, School-to-Work, and 

formula-funded youth programs. The 

goal is to decrease the high 

unemployment rates of youth residing in 

impoverished communities, thereby 

helping these communities to reduce 

crime, youth gangs, illegal drug use, and 

welfare dependency. 

Sources: 

Brown, D., DeJesus, E., Schiraldi, V. (2002). 

Barriers and promising approaches to workforce 

and youth development for young offenders: An 

overview. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey 

Foundation. 

Burghardt, J., Schochet, P.Z., McConnell, S., et. 

al (2001). Does Job Corps work? Summary of 

the National Job Corps study Princeton, NJ: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

U.S. Department of Justice (2000). Employment 

and training for court-involved youth. 

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 
Selected Juvenile Justice Glossary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 173

Selected Juvenile Justice Glossary 

Adjudication—The process for 

determining a youth’s involvement in an 

offense (guilt) and the actual finding of 

involvement. Adjudication can be 

withheld and conditions imposed which, 

if met, will result in dismissal of the 

charges. 

Aftercare—A generic term for a variety 

of services and levels of supervision 

provided following a period of 

commitment to a residential facility. 

During aftercare, the youth is still 

considered a ward of the court or State 

and is supervised by a probation officer 

or aftercare worker. 

Aggravating factors—Factors that may 

increase the seriousness of the offense, 

such as prior offenses, weapon use, 

heinous crimes, and threats to victims or 

witnesses. 

Alternative sanctions—An array of 

sanctions, appropriate and suitable for a 

violation of a consent decree, 

stipulations of probation, and/or 

community corrections placement, that 

are recommended to the court for 

consideration and that a court may 

impose as a disposition (sentence). 

Anti-gang activity—Both direct efforts 

to reduce violence in a neighborhood 

and indirect efforts to provide 

wholesome activities to engage youth as 

a substitute for gang activity. 

Arrest—The act of taking an adult into 

custody, based on probable cause, when 

a law enforcement officer charges the 

adult with a criminal act or violation 

of law. A juvenile is often said to be 

“taken into custody” rather than arrested. 

Balanced and Restorative Justice 

(BARJ)—The BARJ model seeks to 

balance offender accountability, public 

safety and competency development by 

helping juvenile justice systems to 

become more responsive to the needs of 

victims, offenders, and the community. 

Recognizing both victim and offender 

restoration as critical goals, BARJ 

utilizes alternative sanctions such as 

community services and victim 

restitution to engage youth and involve 

victims in the justice process. 

Boot camp—A residential treatment 

program that includes a rigorous 

program of physical training and 

exercise in a military-type setting. Other 

treatment services, including educational 

and vocational training, substance abuse 

treatment, conflict resolution, 

communication skills, and anger 

management training, may also be 

provided. Boot camp programs often 

include counseling directed at replacing 

delinquent responses with behavior in 

accord with acceptable community and 

societal norms. 

Case manager/Route counselor —A 

person who works with a juvenile to 

assess his or her needs, develops a plan 

of services, refers the juvenile for 

services, monitors those services and the 

youth, and counsels the youth. 

Delinquency case managers may 

combine the duties of intake and 

community control officers. These 

functions may be performed by public 

employees (probation or aftercare 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

174 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 

workers) or contracted to private 

organizations. 

Case plan (i.e., an Individual Service 

Plan or Individual Service Strategy)—

A written document, also referred to as a 

treatment plan, that includes the strategy 

for intervention based on an in-depth 

risk and needs assessment. The plan 

specifies the services to be offered, the 

goals to be attained, and the 

responsibilities of the youth in 

complying with the plan. 

Community arbitration—A process 

using neutral arbitrators or arbitration 

panels for speedy and informal 

disposition. It is used to divert youth 

cases from the formal juvenile justice 

system. Referral to community 

arbitration may be made by the law 

enforcement officer, case manager (at 

intake), parents, State’s attorney, or the 

court. 

Community corrections—A 

progressive approach to corrections that 

offers a full range of programming, 

including prerelease centers, halfway 

houses, residential drug and alcohol 

treatment facilities, restitution, and day 

reporting centers. 

Comprehensive assessment—The act 

of gathering information to evaluate a 

juvenile offender’s physical, 

psychological, educational, vocational, 

and social conditions and family 

environment to determine the offender’s 

need for services and recommended 

disposition. 

Conflict resolution—A variety of 

actions that use communication skills 

and creative thinking to develop 

voluntary solutions that are acceptable to 

those involved in a dispute. 

Continuum of care—A comprehensive 

array of juvenile justice programs and 

services ranging from the least intrusive, 

serving youth at risk of delinquency, to 

the most intrusive, serving maximumrisk youth in secure residential settings. 

Curfew—A local ordinance that 

requires, with specific conditions and 

exceptions, a specific group of persons 

(usually juveniles under a certain age) to 

refrain from unsupervised activities or 

being in the streets after a designated 

hour within the confines of a selected 

area, city, or county. 

Custody—The state of being in the care 

of a juvenile justice agency or official. It 

is similar to being arrested in the adult 

criminal system. 

Delinquency prevention programs—

Programs and services designed to serve 

children at risk of entering the juvenile 

justice system. 

Delinquent act—Any act committed by 

a juvenile (generally a person who is 

subject to juvenile court jurisdiction) 

that would be a criminal violation of a 

Federal or State law or local ordinance if 

committed by an adult. 

Delinquent juvenile—A child who has 

been found responsible (equivalent to an 

adult’s being found guilty of a criminal 

offense) by a juvenile court judge for 

having committed a delinquent act and 

has been adjudicated delinquent. 

Detention—Confinement by the State or 

local authorities in a secure facility. The 

term is also used in circumstances where 
Selected Juvenile Justice Glossary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 175

a youth is in home confinement while 

awaiting an adjudication hearing, 

disposition, or commitment placement. 

Also used as “time out” in domestic 

violence cases and for post-adjudicatory 

punishment. 

Detention center—Any public or 

private residential facility that includes 

construction fixtures designed to 

physically restrict the movements and 

activities of juveniles or other 

individuals held in lawful custody in 

such a facility. It is used for the 

temporary placement of any juvenile that 

is accused of having committed an 

offense, of any non-offender, or of any 

individual accused of having committed 

a criminal offense. 

Detention hearing—A judicial hearing, 

usually held within 24 hours of a youth’s 

being taken into custody, at which the 

court determines whether there is 

probable cause to believe that the youth 

has committed a delinquent act, whether 

a valid court order exists that requires 

the continued detention of the youth, or 

whether there is a danger that the youth 

will not show up for trial or will 

endanger himself or herself or others, 

pending an adjudicatory hearing. 

Dispositional hearing—A juvenile case 

hearing (analogous to a sentencing 

hearing in criminal court) at which the 

court receives a predisposition report 

containing information and 

recommendations to assist in 

determining the appropriate sanctions, 

hears from the defense lawyer, and 

makes a determination for a communitybased or other sanction such as probation 

or commitment to the custody of the 

agency responsible for juvenile justice. 

Diversion—A process by which a 

juvenile is channeled out of police 

custody or the judicial component of the 

juvenile justice system and where the 

youth may be required to complete a 

specified treatment plan designed to 

preclude further delinquent acts and 

meet his or her needs. 

Electronic monitoring—The use of 

electronic devices such as ankle 

bracelets and receivers to track youth 

placed in the community or in home 

detention. This method of supervision is 

generally for those youth deemed to be 

of moderate to high risk, but whom the 

court believes does not require secure 

detention (confinement to a residential 

facility). Electronic monitoring also can 

be used for those youth awaiting 

placement in a very restrictive program. 

Home detention/House arrest—

Temporary custody of a youth who 

meets detention criteria but does not 

require secure detention. Pending 

hearings, the youth is returned to the 

custody of the parent or guardian in a 

physically nonrestrictive environment 

under the close daily supervision of 

juvenile justice system staff. The level of 

intensity varies and may include 

electronic monitoring, curfew, and other 

restrictive requirements. This type of 

custody may also be used during preplacement supervision. 

Intake—The initial process used for 

youth referred to the juvenile justice 

system. Intake involves screening each 

youth to determine the appropriateness 

of detention, release, or referral to a 

diversionary program or agency for 

unofficial or non-judicial handling; for 

medical, psychiatric, psychological, 

substance abuse, or educational 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

176 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 

problems; or for other conditions that 

may have caused the child to come to the 

attention of law enforcement or intake 

officers. Intake also includes the initial 

screening of a status offender or child in 

need of services (CINS) to determine 

which actions are in the best interests of 

the child, the family, and the 

community. 

Juvenile delinquency program—Any 

program or activity related to juvenile 

delinquency prevention, control, 

diversion, treatment, rehabilitation, 

planning, education and training, and 

research, including drug and alcohol 

abuse programs, or to the improvement 

of the juvenile justice system. 

Mediation—A process by which a 

neutral party, called a mediator, 

encourages and facilitates the resolution 

of a dispute between two or more 

parties. The objective of this informal 

and non-adversarial process is to help 

the parties reach a mutually acceptable 

and voluntary agreement. The 

mediator’s responsibilities include, but 

are not limited to, assisting the parties in 

identifying issues, fostering joint 

problem solving, and exploring 

settlement alternatives. 

Mentoring—The act of voluntarily 

spending time with a child on a regular 

basis by sharing his or her free time in 

activities such as playing sports or 

games, shopping, taking hikes, helping 

with homework, and doing chores. 

Formal mentoring programs may require 

the volunteer to have a State police 

check prior to acting as a mentor. 

Multidisciplinary assessment—

Evaluation of a client, including a 

psychiatric review, a physical 

examination, and a social circumstances 

report, completed by experts from 

different fields. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention 

—DOJ agency responsible for providing 

national leadership, coordination, and 

resources to prevent and respond to 

juvenile offending and child 

victimization. 

Probation—A disposition or sentence 

under which the court conditionally 

releases the youth to the community in 

the care and custody of a parent, 

guardian, or custodian under prescribed 

rules and conditions. 

Protective factors—Among the 

categories of factors that help reduce the 

impact of risk factors in a young 

person’s life are positive personal 

characteristics, positive adult 

relationships, and healthy beliefs or clear 

standards of conduct. 

Recidivism—Returned to juvenile 

corrections (for rule violations or new 

crimes) and/or sentenced to adult prison 

or probation. 

Reentry services—Broad category of 

services and activities used to assist 

youth transitioning back to the 

community from detention to 

incarceration. This includes anti-gang 

activity, alternative sentencing, and 

aftercare. 

Risk factors—Certain negative 

behaviors or circumstances in a child’s 

life that put youth at risk for juvenile 

delinquency. These situations or 

behaviors include living where drugs 

and firearms are available in the 
Selected Juvenile Justice Glossary 

Research and Evaluation Associates 177

community, school failure, family 

conflict, and friends who engage in 

problem behaviors. These risk factors 

fall within four categories or domains: 

community, family, school, and 

individual/peer. 

Status offenses—Non-criminal juvenile 

offenses that are applied only to children 

and youth because of their status as 

minors. Offenses include being truant, 

running away from home, possessing 

alcohol or cigarettes, or violating 

curfew. 

Truant—A young person who is absent 

from school without permission or 

authorization. 

Victimization—The result of a planned 

or accidental act that causes physical or 

psychological harm. 

Violent crime—Crimes including 

murder, forcible rape, armed robbery, 

robbery, and aggravated assault. 

Wraparound— Emerging out of a 

nationwide effort in the 1970s to reform 

children's mental health services which 

were recognized as being too restrictive, 

insensitive, inefficiently organized and 

poorly targeted to those in need, the 

wraparound model is based on 

individualized, strength based, needsdriven planning and service delivery for 

youth and families. It calls for 

collaboration on an interagency basis 

using an interdisciplinary approach to 

meet an individual's strengths and needs 

across home, school and community. 

The approach must also be culturally 

sensitive to the unique racial, ethnic, 

geographical and social makeup of youth 

and their families. 

Sources: 

Annie E. Casey Foundation (2003). Juvenile 

justice at a crossroads. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. 

Casey Foundation. 

Snyder, H., Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile 

offenders and victims. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (1998). Guide for Implementing the 

balanced and restorative justice model. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (2000). Employment and training for 

court-involved youth. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. 

Research and Evaluation Associates (2003). 

Youth Offender Demonstration Round Two: 

Characteristics of service delivery as of the 

second evaluation site visits. Chapel Hill, NC: 

Research and Evaluation Associates. 

Research and Evaluation Associates (2003). 

Experiences in community collaboration from 

the Youth Offender Demonstration Project: A 

training module. Chapel Hill, NC: Research and 

Evaluation Associates. 
Youth Offender Demonstration Project – Final Report 

178 Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 
Appendix A 

SOLICITATION FOR GRANT APPLICATIONS 

A-1 

Billing Code: 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training Administration 

AGENCIES: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor

ACTION: Notice Inviting proposals for Selected Demonstration Projects for Youth 

Offenders.

THIS NOTICE CONTAINS ALL OF THE NECESSARY INFORMATION AND 

FORMS NEEDED TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDING.

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. Therefore, youth 

employment and developmental activities funded under this grant will be used for a 

structured set of activities focused primarily on placing youth offenders, gang members, 

and at-risk youth ages 14-24 employment into long term (part-time for ages 14-15) at 

wage levels that will (1) prevent future dependency and/or (2) break the cycle of crime 

and juvenile delinquency that contributes to recidivism and non-productive activities. The 

Department of Labor (DOL) has worked with the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in deciding to 

use these funds for three categories of projects to serve youth offenders. These categories 

are: I. - Model Community Projects; II. - Education and Training for Youth 

Offenders Initiative; and III. - Community-Wide Capacity Building Projects. 

For Categories I and III, Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), political subdivisions of 

the State, and private entities are eligible to receive grant funds under this announcement. 

Eligible private entities include community development corporations, community action 

agencies, community-based and faith-based organizations, disability community 

organizations, public and private colleges and universities, and other qualified private 

organizations. Private entities include non-profit organizations but do not include forprofit organizations or individuals. For Category II, State or local juvenile justice 

agencies or juvenile correctional agencies shall be the eligible applicant and should 

identify one juvenile correctional facility within their state where the project will operate. 

Applicants can only apply under one of these categories, which must be clearly identified 

on the face sheet of the application. Local workforce investment areas that were 

awarded grants to administer Youth Offender Demonstration Projects in 1999 are 

ineligible to apply under this Solicitation. 

DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications is February 28, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time (EST) at the address below. 

ADDRESSES: Applications must be mailed to Denise Roach, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, 200 
A-2 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Room S-4203, Washington, D.C. 20210, Reference: 

SGA/DFA-01-101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical questions should be faxed 

to Denise Roach, Division of Federal Assistance, Fax (202) 693-2879. This is not a tollfree number. All inquiries should include the SGA number SGA/DFA 01-101 and a 

contact name and phone number. This solicitation will also be published on the Internet 

on the Employment and Training Administration's web site, to access: 1. 

http://www.doleta.gov 2.Click Grant & Contract Applications 3. Click Competitive Grant 

Opportunities 4. Grant Forms. Award notifications will also be published on the web site. 

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 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 the month); or 

(b) was sent by the U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service to the specified 

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 Standard Time), on the closing date 

at the specified address. 

Telegraphed and/or Faxed Applications Will Not Be Honored. Failure to adhere to 

the above instructions will be a basis for a determination of non-responsiveness. 

Overnight express mail from carriers other than the U.S. Postal Service will be 

considered hand-delivered 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 that will evaluate the applications against the 

established criteria under each Category. The panel results are advisory in nature and are 

not binding on the Grant Officer. The Government may elect to award the grant with or 

without discussions with the offeror. In situations without discussion, 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 Empowerment Zones (EZs) and Enterprise 

Communities (ECs), and demographic characteristics. 
A-3 

Cost Sharing/Leveraging Funds: Applicants also should discuss their plans to leverage 

and align with other funds or resources in order to build permanent partnerships for the 

continuation of services, and should provide some discussion of the nature of these 

leveraged resources, i.e., Federal, non-Federal, cash or in-kind, State and county, 

foundation, capital equipment, and other matching funds. For example, the Federal 

Bonding Program and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) should be considered 

as potential tools to assist with youth offender employment placements. Information 

about these programs may be found on ETA's website at http://www.doleta.gov. 

Reporting Requirements: Applicants must clearly define their procedures for reporting 

progress on a monthly basis (including data elements listed in (Supplementary 

Information) and for identifying and presenting the results of project interventions. 

Proposals should also describe in detail the specific reports and other deliverables to be 

provided to ETA as documentation of progress and results in terms of improved 

outcomes for the target population. An implementation plan to be submitted within 60 

days of the grant execution, monthly reports, an annual report, and a final report 

summarizing progress are required for projects under this SGA. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Approximately $8,250,000 is available for all 

three categories. Funding for these awards is authorized under the Workforce Investment 

Act (WIA). 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 each application be submitted using the face sheet included in appendix "A" because 

it will greatly enhance the review process. 

As a condition for award, all applicants must agree to participate in a separately funded 

evaluation. Applicants should not set aside funds for evaluation activities. All applicants 

must provide assurances in their proposals that they will cooperate with the evaluators 

and provide access to the data necessary to the evaluations. Awardees of the grants 

further agree to make available upon request to DOL-authorized evaluation contractor(s) 

data for a period not to exceed 24 months beyond the demonstration period (which should 

not exceed 24 months) through a no-cost extension of the grants. The availability of this 

data beyond the demonstration period will enable, if appropriate, the contractor to 

perform follow-up analysis. In addition, proposals should specify the linkages between 

the Youth Offender project and the local WIA Youth Council through the One-Stop 

delivery system to ensure coordination of workforce development services. These 

linkages shall include both existing and proposed strategies. 

All demonstration sites will be required to collect and maintain participant records 

through administrative data so that these projects can document results and 

accomplishments and provide a learning experience for the workforce development 

system, DOL, and DOJ. These data include: 

A. Number recruited; 

B. Number enrolled; 

C. Number who entered training; 
A-4 

D. Number who entered or reentered secondary school; 

E. Number who entered or reentered post-secondary school; 

F. Number who entered employment; 

G. Number "served by aftercare" programs; 

H. Number who entered the military; 

I. Number referred to other services such as dropout prevention, drug rehabilitation; 

J. Number who entered other job training programs; 

K. Number referred to apprenticeship programs; 

L. Number of in-school youth served; and 

M. Number of out-of-school youth served. 

In addition, if applicable, data elements associated with the Workforce Investment Act 

may be required (to be specified in the grantee's statement of work). 

APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: Applicants must submit four (4) copies of their 

proposal, with original signatures. There are three required sections of the application: 

Section I- Project Financial Plan; Section II- Executive Summary; and Section IIIProject Narrative (including Appendices, NOT TO EXCEED thirty pages). Applications 

that fail to meet the requirements will not be considered. The Project Narrative must be 

double-spaced, and on single-sided, numbered pages with the exception of format 

requirements for the Executive Summary. The Executive Summary must be limited to no 

more than two (2) single-spaced, single-sided pages. A font size of at least twelve (12) 

pitch is required throughout. 

Part I- Project Financial Plan. Section I of the application must include the following 

two required elements: (1) Standard Form (SF) 424, "Application for Federal 

Assistance," (Appendix B) and (2) "Budget Information Form." (Appendix C) 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 (CFDA) number is 17-249. Section 

I will not count against the application page limits. 

The Financial Plan must describe all costs associated with implementing the project that 

are to be covered with grant funds. In addition, Section I should include a budget 

narrative/justification which will detail the cost breakout of each line item on the Budget 

Information Form. This must provide sufficient information to support the reasonableness 

of the costs included in the budget in relation to the service strategy and planned 

outcomes. The budget must be for the full duration of the project but may not exceed 30 

months. All costs should be necessary and reasonable according to the Federal guidelines 

set forth in the "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements to State and Local Governments" (also known as the "Common Rule"), 

codified at 29 CFR Part 97 (97.22) and "Grants and Agreements with Institutes of Higher 
A-5 

Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations" (also known as OMB Circular 

A-110), codified at 29 CFR Part 95, (95.27). 

Part II- Executive Summary (format requirements limited to no more than two 

single-spaced, single-sided pages). Each application shall provide a project synopsis that 

identifies the following: 

• The applicant; 

• Identification of consortium partners and the type of organizations they represent; 

• The project service area; 

• Whether the service area is an entire local workforce investment area, more than 

one local area, and/or all local areas in a State; 

• The specific areas of focus in the announcement which are addressed by the 

project; 

• The planned period of performance; 

• The comprehensive strategy (e.g., who will provide services, who will be 

accountable for the project, etc.) for providing seamless service delivery and for 

addressing the multi-faceted barriers to training and employment which affect 

youth who are or who have been under criminal justice supervision or involved in 

gangs or who are at-risk of involvement; 

• How counseling and other support needs will be addressed in the One-Stop 

delivery system; 

• The actions already taken by the State or Local Workforce Investment Board to 

address the needs of at-risk youth in the One-Stop delivery system; 

• The level of commitment the applicant (including all consortium members, if any) 

and other partners have to serving at-risk youth; 

• The linkages between the project and the local WIA Youth Council through the 

One-Stop delivery system, as well as linkages with the business and education 

communities and juvenile justice agencies; and 

• A written confirmation that the applicant will cooperate with the evaluators. 

Part III- Project Narrative (format requirements limited to no more than thirty (30) 

double-spaced, single-sided, numbered pages). Section III of the application, the 

project narrative, 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 limit the project narrative section to no more than thirty (30) doublespaced and single-sided pages, which include any attachments provided by the applicants. 

Letters of general support or recommendation for a proposal should NOT be submitted 

and will count against the page limit. However, letters of commitment are required from 

partner/consortia organizations and will not count against the page limit. 

BACKGROUND: The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 establishes 

comprehensive reform of existing Federal job training programs with amendments 

impacting service delivery under the Wagner Peyser Act, Adult Education and Literacy 

Act, the Rehabilitation Act and supersedes the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). 

WIA provides a framework for a national workforce development system designed to 
A-6 

meet both the needs of the nation's businesses and the needs of job seekers who want to 

further their careers. A number of other Federal programs are also identified as required 

partners under the One-Stop delivery system with the intention of providing 

comprehensive services for all Americans to access the information and resources 

available to them in the development and implementation of their career goals. The 

intention of the One-Stop delivery system is to establish programs and providers in colocated, coordinated and integrated settings that are coherent and accessible for 

individuals and businesses alike in approximately 600 workforce investment areas that 

have been established throughout the nation. 

The Workforce Investment Act establishes State and Local Workforce Investment Boards 

(WIBs) focused on strategic planning, policy development, and oversight of the 

workforce system with significant authority for the Governor and chief elected officials 

to build on existing reforms in order to implement innovative and comprehensive OneStop delivery systems. In addition, Youth Councils, subgroups of the local WIBs, are 

required to develop parts of the local plan relating to youth, recommend providers of 

youth services, and coordinate local youth programs and initiatives. With its mandated 

requirements to form these interdisciplinary Youth Councils and to develop one 

comprehensive plan for youth services, WIA presents a unique opportunity to change the 

way workforce investment programs (and other youth development programs as well) are 

organized and operated to serve youth. WIA and the Youth Councils offer local areas the 

chance to look at how both in-school and out-of-school youth services are blended and 

deployed. They provide the framework that local areas can build on in order to realign, 

enhance, and improve youth services so that they are more closely coordinated, better 

utilized, and more effective. 

In setting aside funds for this Solicitation, Congress noted "the severe problems facing 

out-of-school youth in communities with high poverty and unemployment and the interrelatedness of poverty, juvenile crime, child abuse and neglect, school failure, and teen 

pregnancy." (These grants are included within the Administration's Youth Violence 

Prevention initiative.) This SGA provides a unique opportunity for selected workforce 

investment areas to address the needs of a special youth population- youth offenders, 

gang members, and at-risk youth ages 14-24 through a WIA consorted effort. 

Category I- Model Community Projects

Demonstration projects in this category will be based in heavily impoverished 

communities in need of comprehensive community-wide approaches to assist youth 

offenders, gang members, and those at risk of becoming involved in gangs. Grantees will 

be required to expand services in each of 3 areas: 1) gang prevention and suppression 

activities; 2) alternative sentencing for first-time offenders; and 3) after-care and route 

counseling for incarcerated youth. In addition, grantees shall provide education and 

mental health services, employment training, sports and recreation, and community 

services projects in order to reduce recidivism and procure for the target population longterm employment at livable wage levels. The grantees must place particular emphasis on 
A-7 

enhancing existing route counseling and job placement services for youth on probation or 

for those who are reentering the community from corrections facilities. These support 

services should be provided throughout the entire employment search continuum, i.e., 

from the beginning of the employment search until well after the procurement of 

employment. The projects also will maintain records of the number of contacts made 

after placement and the type of support services provided. 

The projects also will implement an intensive and comprehensive aftercare system to 

reduce juvenile recidivism. Aftercare systems should be implemented while youth are 

still incarcerated to establish community links with faith-based organizations, parents or 

guardians, schools, training and educational opportunities, parole systems, social contacts 

and activities, and mentors. The aftercare services planned for those individuals 

incarcerated must involve the staff and administrators of the juvenile corrections facilities 

where the youth are institutionalized. 

Eligible Applicants 

Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), political subdivisions of the State, and private 

entities are eligible to receive grant funds under this announcement. Eligible private 

entities include community development corporations, community action agencies, 

community-based and faith-based organizations, disability community organizations, 

public and private colleges and universities, and other qualified private organizations. 

Private entities include non-profit organizations but do not include for-profit 

organizations and individuals. Organizations or areas that operate the Department of 

Justice's Safe Futures or Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang 

Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression demonstrations can also apply through their 

WIBs. Entities other than a WIB or a political subdivision of the State must submit an 

application for competitive grant funds in conjunction with the WIB(s) and its Youth 

Council for the area in which the project is to operate. The term "in conjunction with" 

shall mean that the application must include a signed certification by both the applicant 

and the appropriate WIB(s) indicating that: 

1. The applicant has consulted with the appropriate WIB (and its Youth Council) 

during the development of the application; and 

2. The activities proposed in the application are consistent with, and will be 

coordinated with, the One-Stop delivery system efforts of the WIB(s). 

If the applicant is unable to obtain the certification, it will be required to include 

information describing the efforts which were undertaken to consult with the WIB and its 

Youth Council and indicating that the WIB was provided, during the proposal solicitation 

period, a sufficient opportunity to cooperate in the development of the project plan and to 

review and comment on the application prior to its submission to the Department of 

Labor. "Sufficient opportunity for WIB review and comment" shall mean at least 30 
A-8 

calendar days. Failure to provide information describing the efforts which were 

undertaken to consult with WIB(s) will disqualify applicants. 

The certification, or evidence of efforts to consult, must be with each WIB in the service 

area in which the proposed project is to operate. These certifications must be included in 

the grant application, and will not count against the established page limitations. For the 

purposes of this portion of the application, evidence of efforts to consult with the WIB 

must be demonstrated by written documentation, such as registered mail receipt, that 

attempts were made to share project applications with the WIB in a timely manner. WIB 

applicants and applicants that provide a signed certification by the applicant and the 

appropriate WIB(s) will be given preference for award. 

Funding Availability

The Department expects to award three (3) grants approximately $1.5 million each under 

this category. 

Performance Period

The period of performance for all grants awarded under this competition, within this 

category, will be for 30 months from the date the grant is awarded. The first 24 months 

must be devoted to providing program services to eligible youth as defined in this notice. 

The final six months will be solely for organizing participant case files, providing the 

files to the demonstration's evaluator within two months after grant-funded services 

terminate, and participating in a final site visit interview with the evaluators. The budget 

submitted for the period of performance must cover the full 30 months. 

Program Components

The grant awards must be used to enhance and augment presently existing strategies that 

serve youth offenders, out-of-school youth, and gang members or those at-risk of 

becoming gang-involved. In addition to intensifying current systems, the projects also 

will link with and build upon available community resources such as educational 

(including special education), support, workforce development (engaging local 

WIBs/Youth Councils), child care, and transportation services. The projects will use 

these community resources to accomplish the successful transition of youth to 

independent living within the community, a reduction in recidivism, and the 

accomplishment of employment, training, and education goals. In order to address 

specifically the distinct needs and problems of youth offenders, gang members, and those 

at-risk of becoming gang-involved who are living in high-poverty localities, the 

overarching strategy for the model community projects should encompass the following: 

Purpose/Need: Applicants should describe the need in the target neighborhood as 

demonstrated by issues such as severity of gang problems, the number of youth offenders 

residing in the target community, and the inability for existing services to address the 

needs of youth offenders and gang members. Applicants should also relate the need to the 

overall purpose of the planned program components. 
A-9 

Alternative sentencing/education: Grantees should describe their plans for expanding 

alternative sentencing, including enhanced education services for youth offenders. Project 

case managers and other staff must prepare the target population for sustainable highquality employment by providing assistance to remain in school, return to school, enroll 

in GED and high school equivalency classes, or participate in additional alternative 

education such as long-distance learning programs or on-line courses. Applicants should 

describe the educational services that will be offered by the project, with particular 

attention given to the utilization of existing educational system services and the 

involvement of the schools in the area. In addition, applicants should describe the overall 

use of project case managers and other staff in the planned program components that will 

provide educational services. 

Route counseling/support services: Project case managers must prepare the target 

population for sustainable high-quality employment by utilizing intensive training and 

support services, including drug and alcohol treatment, mentoring and tutoring, child 

care, counseling, and other case management services. Service strategies should also 

focus on providing assistance to engage in job training, secure employment, fulfill legal 

restitution obligations, or establish successful independent living. Because this wide 

range of services should be provided by the proposed partnerships of community 

organizations, applicants must submit memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with the 

local WIA partnership and other critical agencies specifying the role of each party in the 

project. Applicants must describe the intensive training and support services as identified 

above that will be offered as part of the planned program components, and should detail 

the role of project case managers in the provision of these training and support services. 

Youth Offender and Gang Prevention Advisory Board: In order to institute a holistic 

approach to assisting the target population, employment, education, criminal justice, and 

community-based youth programs must be incorporated into the projects. 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. The advisory board 

should be comprised of public and private sector representation, parents, youth members, 

and graduates of other youth offender programs and will link with the local Youth 

Council to provide seamless delivery of services and maximize use of available 

resources. Applicants should describe the planned composition of the advisory board, 

with particular emphasis upon the process for selecting and seating the representation of 

the board. The applicant should describe the functions of the board and the process 

planned to utilize the board in designing the holistic delivery expected under the project. 

Grantees should also describe their plans for expanding gang prevention and suppression 

efforts in the target community, including expanded efforts by local law enforcement 

agencies. 

Aftercare: Grant funds should link with existing resources to provide intensive aftercare 

services for youth offenders transitioning from secure confinement in a juvenile 

corrections facility to the community. Projects must strategically coordinate communitywide efforts and resources to address reentry issues such as surveillance, supervision, 

graduated sanctions and incentives, linkages to community support systems (families, 

peers, schools, employers), transitional housing, and job training and placement 
A-10 

activities. Applicants should describe clearly detailed reentry plans for youth offenders 

scheduled for release to their communities and their capacity to sustain their activities for 

2 years after funding is no longer available. Strategies for effective route counseling 

services in aftercare programming include: 

• Use of a reliable and validated risk assessment and classification instrument for 

establishing eligibility of the targeted population; 

• Individual case planning that incorporates a family and community perspective; 

• A mix of intensive surveillance and enhanced service delivery; 

• Comprehensive, interagency transition planning that involves all critical 

stakeholders; 

• A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition 

of realistic, enforceable conditions; 

• Work-related or work-oriented activities such as exposure to the workplace, onthe-job training, work experience, job shadowing, etc.; 

• Coordination of resources of juvenile correctional agencies, juvenile courts, 

juvenile parole agencies, law enforcement agencies, social service providers, and 

local Workforce Investment Boards; and 

• "Soft skills" training, i.e., job behavior and life skills training; self determination 

and social skills training; conflict resolution and anger management; parenting 

classes; exposure to post-secondary education opportunities; and community 

service learning projects. 

Partnerships/Linkages: In addition to enhancing already existing services and programs, 

projects must center any newly developed and implemented activities upon the needs of 

youth involved, or at risk of becoming involved, with the juvenile justice system and 

gangs. In order to accomplish this, 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: 

• Implement an education and employment program for youth offenders, gang 

members, and at-risk youth in the target area, including coordination with the 

private sector to develop a specified number of career-track jobs for target area 

youth offenders; 

• Establish alternative sentencing and community service options for youth 

offenders, gang members, and at-risk youth in the target area; and 

• Expand gang suppression activities in the target area. 

Applicants should outline how they will involve residents, youth, and others of the 

community in planning and involvement in the effort. Proposals should describe the 

efforts within the project to utilize existing services and programs, particularly those 

offered through the WIA One-Stop delivery system and the juvenile justice system. 

Applicants should describe the efforts to be undertaken to coordinate services with 

private sector entities, including commitments for private sector jobs. Proposals should 
A-11 

describe newly developed and implemented services and how these will enhance and 

augment presently existing strategies in the community. 

Category I Rating Criteria: Each application under this category will be evaluated against 

the following rating criteria: 

• Need in target neighborhood, as demonstrated by severity of gang problem, the 

number of youth offenders residing in target community, and the barriers facing 

existing services to reach youth offenders and gang members (10 points); 

• Plan to enhance and augment alternative sentencing, including educational and 

supportive services and route counseling; role of project case managers in these 

delivery strategies; plan for linking with schools for co-enrollment, etc. (20 

points); 

• Plan for enhancing gang prevention and suppression efforts, and use of a youth 

offender and gang prevention advisory board to achieve coordination; 

establishment of creative partnerships with local community grassroots 

organizations which provide services to the target population (20 points); 

• Plan and capacity for conducting intensive comprehensive aftercare for 

preventing recidivism (20 points); 

• Planned or committed level of investments (cost sharing and leveraging of funds) 

from educational agencies/schools and other public sector, WIA, and private 

sector partners; employment-related connections with the business community (25 

points); and 

• Plan to fulfill reporting requirements; and confirmation of cooperation with DOL 

evaluators (5 points). 

Category II- Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative

These projects will provide a comprehensive school-to-work education and training 

curriculum for youth offenders in a juvenile correctional facility and aftercare/reentry 

services, with an emphasis on job placement and retention, upon a youth's return to his or 

her community. The comprehensive school-to-work education and training services 

developed under this initiative will serve as a model for other juvenile correctional 

facilities across the nation. 

Eligible Applicants

State or local juvenile justice agencies or juvenile correctional agencies shall be the 

eligible applicant and should identify one juvenile correctional facility within their state 

where the project will operate. Applications must show the involvement/commitment of 

the following partners: the state/local Workforce Investment Board which is the 

administrative entity of WIA; the local Youth Councils; the state and local school-towork partnership to which a majority of the youth offenders will return; and 

representatives of major employer networks connected to the school-to-work effort. 

Funding Availability

The Department expects to award one (1) grant of approximately $2 million under this 

category. 
A-12 

Performance Period 

The period of performance for the grant awarded under this competition, within this 

category, will be for 30 months from the date the grant is awarded. The first 24 months 

must be devoted to providing program services to eligible youth as defined in this notice. 

The final 6 months will be solely for organizing participant case files, providing the files 

to the demonstration's evaluator within two months after grant-funded services terminate, 

and participating in a final site visit interview with the evaluators. The budget submitted 

for the period of performance must cover the full 30 months. 

Program Components

Grant funds shall be used to enhance an existing system currently serving youth 

offenders. Programs must be designed to (1) raise the quality of work and learning for 

incarcerated juvenile offenders through the school-to-work component and (2) strengthen 

aftercare/reentry services for youth transitioning to their communities following 

confinement by building connections to local workforce development and school-to-work 

systems through the aftercare component. Involvement with the local Youth Council of 

the local WIB is critical to ensuring that this occurs. This overall strategy needs to be 

responsive to the particular problems of youth offenders and gang members in juvenile 

correctional facilities, and must include the following: 

School-to-work: This component includes the development and/or strengthening of a 

comprehensive school-to-work curriculum within the juvenile correctional facility, with 

ties to vocational development and youth employment services funded under WIA. This 

school-to-work system must contain the following core elements (for additional 

information, see Attachment I from Evaluation of the School-to-Work- Out-of-School 

Youth Demonstration and Job Corps Model Centers: Final Report for the Job Corps 

Model Centers, Research and Evaluation Report Series 00-E, U.S. Department of 

Labor/Employment and Training Administration, 2000): 

• School-based Learning: school-wide classroom instruction based on high 

academic and business-defined occupational skill standards; 

• Work-based Learning: career exploration, work experience, structured training, 

and mentoring at job sites; and 

• Connecting Activities: course integrating classroom and on-the-job instruction, 

matching students with participating employers, training of mentors, and the 

building of bridges between school and work. 

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 closely parallel the curriculum developed for the communities to which youth 

offenders will be returning 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. 
A-13 

Aftercare: Grant funds should link with existing resources to provide intensive aftercare 

services for youth offenders transitioning from secure confinement in a juvenile 

corrections facility to the community. Aftercare services must strategically coordinate 

community-wide efforts and resources to address reentry issues such as surveillance, 

supervision, graduated sanctions and incentives, linkages to community support systems 

(families, peers, schools, employers), transitional housing, and job training and placement 

activities. Applicants should describe clearly detailed reentry plans for youth offenders 

scheduled for release into their communities. Strategies for effective route counseling 

services in aftercare programming include: 

• Use of a reliable and validated risk assessment and classification instrument for 

establishing eligibility of the targeted population; 

• Comprehensive, interagency transition planning that involves all critical 

stakeholders; 

• Individual case planning that incorporates a family and community perspective; 

• A mix of intensive surveillance and enhanced service delivery; 

• A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition 

of realistic, enforceable conditions; 

• Work-related or work-oriented activities such as exposure to the workplace, onthe-job training, work experience, job shadowing, etc.; 

• Coordination of resources of local Workforce Investment Boards, juvenile 

correctional agencies, juvenile courts, juvenile parole agencies, law enforcement 

agencies, health and social service providers, and community organizations; and 

• "Soft skills" training, i.e., job behavior and life skills training; self-determination 

and social skills training; conflict resolution and anger management; parenting 

classes; exposure to post-secondary education opportunities; and community 

service learning projects. 

Partnerships/Linkages: Applicants should use partnerships to (1) enhance the school-towork component funded under this grant and (2) provide complementary programs that 

enable communities to be better able to provide aftercare services for returning youth 

offenders. The state recipients of a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant 

(JAIBG) 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 or renovation 

of permanent correction facilities. Partners under this category should agree to: 

• Augment a school-to-work program in one targeted juvenile correctional facility; 

• Assist the applicant with the seamless delivery of route counseling and aftercare 

services and supervision to youth returning to the community; 

• Develop linkages to local school-to-work efforts with assistance from the State 

school-to-work partnership; and 

• Coordinate with the private sector to develop a specified number of career-track 

jobs for target area youth offenders. 

Proposals should specify the linkages between the Youth Offender project and the local 

WIA Youth Council through the One-Stop delivery system to ensure coordination of 
A-14 

workforce development services. These linkages shall include both existing and proposed 

strategies. 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. Additional 

funding sources may include Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act formula 

grant monies and JAIBG funds. The Federal Bonding Program and WOTC should be 

considered as important tools to assist with youth offender employment placements. 

Information about these programs is available at ETA's website, http://www.doleta.gov. 

 

Category II Rating Criteria: Each application for funding under this category will be 

reviewed and rated against the following criteria: 

• The stated need in the targeted juvenile correctional facility and state or local 

juvenile corrections system, as demonstrated by the effectiveness of the current 

correctional education curriculum and the number of youth who will benefit (20 

points); 

• Implementation plan for conducting the project, including detailed project scope 

of the aftercare services to be provided in the community (30 points); 

• Planned or committed level of investments of schools, other public sector partners 

including school-to-work partnerships, and private sector partners with 

commitments for jobs; employment-related connections to the business 

community (25 points); 

• Planned or committed linkages and coordination of services within the local 

workforce investment systems (15 points); 

• Plan to fulfill reporting requirements (5 points); and 

• Confirmation of cooperation with DOL and DOJ evaluators (5 points). 

Category III- Community-Wide Capacity Building Projects

This program component will provide smaller grants for impoverished communities 

within small to medium-sized cities with high crime rates. Grants awarded under this 

category will create models for use by States and local boards to increase assistance to 

high-risk youth. These models will build service capacity into the One-Stop delivery 

system to expand the range and quality of currently existing services designed to prepare 

high-risk youth for high-quality employment with career development ladders and livable 

wages. These projects will work with local Youth Councils and 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 WIA 

year-round youth training and summer jobs for low-income youth, school to work 

programs, other federal programs, and sports and recreation programs could contribute to 

juvenile crime prevention. 

These grants are to strengthen or build infrastructures that address the needs of this youth 

population. Providing services to youth is only a means of measuring the effectiveness of 

the infrastructure. The goal of this category is to develop strategies and integrated service 

models which will then be implemented. Because of the challenges associated with 

building strong partnerships leading to comprehensive services, special technical 
A-15 

assistance will be made available to successful applicants of this category to assist with 

their development and implementation processes. 

Eligible Applicants

Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) and private entities located 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. Eligible private 

entities include community development corporations, community action agencies, 

community-based and faith-based organizations, disability community organizations, 

public and private colleges and universities, and other qualified private organizations. 

Private entities include non-profit organizations but do not include for-profit 

organizations and individuals. Applicants should provide documentation from their local 

law enforcement agency showing support for the existence or emerging gang problem 

and other serious youth crime problems. WIBs and private entities applying under this 

category must demonstrate a strong commitment to developing capacity building models 

that States and local boards will use to serve high-risk individuals under the WIA system. 

Entities other than a WIB or a political subdivision of the State must submit an 

application for competitive grant funds in conjunction with the WIB(s) and its Youth 

Council for the area in which the project is to operate. The term "in conjunction with" 

shall mean that the application must include a signed certification by both the applicant 

and the appropriate WIB(s) indicating that: 

1. The applicant has consulted with the appropriate WIB (and its Youth Council) 

during the development of the application; and 

2. The activities proposed in the application are consistent with, and will be 

coordinated with, the One-Stop delivery system efforts of the WIB(s). 

If the applicant is unable to obtain the certification, it will be required to include 

information describing the efforts which were undertaken to consult with the WIB and its 

Youth Council and indicating that the WIB was provided, during the proposal solicitation 

period, a sufficient opportunity to cooperate in the development of the project plan and to 

review and comment on the application prior to its submission to the Department of 

Labor. "Sufficient opportunity for WIB review and comment'' shall mean at least 30 

calendar days. Failure to provide information describing the efforts, which were 

undertaken to consult with WIB (S), will disqualify applicants. 

The certification, or evidence of efforts to consult, must be with each WIB in the service 

area in which the proposed project is to operate. These certifications must be included in 

the grant application, and will not count against the established page limitations. For the 

purposes of this portion of the application, evidence of efforts to consult with the WIB 

must be demonstrated by written documentation, such as registered mail receipt, that 

attempts were made to share project applications with the WIB in a timely manner. WIB 

applicants and applicants that provide a signed certification by the applicant and the 

appropriate WIB(s) will be given preference for award. 
A-16 

Funding Availability

The Department expects to award five (5) grants approximately $350,000 each to 

Community-Wide Capacity Building Projects under this competition. 

Performance Period

The period of performance for all grants awarded under this competition, within this 

category, will be for 30 months from the date the grant is awarded. The first 24 months 

must be devoted to strengthening or building infrastructures that address the needs of this 

youth population, by developing strategies and integrated service models. The final six 

months will be solely for organizing partnership records for developed strategies and 

integrated service models, providing the final records to the demonstration's evaluator 

within two months after grant-funded activities terminate, and participating in a final site 

visit interview with the evaluators. The budget submitted for the period of performance 

must cover the full 30 months. 

Program Components

In order to develop capacity building models, grant funds shall be used to build upon an 

existing system currently serving in-school and out-of-school youth, youth offenders, or 

youth in gangs or prone to joining gangs. Efforts should be made to integrate youth into a 

full range of educational and alternative programs when appropriate. In order to be 

responsive to the particular problems of youth offenders, gang members, and those at-risk 

in high-poverty, high-crime areas, the overall strategy for the capacity building projects 

should encompass the following: 

Career preparation services: The capacity building projects should provide for 

employment preparation, job placement, and linkages with the workforce development 

system. Models should focus on programs that train individuals for employment in fields 

in which technology skills are critical aspects of the jobs emerging in the regional labor 

market. Training models may also include basic skills and pre-apprenticeship training (as 

appropriate). Applicants must address the various strategies that their models will employ 

to actively recruit the target population, and should discuss the projected length of time 

necessary to determine the efficacy of their models' technical assistance. 

Route counseling/support services: Proposals must demonstrate how the applicants plan 

to enhance the capacity of the WIA system to assist high-risk youth who are transitioning 

from dependency to independent living by including innovative service strategies that 

address their barriers to employment and the flexibility of services available. The 

framework for the proposed capacity building model should provide for (as applicable): 

individual needs assessment; individual service strategies; long-term follow-up services; 

and linkages with human services, education, and transportation services. Other strategies 

may include "soft skills" training like job behavior and life skills training, social skills 

and self-determination, conflict resolution, parenting classes, exposure to post-secondary 

education opportunities, and service learning projects. Applicants should detail their 

capacity to sustain these activities for 2 years after funding under this solicitation is no 

longer available. 
A-17 

Partnerships/Linkages: Applicants should use partnerships both (1) to enhance the 

currently existing youth offenders programs and WIA services and (2) to provide 

complementary programs so as to make the target community an available service area 

for all youth offenders. Applicants should also agree to a good faith effort to continue 

projects started under this grant beyond the 24-month grant period. Partners should also 

agree to: 

• Build upon existing employment and training, recreation, conflict resolution, and 

other youth crime and gang prevention programs to include youth offenders and 

gang members; 

• Establish alternative sentencing and community service options for target area 

youth and gang members; 

• Provide work-related or work-oriented activities such as exposure to the 

workplace, on-the-job training, work experience, job shadowing, etc. 

• Establish or continue gang suppression activities within the target area; and 

• Build connections to local workforce investment systems, such as linkages with 

WIBs while demonstrating approaches that ensure that high-risk youth are 

provided with quality workforce development services. 

Youth Offender and Gang Prevention Advisory Board: In order to institute a holistic 

approach to assisting the target population, employment, education, criminal justice, and 

community-based youth programs should be incorporated into the projects. 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. The advisory board 

should be comprised of public and private sector representation, parents, youth members, 

and graduates of other youth offender programs and will link with the local Youth 

Council to provide seamless delivery of services. 

In addition, proposals should specify the linkages between the Youth Offender project 

and the local WIA Youth Council through the One-Stop delivery system to ensure 

coordination of workforce development services. These linkages should include both 

existing and proposed strategies. 

Category III Rating Criteria: Applications received for funding under this category shall 

be rated against the following criteria: 

• Need in target neighborhood, as demonstrated by severity of gang problem and 

the number of youth offenders residing in the target community, and the inability 

for existing services to include youth offenders and gang members (10 points); 

• Plan to enhance and augment presently existing youth offender programs and 

youth crime prevention strategies (20 points); 

• Plan and capacity for developing and implementing models, including plan for 

preventing recidivism (30 points); 

• Planned or committed level of investments (cost sharing and leveraging of funds) 

from educational agencies/schools and other public sector, WIA, and private 

sector partners, including commitments for private sector jobs (15 points); 
A-18 

• Planned or committed linkages and coordination of services within the local 

workforce investment systems; use of a youth offender and gang prevention 

advisory board to achieve coordination; establishment of creative partnerships 

with local community grassroots organizations which provide services to the 

target population (15 points); 

• Plan to fulfill reporting requirements (5 points); and 

• Confirmation of cooperation with DOL evaluators (5 points). 

Signed at Washington, D.C. this date, December 11, 2000. 

Laura A. Cesario 

Grant Officer, Division of Federal Assistance 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Application Face Sheet 

Appendix B: SF-424-Application for Federal Assistance 

Appendix C: Budget Information Form 

Appendix A 

COVERSHEET

Application for funding under SGA/DFA 01-101"Youth Offender 

Demonstration Project" 

Name of Applicant:_____________________________________ 

Contact Person:__________________________________ 

Phone Number:__________________________________ 

Category: (MUST CHECK ONE) 

____ Category I - Model Community Projects 

____ Category II - Education & Training for Youth Offenders Initiatives 

____ Category III - Community-Wide Capacity Building Projects
APPENDIX B 

Data Collection Plan 

Data Collection Plan 

Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

1. What is the context of each project and how did it influence the project development and implementation? 1.1 Describe the community’s demographic characteristics (race, gender, age, family status, ethnicity, immigration trends, educational status, school status). 

Qualitative, Quantitative 

Official reports, Census data 

1.2 Describe the community’s socio-cultural characteristics (crime, delinquency, youth culture, gang activity, criminal justice contacts, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, and family violence). 

Qualitative, Quantitative 

Crime reports, official reports 

1.3 Describe the community’s economic characteristics (employment and unemployment rates, income levels, major employers and opportunities for youth, socio-cultural aspects). 

Qualitative, Quantitative 

Official reports, Bureau of Labor Statistics 

1.4 Describe the community’s political characteristics (responsiveness of government; history of integrated service delivery; community consensus building efforts; role of schools, community-based organizations, churches, volunteers; recreational opportunities; youth programs, including mentoring programs). 

Qualitative Newspapers, 

project officials, local political and community leaders 

2. How did the community planning bodies charged with the ongoing tasks of designing the integrated network of services function and what was the level of involvement of the stakeholders, including parents and youth? 2.1 Describe the consensus building process, including the role of the planning body in planning for the project. 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners, stakeholders 

2.2 Which stakeholders were identified as key in planning for the project? 

Qualitative Project officials 
Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

2.3 Which stakeholders were asked to join the project’s planning body? 

Qualitative Project officials 

2.4 Which stakeholders agreed to participate in planning for the project? 

Qualitative Project officials 

2.5 What was the level of involvement of the stakeholders in planning for the project? 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners, stakeholders 

2.6 What was the level of involvement of parents and youth in planning for the project? 

Qualitative Project 

officials, stakeholders 

2.7 How did the planning body attempt to build consensus among stakeholders? 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners, stakeholders 

2.8 Which of these efforts succeeded? Why? Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners, stakeholders 

2.9 Which of these efforts failed? Why? Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners, stakeholders 

2.10 Describe the vision and mission developed through the planning process. 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners, stakeholders 

2.11 Describe the project’s goals and objectives that were developed through the planning process. 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners, stakeholders 
Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

2.12 Describe the plan for establishing an integrated service delivery system (primary and collateral services). 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners, stakeholders 

2.13 For Category I projects: Does the project’s implementation plan include the following components: • strategies to enhance and augment existing services to youth 

offenders, out-of- school youth and gang members or those at-risk of becoming gang involved? • expanded alternative sentencing, including enhanced educational services for clients? 

• route counseling/support services? • strategies to link existing resources to provide intensive aftercare 

services for youth offenders transitioning into the community? • newly developed and implemented activities based on needs of clients? • youth offender and gang prevention advisory board? 

Qualitative Project officials 

2.14 For Category II projects: Does the project’s implementation plan include the following components: 

• School-to-Work within correctional facilities with ties to vocational 

development and youth employment services funded under the Workforce Investment Act? • aftercare to support reentry of clients into communities? • partnerships to include School-to-Work and provide aftercare services?

Qualitative Project officials 

2.15 For Category III projects: Describe how the project plans to build service capacity into the One-Stop delivery system to expand the range and quality of currently existing services that attempt to prepare high-risk youth for high-quality employment with career development ladders and livable wages. 

Qualitative Project officials 

2.16 For Category III projects: Does the project’s implementation plan include the following components: 

• career preparation services? 

Qualitative Project officials 
Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

• route counseling/support services? • partnership/linkages to enhance the currently existing youth offenderprograms and Workforce Investment Act services? • partnership/linkages to provide complementary programs so as to make the target community an available service area for all youth offenders? • youth offender and gang prevention advisory board?

3. What program components were implemented and how successful were the efforts to build on existing systems, establish new programs, and create an integrated network? 3.1 Discuss the involvement of the grantee in the direction and coordination of the grantee in the project. 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners 

3.2 Describe the partnerships and linkages that have been established since the grant was awarded (including, but not limited to juvenile justice, workforce development, and Health and Human Services). 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners 

3.3 Which partners signed a memorandum of agreement with the project? 

Qualitative Project officials 

3.5 Which partners have not signed a memorandum of agreement? 

Qualitative Project officials 

3.6 Describe the responsibilities of each partner. Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners 

3.7 Which primary services have been implemented? Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners 

3.8 Which primary services have not been implemented? Why not? 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners 

3.9 Which collateral services were implemented? Qualitative Project 

officials, 

project 
Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

partners 

3.10 Which collateral services have not been implemented? Why not? 

Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners 

3.11 Which partners had working arrangements already in place with the grantee before the project grant was awarded? 

Qualitative Project officials 

3.12 Describe the nature of the existing working arrangements. Qualitative Project officials 3.13 Describe efforts by the grantee to develop new partnerships. 

Qualitative Project officials 

3.14 How successful have these attempts been? Qualitative Project officials 3.15 Describe barriers encountered in attempts to establish partnerships and linkages. 

Qualitative Project officials 

3.16 Which strategies to overcome barriers succeeded? Why? Qualitative Project officials 3.17 Which strategies to overcome barriers failed? Why? Qualitative Project officials 3.18 Discuss the project’s success in creating an integrated services network? 

Qualitative Project officials 

3.19 Discuss ways that the project has helped provide an increased level of services to the target youth? 

Qualitative Project officials 

4. What methods of staff recruitment and training were used and how successful were they? 4.1 Describe the staff recruitment plan and methods for filling positions. 

Qualitative Implementation 

plan, project officials 

4.2 Which elements of the plan have been implemented? Qualitative Project officials 4.3 Which elements of the plan have not been implemented? Why? 

Qualitative Project officials 

4.4 Which recruitment strategies worked best? Why? Qualitative Project officials 4.5 Which recruitment strategies worked poorly? Why? Qualitative Project officials 4.6 What does the grantee plan to do to overcome recruiting problems? 

Qualitative Project officials 
Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

4.7 Describe the qualification requirements for each staff position. 

Qualitative Implementation 

plan, project officials 

4.8 Describe the qualifications of each key staff member. Qualitative Resumes, 

project officials 

4.9 Describe the staff training plan. Qualitative Implementation 

plan, project officials 

4.10 Which elements of the staff training plan have been implemented? 

Qualitative Implementation 

plan, project officials 

4.11 Which elements of the plan have not been implemented? Why? 

Qualitative Implementation 

plan, project officials 

4.11 What training has each staff member received since joining the project? 

Qualitative Project officials 

4.12 What training will each staff member receive in the future? 

Qualitative Project officials 

4.13 Describe the project’s performance appraisal system. Qualitative Project officials 4.14 Discuss the process the staff uses to strengthen staff performance. 

Qualitative Project officials 

5. What methods were used to gain access to and recruit members of the target population as program participants and how successful were they? 5.1 Describe the project recruitment strategy to reach the target population. 

Qualitative Grant 

application, implementation plan, project officials 
Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

5.2 Which elements of the plan have been implemented? Qualitative Implementation 

plan, project officials 

5.3 Which elements of the plan have not been implemented? Why? 

Qualitative Implementation 

plan, project officials 

5.4 Which elements of the plan have been successful in recruiting members of the target population? Why? 

Qualitative, Quantitative 

Implementation plan, project officials 

5.5 Which elements of the plan have not been successful in recruiting members of the target population? Why? 

Qualitative, Quantitative 

Project officials 

5.6 How does the grantee intended to change the recruitment strategy, if it has been unsuccessful? 

Qualitative Project officials 

6. What types of training, employment, and gang suppression programs were provided to the target population? What were the intensity, duration, and quality of these programs? 6.1 For each project component, discuss what services were provided project participants? 

Qualitative Project officials 

6.2 What was the intensity, duration, and quality of these programs? 

Qualitative, Quantitative 

Client records, project officials, clients, periodic reports 

6.3 Which services succeeded? Why? Qualitative, 

Quantitative 

Client records, project officials, clients, periodic reports 

6.4 Which services failed? Why? Qualitative, 

Quantitative 

Clients records, project officials, clients, 

periodic 
Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

reports 

7. 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? 7.1 What steps has the project taken to ensure continuation of the integrated services and activities after project funding ends? 

Qualitative Implementation 

plans, project officials 

7.2 What is the likelihood that these efforts will succeed? Qualitative Project 

officials, project partners 

7.3 What barriers to sustainability does the project face? Qualitative Project officials 7.4 Describe and discuss the stable funding streams that support the activities of the project’s partners. 

Qualitative Project officials 

7.5 Describe the evaluation benchmarks of the system that are designed into the program structure that justify continuation of the project. 

Qualitative Implementation 

plans, project officials 

7.6 Describe the local evaluation processes used to assess project effectiveness. 

Qualitative Implementation 

plans, project officials 

7.7 What additional resources have been made available to targeted youth as a result of the project? 

Qualitative Project officials 

7.8 What would target youth lose if the project were to end? Qualitative Project 

officials; project partners 

8. In what ways do employment and training projects serving youth who have been in the criminal justice system or who are at risk of such involvement differ from traditional approaches to serving youth? 8.1 Discuss how the project has modified/altered employment and trainin

g approaches to serve 

youth who have been in the 

Qualitative Project officials 
Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

juvenile justice system or who were at risk of criminal involvement. 8.2 How effective have these efforts been? Qualitative, 

Quantitative 

Project officials 

8.3 In what ways have they succeeded. Qualitative, 

Quantitative 

Project officials 

8.4 In what ways have they not succeeded? Why? Qualitative Project 

officials; project partners 

9. Data Collection Systems 9.1 Describe the project’s system for collecting and maintaining data on the project’s clients. 

Qualitative Project officials 

9.2 Does the project collect and maintain administrative data on clients as required by the DOL? 

Quantitative Project reports, 

MIS or comparable data collection system 

10. Continuous Improvement 10. 1 Describe the project’s mechanism for continuous improvement. 

Qualitative Implementation 

plans, project officials 

10.2 Describe the feedback/support assistance the project receives. 

Qualitative Implementation 

plans, project officials 

10.3 Discuss how the feedback/support assistance has 

enhanced the project’s performance. 

Qualitative Project officials 

10.4 Do client records data adequately document project results and accomplishments to 

provide a learnin

g ex

perience 

Qualitative, Quantitative 

Project reports, client records, 
Questions/Sub-questions Type of Data Data Sources 

for the workforce development system, DOL, and DOJ? MIS or 

comparable data collection system 
APPENDIX C 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project Round Two Field Guide, 

Third Visit 

Context a. Possible dimensions to explore: b. Race, ethnicity, gender c. Gangs, crime, violence d. Industries with entry level jobs e. Political, social changes (new elections; 

gentrification; new low-income housing) 

1.0 Describe any changes in community context within wh

Demonstration operates since the last evaluation visit. 

1.1 Are there changes in any of the risk or protective factor
C-2 

Possible dimensions to explore (PMM 6): a. Delivers and coordinates services. b. Coordinates services; sub-contracts 

delivery. 

c. Sub-contracts both and remains as coach, 

facilitator. 

d. Sub-contracts and intervenes when needed. 

3.1 Describe the changes in grantees’ (or you organization

the last evaluation visit. How long will the project Demonstration funds?

a. Grantee is a One-Stop. b. The One-Stop is an active partner. c. Clients go to the One-Stop for assistance. d. The project is not connected to the OneStop. 

3.4 What is the involvement of the project with the local On

services do the Demonstration clients receive? 

a. Grantee is part of the Justice system. b. Justice system is an active partner. c. Justice system refers youth to the project. d. Justice system provides aftercare or other 

direct services to project youth. 

3.6 What is the involvement of the project with the Justice sy

Demonstration clients receive. 
Explore the nature of the relationship (PMM 2, 5, 6, 7): a. Active part of advisory committee b. Had previous relationship with grantee c. Receives fee for services (voucher) d. Has a sub-contract with DOL funds e. Combination DOL and leveraged funds Domains: 

- Justice - Workforce 

- Education - Substance Abuse - Mental Health - Housing - Route 

Counseling 

- Recreation 

- Employers - Youth & 

Families 

3.2 Have there been any changes in partners or their roles sin

A. PARTNERS AS OF 

THE SECOND VISIT 

CHANGES IN DOMAINS 

OF SERVICE 

B. NEW PARTNERS DOMAIN 
C-4 

3.5 Which partners bring resources, funds or in-kind, to th

funding streams supporting the project beyond DOL De

contributions of these partners? 

Explore (PMM 3, 5, 6): a. All under one roof b. Service provider visits project officer to 

deliver services 

c. Route counselor accompanies youth to 

service 

d. Youth receives voucher and makes own 

contact 

e. Youth given name and contact info and 

goes alone 

6.2 How are youth referred to the project? Do all the referr

they receive services? 
Explore (PMM C.I.): a. What are your numeric goals? 

1. Are you meeting them? 2. Explain why/why not. 3. Are you serving more/fewer youth than 

before the grant? 

4. How many are you currently serving? 

b. Are you recruiting the youth you intended 

to? 1. Who are they? 2. Explain why/why not. 3. Are you reaching youth that you did not 

before the grant? 

4. Who are you still not reaching? 

c. How are you recruiting the youth? d. Are you meeting the needs of youth as you 

have assessed them? 1. Explain why/why not. 

e. What is the age distribution? 

5.0/8.2 Describe the youth the project recruits into the project

Explore (PMM C.I.): a. Which groups are persisting and which are 

not? 

b. What are the barriers to youth persisting? c. What works in helping them progress? d. How many younger youth are staying in 

school? 

e. How many out-of-school youth are working 

on their GEDs? 

f. How many youth are getting jobs? g. Do the partners complement each other’s 

efforts to help youth progress? 

h. What strategies are new for your project? 

5.1/8.2 What strategies are you using to keep enrolled youth What percentage of enrolled youth receives services? 
C-6 

Explore (PMM C.I.): a. What strategies seem to work? 

1. Are the youth given incentives for 

attendance? 

2. For progress? 

b. What have you tried that doesn’t work? c. Do you have success with one group more 

than others, e.g., girls vs. boys, African Americans vs. Latinos or Asians? 

5.2/8.2 What strategies have you used to improve youth

education, skills and behaviors? 
5.3/8.2 What strategies have you used to connect youth to dru

interventions when these services have been included in t

Explore (PMM C.I.): a. What portion of your enrolled clients is 

active? 

b. Do you have a termination policy?c. Do you “hand off” the youth to a person 

or project (vs. just letting them go)? 

6.4/8.4 How successful has your project been in assisting yout

goals, e.g., GED completion, employment, etc.? What peprogram before completing his/her ISS? 
C-8 

6.6 In what kinds of employment are the youth finding jobs

6.1 What services are available to participants? a. Assessments 

Which Domains Responsible 

Organization 

Timing Instruments 
b. Individualized Service Plan 

Which Domains Responsible 

Organization 

How Does Youth Participate? 

Does Family Participate? 

c. Route counseling 

Responsible Organization 

Ratio Frequency of 

Contact 

Service Team Contact 

Location 
C-10 

d. Work Readiness 

Responsible Organization 

Curriculum Activities Duration Intensity 

e. Job Placement 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity Job Types 
f. Job Retention 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity Frequency 

Follow-up 

g. Alternative Sentencing 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity 
C-12 

h. Aftercare 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity Follow-up Partners 

Contact? 

i. Community Service 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? 
j. Anti-gang Support 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact

k. Education Academic 

Responsible Organization(s) 

Activities Duration Intensity Levels Partners 

Contact? 
C-14 

l. Education Vocational/Occupational 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity OJT Partners 

Contact? 

m. Substance Abuse 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact
n. Mental health 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact

o. Health 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact
C-16 

p. Housing 

Responsible Organization 

Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact

Explore (PMM C.I.): a. Are justice and workforce needs being 

met? 

b. Are mental health, substance abuse needs 

being met (not just services offered)? 

c. Are health and housing issues being 

resolved? 

d. Are educational needs being met? e. Are sports and recreational needs being 

met? 

f. Which of these services are well-integrated 

and which are piecemeal? 

g. What of all these strategies is new for your 

project? 

h. Do services vary by age? i. What remain the challenges in meeting 

client needs? 

6.3/8.3 How successful is your project in providing an arr

needs of your clients? 
6.5 What are the ways you coordinate services among par

deliver services to youth in a seamless way? 
C-18 

Explore (PMM DATA): a. How are service delivery data collected? b. Are persistence/absence data kept? c. How are data maintained and verified? d. Who prepares reports? e. Who receives reports? f. How are data used? 

9. How does the project document the services the 

recommended but receives)? (Please bring back disks o

youth, services received, persistence, outcomes, etc.) 
Explore (PMM 2, 5, 6): a. Diversity of skills: 

education, mental health, etc. 

b. Professionally 

prepared: MSW, BA, drug counseling certificate, etc. 

c. Cultural match: 

race, gender, etc. 

d. Experience match: 

former gang member, grew up in neighborhood, etc. 

e. Which positions 

remain unfilled and how will they be recruited? 

f. What is your 

experience with turnover? 

g. How is the staff 

evaluated? 

h. To whom does the 

staff report? 

i. What is the caseload 

for each route counselor (case manager)? 

j. What changes in 

staffing are being made/will be made as DOL funds are depleted? 

4.1 What changes have there been in staffing since the last visit? Number of DOL-funded staff involved: __________. 

Name Role Agency FT/PT Paid with 

demonstration 

funds 

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 
C-20 

Explore (PMM C.I.): a. Content of project training b. Are training sessions formally scheduled? 

1. How often? 

c. Who is included in training? 

1. Cross-agency? 2. Bi-level? 3. Cross-domain? 

d. Who does the training? e. Are staff trained to use Federal Bonding 

or the Work Opportunity Tax Credit in helping youth get jobs? 

4.2 What additional project (not agency) staff training h

visit? 
Explore (PMM 3, 5, 6): a. What is the stakeholders’ common vision? b. What are the stakeholders’ common 

objectives? 

c. Have members developed common 

application and other forms? 

d. Do they use common terminology for 

program components, clients, etc.? 

e. Have they used common data points and 

data collection and reporting processes? 

f. Are workforce and justice involved in a 

significant way? 

g. Have employers been involved? h. Do you continue to include all the service 

components required by DOL: 

i. Assessments (which?) _____ j. Route counseling (ratio?) _____ k. Work readiness _____ l. Job placement _____ m. Job retention _____ n. Alternative sentencing _____ o. Aftercare _____ p. Community service _____ q. Anti-gang support _____ r. Education - academic _____ s. Education – vocational/  occupational _____ t. Substance abuse _____ u. Mental health _____ v. Health _____ w. Housing _____ x. Recreation _____ y. Mentoring _____ 

2.1 What changes have you made in the project plan since t

want to be able to say your project has accomplished depleted? 
C-22 

Explore (PMM 1, 3, 6, DATA, C.I.): a. Who does the planning? b. Are youth or parents involved at all? c. Are employers involved at all? d. Is the leadership using data to refine the 

plan? 

e. Is the project planning for sustainability? f. Are front-line workers involved in 

planning? 

g. Who should be part of planning and is 

not? 

h. Are community leaders engaged with the 

planning for sustainability? 

2.2 Describe how your project is planning for the time after DO
Explore (PMM C.I.): a. Which partners are likely to stay together 

and which are not? 

b. Which partners still need to be recruited? c. What benefits do the partners see for longterm alliances? d. What resources can your partners bring to 

clients? 

e. What resources are you still looking for? f. Is one partner the hub or connector? How 

does such a partner hold the coalition together? 

3.3/7.1 How successful has your project been coalitions/partnerships whose members will continue to woyouth?

3.5 Do the partners meet regularly? Are they involved in the su
C-24 

Explore (PMM 6, 7, C.I.): a. Is there a vision for the post-DOL services 

to the target population? 

b. Is there a plan for sustainability? c. Who needs to support the plan for it to 

happen? 1. Are they engaged with the project? 2. Is there a strategy for getting and 

keeping them engaging? 

d. What is your “case” for sustainability? e. What are the barriers to sustainability? f. Where would on-going project activities 

best be lodged? 1. Are the key stakeholders open to this 

arrangement? 

7.2 Which components of your project are likely to contin

which are not? 

Explore (PMM 5, 6, DATA): a. Are all the outcomes positive? b. How do the outcomes compare to the 

situation before the grant? 

c. How do you explain the outcomes you 

observe? 

d. What distinguishes the strategies you are 

using from traditional ones? 

e. What challenges do you need to address to 

achieve the outcomes you want for the youth? 

10.1/8.5 What outcomes have you documented for your proje

outcomes as well as client outcomes, such as strong, new p
Patterns a. Youth characteristics b. Industry focus for training c. Involvement of the schools community d. Completion of GED and Work Readiness e. Having a mentor f. Previous involvement with the Justice 

system 

g. In school youth compared to out-of-school 

youth 

10.6 Are there patterns to observed outcomes? 

10.7 Do you have any evidence that delinquent behaviors 

project youth who have received services? 
C-26 

Explore (PMM 3, 7, DATA): a. Are there local evaluation efforts 

underway? 

b. Who is taking responsibility for building 

the case? 

c. What resources in the community could 

help? 

d. Have you produced any evaluation reports 

to-date? 

e. Who receives data reports locally? f. Do any partners use the data? 

9.2 How are you using project data to support your case for su10.5 Are the civic and public communities aware that the 

ending? Has the project received pledges of support from 
Explore (PMM 7): a. Which organization(s) will take 

responsibility for serving youth offenders and youth at risk of court involvement? 

b. Will project sustainability have 

employers’ support?

10.3 Have you planned to secure the responsibilities for deliv

population with specific organizations or agencies at thWhich organization will take responsibility for route coun

Explore (PMM DATA, C.I.): a. Does the grantee give or ask someone to 

give feedback on project progress? 

b. Does anyone review and critique reports? c. Has the project used the previous 

evaluation reports for self-assessment? 

d. Has the project used TA? Was it helpful? e. What would have made TA or evaluation 

reports more useful? 

f. Are clients taking more responsibility for 

their improvement? 

g. Have you used the Public Management 

Model in shaping your project? 

h. Was it useful? 

10.2 Describe the assessment, feedback, or course correction 

your project has in place, that is, its continuous improvem
C-28 

10.4 How has the project changed because of the continuous 

Closeout question: Explore: a. How did Demonstration funds affect your 

community re: finding employment for youth at livable wages and reducing youth crime? 

b. Did you feel well supported? c. Was there anything you would have done 

differently? 

11.0 Is there any other feedback you would give DOL or us 

this demonstration? 
APPENDIX D 

Third Evaluation Site Visit Reports 

Chicago ........................................................................................................................... D-1 

Cincinnati...................................................................................................................... D-17 

Colorado........................................................................................................................ D-27 

Des Moines ................................................................................................................... D-41 

Erie................................................................................................................................ D-55 

Hartford......................................................................................................................... D-67 

New York City.............................................................................................................. D-81

Pittsburgh ...................................................................................................................... D-91 

West Palm Beach ........................................................................................................ D-103 

D-1 

 Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Process Evaluation 

Final Report Summary for 

Chicago, IL 

Project Description

Context 

A consortium of 40 community-based organizations formed by Goodwill Industries 

provides the framework for Chicago’s Youth Demonstration Offender Project, which is 

called YouthLink. The grantee is the Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development 

(MOWD), which subcontracted management of the project’s day-to-day operations to 

Goodwill Industries of Metropolitan Chicago, Inc. 

The project uses a grassroots approach to planning, delivery and coordination of 

comprehensive services to youth offenders and youth who are at risk of court 

involvement. Project participants, who range from 14-17 years old, come from the city’s 

Westside. 

The project links service providers, subcontractors to Goodwill, and their referral 

networks and resources to deliver what the project calls a holistic response to project 

participants. Although many organizations provide similar services to the targeted youth 

throughout Chicago, the project differs in that it attempts to provide services through an 

integrated delivery system. As a result, partners provide a seamless continuum of services 

that includes: education, career preparation, route counseling, support, and other health 

and human services interventions to meet the needs of participants. Consortium members 

believe that this approach provides the best opportunity for youth to develop healthy 

lifestyles and become responsible, productive members of their communities. 

YouthLink is a complex project in the sense that it is the only Demonstration project that 

receives overlapping DOL funds under two rounds. Initially the Round Two project was 

to serve youth both younger and older youth, 14-24 years old. That model changed, 

however, when Goodwill Industries became a Round Three grantee in the summer of 

2002. At that time youth were divided between the two grantees. The Round Two 

project was to serve 14-17 year olds and the Round Three project was to serve 14-17 year 

olds. By October 2003 the Round Three had expended most of its grant funds and the 

Round Two project resumed serving both younger and older youth. (At the time of the 

third evaluation site visit, however, responsibilities were still divided: Round Two 

targeted and provided services for mostly younger youth, while Round Three targeted 

and provided services mostly for older youth.) 
D-2 

This shifting arrangement in itself has caused some confusion about how to assign and 

handle youth (double counting in some instances, for example); how to allocate staff 

dollars and responsibilities; how to keep track of the youth (at the time of the third site 

visit in October 2003, the Round Two project had remaining funds and the grantee had 

requested a no-cost extension; the Round Three project, however, had spent most of its 

funds and was coming to what appeared to be a premature ending). 

The City of Chicago targeted three police districts – the tenth, eleven, and fifteenth – for 

its project. These districts, where crime and poverty rates are among the city’s highest, 

comprise the communities of Austin and North and South Lawndale. The neighborhoods 

are part of a larger Enterprise Zone that is on the city’s Westside, about two miles from 

the city’s heart. 

The three target communities consist mostly of homes and there are no major industries 

located there. There are, however, several small shopping areas with some services, such 

as fast food restaurants, groceries, liquor stores and storefront churches. According to the 

most recent available data: 

• There were about 300,000 residents in these three neighborhoods; 

• 11% (32,628) of residents were white; 

• 68% (199,598) of residents were black; and 

• 28% (83,610) of residents were Hispanic; 

According to the city’s application for DOL grant funds: 

• Unemployment in the target area is high: 14% in 1998 (most recent data); 

• the four-year dropout rate at Austin High School in the target area is about 33%. 

In addition, about 59% of its students are chronically truant; 

• the median household income in this area (1990 census) was $13,712; 

• both Austin and the North Lawndale communities have significant gang 

problems. In 1999 there were more than 6,479 gang-related crimes recorded in 

these communities. The most prevalent gang-related activities included 

possession of drugs, simple battery and aggravated battery with a handgun; and 

• in 2000, 681 youth and young adults from the eleventh and fifteenth police 

districts were on probation. 

In general, the feeling among project staff has been that good paying jobs are scarce in 

these neighborhoods and that most project youth will have to go outside of their 

neighborhoods to find them. During the past decade, however, these neighborhoods have 
D-3 

begun to experience some revitalization. According to project staff, the city’s community 

policing program has improved police response and coordination to help make them 

safer. 

According to police, violent crime in both the eleventh and fifteenth districts had declined 

more than 30% since 1995 while crime in the tenth district had declined from 30% to 

15% during the same period. Police are building a large substation in the South Lawndale 

community, which should help deter crime and make the neighborhood safer. 

 

Transportation services, including rapid transit and bus systems, in the target area are 

good, which makes traveling throughout the city convenient. During the summer months, 

MOWD provided transportation passes to youth in the city’s summer jobs programs in 

which they work four hours a day, five days a week. 

According to project staff, the crime rates in these communities are perhaps the result of 

barriers that are both systemic and individual. These include, for example, gaps in 

providing services to residents and a lack of educational attainment or drug abuse that 

prevent many residents from gaining employment, which in itself offers the best 

alternative to crime. City officials estimate that nearly 70% of young adult males living 

in the North Lawndale community have had some contact with the corrections system 

and are at a great risk of not participating in the workforce. According to the city’s 

application for the Demonstration grant, “...without the assistance of comprehensive 

programs designed to address their problems, it is unlikely that these young people will 

ever be able to competitively enter the workforce.” 

The city’s public school system faced many difficulties related to the low socio-economic 

circumstances of several of its neighborhoods. In October 2003, for example, the 

Chicago Tribune reported that a study by the Alternative Schools Network, an association 

of independent schools, found: 

• Almost 16% of Chicago teens, ages 16 to 19 were not enrolled in school and did 

not have jobs; 

• The teens were likely to be minorities since almost 20% of blacks and 18% of 

Latinos, ages 16-19, are not in school, compared to 7% white; and 

• The city’s dropout rates for 16-to-19 year olds were 23% for Latinos; 15% for 

blacks; and 7.5% for whites. 

The executive director of the Alternative Schools Network said that unemployed, undereducated teens have fallen through the cracks and that they need more options to further 

their education and gain job skills. Dropouts tend to earn less, have a harder time finding 

jobs, and are more likely to be incarcerated than high school graduates. Policymakers 

point to the need for more alternative programs to keep students in school and to make 

sure they graduate. 
D-4 

At the time of the third evaluation site visit in the fall of 2003, the context in which the 

project operated had not changed significantly during the past year. Unemployment in the 

Chicago area had increased slightly from the citywide 6.8% figure reported at the time of 

the second site visit, according to MOWD staff. And, the mayor had convened a task 

force to look at the effects of jail/prison overcrowding and subsequent early parole. 

Destruction of the Cabrini-Green low-income housing on the edge of the target area had 

caused an influx into the target neighborhoods of displaced residents seeking housing. 

Perhaps as a result of this, project case managers reported that crime rates, especially 

those involving serious crimes, had risen in 2003. 

In recent years there have been greater attempts in the project target neighborhoods to 

better coordinate resources and approaches and become better organized, however. U.S. 

Rep. Danny Davis, whose congressional district falls in the target neighborhoods, has 

focused on improving living conditions and reducing crime on the Westside as well as 

training and educating ex-offenders. 

Chicago’s political establishment appeared supportive of efforts to help troubled youth 

who were either offenders or at risk of court involvement. According to project staff, the 

mayor has focused on establishing several jobs programs for youth. Project staff 

estimated that in 2001, as a result of the mayor’s efforts, the city managed to help place 

17,000 youth in jobs, including temporary summer work. The state legislature in 2003 

passed legislation to expunge records of parolees to remove barriers that hinder them, 

especially their ability to find work. 

At the time of the third evaluation site visit, case managers at Latino Youth and 

Scholarship & Guidance Association, which are Goodwill subcontractors, reported that 

they had not noticed significant contextual changes since the second site visit. 

They believed, however, that more youth were becoming involved with gangs, although 

the YMCA gang intervention unit, which is stationed at Latino Youth and receives funds 

through the Demonstration, has experienced some successes in deterring and extracting 

youth from gangs. In all, the unit works directly with 4 project youth and more than 50 

others who are not enrolled in the project. 

Project Organization 

Chicago’s project changed several times during the Demonstration period. At the time of 

the first evaluation site visit in March 2002, the project had just begun to take shape 

following more than six months of delays. The project was in the process of developing a 

new and detailed implementation plan and had benefited from technical assistance to get 

it going. 

The new implementation plan called for MOWD to provide broad oversight of the 

project, with Goodwill Industries, which had assembled a consortium of 40 members, 

managing day-to-day project activities. About 13 consortium partners were to provide 
D-5 

services for fees under subcontracts with Goodwill. Route counseling services were to be 

provided by Project C.I.T.Y., a consortium member. According to the plan, youth were 

to follow this path: 

• Recruitment of youth was to be primarily through the city’s Juvenile Probation 

Department. Project C.I.T.Y. was to be notified of a participant’s release from a 

correctional facility and then schedule a meeting with the youth either at the service 

provider’s facility or elsewhere. 

• After referrals were made to the project, staff at Goodwill and Project C.I.T.Y. were 

to process the youth for intake and assessment. Assessments and screenings, using 

both face-to-face interviews and standardized assessment instruments, were to be 

used to help determine a participant’s personal and training needs as well as career 

interests. This would ensure that participants received referrals to appropriate 

services. 

• Individual Service Strategies (ISS) were to be prepared for each project participant, 

taking into account a youth’s life experiences, academic proficiencies, cognitive 

assets and barriers that he/she faced. 

• Even after a project participant was assigned to another agency, Project C.I.T.Y. staff 

were to continue to serve as a liaison between the juvenile justice system, the 

participant, the referring agency and the service provider to ensure that the participant 

receives intensive aftercare, route counseling, and participant monitoring. 

Assessments of youth were to continue while they moved through the project. 

Services were to be added or dropped, as needed. Service providers were to be paid 

as subcontractors by Goodwill. 

• Participants also were to be provided supportive services such as drug and alcohol 

treatment, mental health services, adult mentoring, tutoring, child care, transportation 

assistance, counseling and other essential services to help ensure that they succeed in 

the project. 

• If a participant unexpectedly left or disappeared from the project a crisis intervention 

team consisting of partners were to be notified so they could become involved. 

Under a subcontract, Leonard Communications Associates was to operate a 24-hour 

hotline that youth could use if they needed help, such as if they were arrested. When 

they received a call, Hotline staff members were to have access to a participant’s 

computerized case history file so that they could call the appropriate agency to 

provide participants with immediate help. 

Between the second evaluation site visit, which was conducted in November 2002, and 

the third evaluation site visits, which were conducted in September and October 2003, the 

project had undergone several important changes: 
D-6 

• The original project director had been dismissed from his job, apparently because of 

budget difficulties and a staff reduction at Goodwill. 

• The original route counseling unit, Project C.I.T.Y., had been dismissed, apparently 

because it had not adequately fulfilled its responsibilities, according to MOWD staff. 

• The number of subcontractors providing services had been winnowed from about 13 

to about nine. 

As a replacement for Project C.I.T.Y., two other agencies had been given subcontracts to 

provide route counseling services. These were Latino Youth and Scholarship & Guidance 

Association, which already were consortium members. New procedures called for youth 

to be assigned to one of the agencies based upon Zip Codes where the youth lived. 

Another major change was that with the granting of DOL funds to Goodwill for the 

Round Three Demonstration youth were to be assigned to the project according to age 

group, with the Round Two project serving primarily younger youth, those 17 and under. 

The project’s components and client flow remained essentially unchanged, however, 

although there were some refinements. 

Education and Training 

Youth 16 years of age and under are required by Illinois state law to attend school; many 

youth served by the project fall into this category and attend alternative schools or regular 

school, if they qualify. Project youth who do not qualify for assignment to regular school, 

or who request assignment to an alternative school, are assigned to a consortium member, 

such as Latino Youth, that provides schooling in an alternative setting. 

Although the project now deals only with younger youth, older youth who enrolled in the 

project before the start of the Round Three project remained with the Round Two project. 

Therefore, a few older youth, those 17 and older and not attending school, were referred 

to other service providers, including One-Stop centers, for training and help finding jobs. 

If they needed GED classes, they were referred to consortium members who provided 

them. Both Latino Youth and Instituto del Progresso Latino, another consortium member, 

offered GED programs, for example. Youth received job preparation services and 

training while they are enrolled in the project, primarily through the Youth Employment 

Service, Inc. (Y.E.S.), which also is a consortium member. 

Aftercare 

According to the initial project plan, Project C.I.T.Y., which specialized in providing 

aftercare services, was to work with probation officers and court staff to ensure that 

project youth received suitable and appropriate aftercare services. This component of the 

project, however, was not implemented, apparently because probation officers were 

unhappy with services provided by Project C.I.T.Y., according to project staff. 
D-7 

Recruitment and Retention in the Program 

According to the redesigned implementation plan approved by DOL in March 2002, 

project youth were to come from several sources: 

• The Nancy B. Jefferson Alternative School for students who are involved with the 

Circuit Court of Cook County as detainees, on probation or on parole; 

• Corrections facilities in the Lawndale community; and 

• Street outreach efforts by participating agencies and organizations that will seek 

to identify youth as potential participants. 

Project staff members believed that a large number of youth who became participants 

would be court involved and ordered to participate in the project. Potential participants 

were to be screened in coordination with probation officers before they were assigned, 

however, to determine whether they were suitable for the project. A requirement was that 

participants must live in the neighborhoods that are targeted for the project. Those youth 

who were deemed not suitable to participate in the project were to be referred to other 

agencies, including One-Stop centers, depending upon their circumstances and needs. 

By the time of the second evaluation site visit in November 2002 it was apparent that 

recruitment efforts were not working as planned. The project’s staff had not been able to 

develop a solid working relationship with probation officers and confidentially concerns 

kept case manager from accessing youth and their case files before youth were released 

from confinement facilities. According to project staff, Project C.I.T.Y. also was not 

properly managing those youth who had been recruited into the project or referred by 

probation officers. Complaints from both service providers and probation officers 

reportedly included: recruitment of youth who lived outside the target area; most older 

youth were assigned to receive only pre-employment services, even when they were not 

at that stage in their development; case managers did not follow through or keep track of 

youth enrolled in the project. It appears that these initial problems with the route 

counseling unit may have hindered the project, possibly keeping it from reaching its goal 

of recruiting 165 youth. By October 2003, the project had recruited 84 youth and 

enrolled 76 of them. 

By the fall of 2003 the project had reached out again to probation officers and, it 

appeared, that the POs, convinced that the new route counseling units were handling 

youth properly, were eager once again to refer youth to the project. During a meeting of 

probation officer supervisors and the staffs of MOWD and Goodwill the consensus was 

that the project should approach the courts and ask judges to order offenders to the 

projects as an alternative sentencing program. 
D-8 

Services Offered by Project 

The project used a decentralized approach to deliver comprehensive services to project 

youth. By the time of the third evaluation site visit, the contact with the original route 

counseling unit had been cancelled and replaced by two new route counseling units, from 

among consortium partners. The two subcontractors were Latino Youth, which served 

primarily Hispanic youth in the South Lawndale area, and Scholarship and Guidance 

Association, which served primarily African American youth in the North Lawndale and 

Austin communities. Youth are assigned to one of the agencies based upon the Zip Codes 

where they lived. 

Route counselors at agencies where youth were assigned also provide some counseling 

services for individuals and families. The route counselors use an Internet-based tracking 

system to track youth as they progress through the assessment and intake process and as 

they are assigned to other service providers. Each service provider enters case notes into 

the system. 

In general, youth receive one intervention at a time, which in many cases is assignment to 

an educational component. Most youth, for example, are enrolled in an alternative school, 

such as Latino Youth. In the case of Latino Youth, youth who do not function at the fifth 

grade level are enrolled in a self-paced computer program of study until they reach the 

appropriate level of competency, which allows them to enroll in the alternative school. 

Some youth, however, receive multiple interventions, depending upon their immediate 

and pressing needs, which frequently includes substance abuse counseling. 

Challenges Involving Services 

The project has had difficulty connecting with the workforce development system, 

specifically getting the support of the local Workforce Investment Board. At the time of 

the first evaluation site visit, project staff reported there was a good deal of reluctance by 

the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) to serve this population of youth, who often have 

staggering educational and training deficiencies as well as personal needs, such as family 

problems, and personal issues such as those involving drug and alcohol abuse – all which 

limit their possibilities for acquiring good paying jobs with career potential. 

Some project youth also reject efforts to help them with substance abuse and mental 

health treatment, according to staff. The project’s staff, for example, has found it 

difficult to get some youth to admit that they use drugs and need treatment; many youth 

don’t consider marijuana a drug. According to staff, many youth are immature and route 

counselors must make extra effort to meet participants on their level to understand the 

youths’ frame of reference and be effective. 

Assessments 

Assessments/screenings are done on youth entering the project to determine their assets, 

risks, and needs. These include needs for drug and alcohol abuse, mental health, 
D-9 

counseling and treatment as well as for education, workforce development, and reentry 

services. 

Route Counseling (Case Management) 

Individual service strategies are prepared for each youth enrolled in the project based 

upon each youth’s assessed needs and individual goals. Route counselors include youth, 

their families, probation officers and services providers in the development of individual 

services strategies. Through its consortium of service providers, the project can meet any 

conceivable need of project youth. 

The route counseling approach used by the two case management units focuses on the 

most-pressing needs of each youth, often one intervention at a time. Route counselors 

called this “taking baby steps” toward realization of individual goals. For about one-half 

of the youth in the project, this usually consists of schooling of some type, as indicated by 

the number of youth receiving schooling. Youth with multiple and immediate needs, 

however, receive several services in tandem, if required. 

Workforce Development Services 

Because most youth served by the Round Two project fall into the 14-17 age range, these 

services consist mainly of pre-employment training, or soft skills training, that are 

designed age-appropriate and serve to introduce the youth to the world of work. Latino 

Youth offers periodic workshops to youth that address topics such as how to dress for 

work, how to prepare a resume, and how to interview for a job. The Youth Employment 

Service, Inc. (Y.E.S.) provides these services to older project youth who have been 

assigned to them. The main focus, however, is to keep youth in school and to provide 

them support services that address their immediate needs, such as drug and alcohol abuse 

treatment and other services to help them deal with personal and family issues. 

Reentry Services 

The project offers all reentry services, which are provided primarily by consortium 

members. The project has a active gang intervention program. Demonstration funds pay 

for one position in the YMCA’s seven-member gang intervention unit that operates out of 

the Latino Youth facility, which is in neutral territory between two large gangs in the 

South Lawndale area. At the time of the third evaluation site visit, the unit was serving 

about four Demonstration youth, counseling them and, in some cases, helping them to 

become extricated from gangs. 

Non-routine Services 

Health care, drug abuse and mental health treatment, and other services are provided by 

consortium partners whenever youth needs are identified. Emergency housing, if needed 

by a participant, is provided by Latino Youth, which operates a small residential facility 

for the homeless. If necessary, Goodwill provides youth with vouchers to purchase 
D-10 

clothing. The project also provides bus passes; the YMCA provides recreational services 

as well as community service projects for clients. 

Public Management Model 

Organizational Attributes 

Three strengths are particularly worthy of note: 

The first strength is grantee involvement (Organizational Attribute No. 4). The 

MOWD staff provide close guidance and supervision of the subcontractor. Since the 

project’s inception, they have worked hard to help the project connect with other 

governmental agencies, especially the juvenile justice system. 

Early on the MOWD’s commissioner noted that the original project design was 

inadequate and needed to be more comprehensive, if it was to work properly. As a result, 

MOWD reached out to Goodwill to manage the project’s day-to-day operation and to 

Goodwill’s consortium of 40 partners to provide comprehensive services to target youth. 

Since then the project’s design has been continuously strengthened and the project itself 

has been refined to meet changing needs and address pressing project issues, such as 

when it had difficulties with the original route counseling unit and the resulting 

reluctance of probation officers to refer youth to the project. Throughout the 

Demonstration period the MOWD staff has remained engaged with the project, ensuring 

fiscal accountability and that the project is progressing toward its implementation 

objectives and goals. 

Staff at MOWD also serve on the project’s advisory board, including on its sustainability 

subcommittee, which is considering ways to help the project continue after DOL grant 

funding ends. At the time of the third evaluation site visit, MOWD and Goodwill were 

working together, hoping to tap into Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds to sustain 

the project and also convince the city of the need to establish two One-Stop centers for 

youth in the Demonstration target areas. 

The second strength is the project’s strong effort to develop a community 

support/network (Organizational Attribute No. 3). By all appearances, MOWD’s 

commissioner has worked hard to mobilize the MOWD staff as well as Chicago’s 

political community in support of the project. The commissioner frequently touts the 

project at public forums, news conferences, and in speeches – as does the city’s mayor. 

This strong community-wide effort also has gained support for the project from the 

congressmen , U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, who represents the police districts that constitutes 

the project’s target area. His support is key to the project’s success. Davis is particularly 

sensitive to the needs of ex-offenders and troubled youth and supports efforts in 

Congress. 
D-11 

MOWD also has made great strides to involve the Cook County’s juvenile justice system 

in the project and its efforts to serve the project’s target youth. And as a result of years of 

experience working with community-based organizations, Goodwill has established 

strong grassroots connections throughout Cook County while seeking to spread word of 

the project’s efforts and the needs of youth. Goodwill holds the respect of these various 

organizations, which perhaps is best indicated by its ability to bring a diversity of 

different community and governmental agencies together to create the consortium. 

The third strength is the sharing of information and leadership among partners 

(Organizational Attribute No. 7). A consortium of members, under Goodwill’s 

leadership guides the project. Since the consortium was formed in late 2001 to apply for 

a similar grant, it has developed a common and well-articulated vision to provide services 

to youthful offenders and youth at-risk of court involvement. The fact that consortium 

members generally agree on objectives and goals and appear committed to the project has 

ensured that coordinated and delineated systems and networks provide effective and 

efficient route counseling and service delivery to project participants. This approach also 

allows an individualized approach for serving participants who are assessed upon entry 

and then assigned to an appropriate service provider (a consortium member) that has 

adequate and appropriate experience and expertise. 

Weaknesses included, first, a poor initial plan for the project that delayed and 

complicated implementation of the project early on (Organizational Attribute No. 1)

and, second, the inability of the project to leverage additional funds from sources other 

than DOL (Organizational Attribute No. 6). The project does receive some in-kind 

services from consortium members, however. 

Also, until recently the project has not succeeded in building a strong relationship with 

the juvenile justice system (Organizational Attribute No. 5). Poor performance of the 

initial route counseling unit apparently created distrust among probation officers, who 

stopped referring youth to the project after poor tracking and service delivery to youth 

they had referred. By the time of the third evaluation site visit, however, it appeared that 

MOWD and project staff had regained the confidence of the probation officers and who 

were urging the project staff to approach judges to assign youth to the project as an 

alternative sentencing program. About 90% of referrals to the project now come from 

probation officers. 

Workforce Development Services and Reentry Services 

The project primarily serves younger youth, focusing on educational activities. 

Consortium members provide an array of services, including reentry services, as 

identified by youth and their route counselors. 
D-12 

Data Collection and Analysis 

The project has an impressive data collection system. Youth are tracked via a web-based 

route counseling system. Case managers also maintain hard copies of files. (In the fall of 

2003 the system had been disabled for about a month and route counselors had to track 

youth using paper files.) 

Each partner has access to the system and can enter case notes on youth. Access to some 

information is restricted, however, and, according to route counselors, this has caused 

some frustration. Route counselors said that they cannot search the database by name or 

by case number. In addition, dates of changes and updates of data are not tracked by the 

system. And, there are some poor quality entries of case notes that make it difficult for 

route counselors to track the youth adequately. At the time of the third evaluation site 

visit, the system still appeared in flux and the project coordinator mentioned that these 

kinds of issues are slowly being resolved. 

Although this information is collected it does not appear that the project uses the 

information other than for tracking youth. The route counseling supervisor at Latino 

Youth, however, said that her organization performs statistical analysis and compiles 

demographic and other information on participants as part of the agencies efforts to 

publicize its programs. 

Continuous Improvement Loop 

Chicago’s project has experienced continuous change since its inception, which indicates 

that the grantee and project staff are sensitive and respond to issues that affect the project. 

The plan originally set forth was not acceptable to the commissioner of MOWD because 

there were too few partnerships involved. As a result, MOWD sought out Goodwill and 

its Consortium of 40 partners. 

At midpoint in the project, the arrangement for route counseling was modified because, 

according to project and MOWD staff, youth were not being managed correctly; there 

was improper recruitment of youth; and youth were being improperly assigned to 

services. As a result, two route counseling units were contracted to provide these services 

to youth, based upon their home Zip Codes. 

In addition, the nature of the project changed when Goodwill received a grant for Round 

3 of the Demonstration. As a result, the focus of the Round 2 project is now on younger 

youth, while the Round 3 project focuses on older youth. 

Chicago’s project depends heavily upon the project’s consortium of partners for 

improvements in how the project operates. Consortium members meet monthly to 

discuss project issues and iron out differences and procedures. Responsibilities for 

meetings rotate among partners as a means to improve cooperation and coordination 

among partners as well as delivery of services to participants. Hosts are expected to give 

a 45-minute presentation to help other consortium members become more familiar with 
D-13 

the capabilities and services provided by the agencies/organizations hosting that month’s 

meeting. 

As mentioned before, the MOWD staff remains very active in monitoring and keeping 

informed about what is going on with the project; staff members use a hands-on approach 

to ensure that the project gets proper help and advice when problem areas are spotted. 

The staff sometimes intervenes to help the project correct deficiencies and improve 

operations. An example of this is the discussion in the challenges section explaining how 

the MOWD staff planned to become involved in trying to resolve issues with the juvenile 

justice system. MOWD staff members also serve on consortium subcommittees, such as 

the one on sustainability, and they actively participate in advisory committee meetings. 

The project also actively seeks technical assistance and uses it to improve project 

operations. Both MOWD and Goodwill staff members involved in the project attend 

seminars and conferences to improve their knowledge base about youth development 

issues and youthful offenders. 

The best example of the continuous improvement process was shown in how the MOWD 

staff handled problems with the initial project design. The commissioner of the agency 

recognized design adequacies early on and took prompt action to correct them by 

broadening the project’s reach and seeking a subcontractor that was better suited to 

handle the day-to-day management of the project. 

Outcomes 

Individual/Client Level 

At the time of the third evaluation site visit, about 31 of 76 (45%) of youth enrolled in the 

project remained active and a large percentage of those youth were in schooling of some 

type: two were in traditional public schools; 14 were in an alternative school such as 

Latino Youth; 12 were enrolled in a pre-literacy self-paced computer program; and two 

others had enrolled in a local college. 

There was some anecdotal evidence that youth enrolled in the project were progressing 

toward goals they had set in their Individual Service Strategies. Persistence in the project 

and in school and progress toward completion of their ISSs were, perhaps, the most 

important indicators of positive outcomes. Perseverance provides evidence, for example, 

that delinquent behaviors have been reduced among those youth receiving services. In 

fact, route counselors reported that feedback from probation officers had been positive, 

which appears to be evidence that project youth were progressing toward their goals. The 

route counselors, however, said that they have little communication with public schools. 

Outcomes, as reported by the site director from Goodwill as of the end of August 2003, 

included: 
D-14 

• 84 youth have been recruited; 76 have been enrolled; 

• 34 youth (45%) were active at the time of the third evaluation site visit; 

• 4 youth were incarcerated 1 violation of probation; others uncertain (12%); 

• 2 youth have completed their educations and have entered college; 

• 12 have been enrolled in Latino Youth’s Computer Credit Program; 

• 14 are enrolled in some type of schooling (41%); 

• 2 youth in the Round 2 project are employed (6%); 

• 4 youth were receiving substance abuse/mental health counseling; 

• 7 youth were in pre-employment/job readiness training with Y.E.S. (21%); and 

• 4 youth were involved with the gang intervention unit 

Younger youth seeking jobs are placed mostly in part-time jobs during the summer, such 

as at grocery stores and other odd jobs with consortium partners; some youth attending 

Latino Youth also are provided part-time work while attending the school. 

Project/System Level 

The MOWD staff believes that the consortium is likely to stay together after grant 

funding ends. Some partners may leave, however, mostly those that are not providing 

direct services. At the time of the third evaluation site visit, the project planned to drop 

the contract for a 24-hour hotline because few youth were using it. In all about five of 

the consortium members were providing services to youth. 

The Goodwill site director agreed that several key partners will continue to work together 

after the grant ends – even if additional funds cannot be found. The partners include: 

Goodwill, the YMCA, Scholarship & Guidance Association, Latino Youth and Juvenile 

Probation. She also said that some education and employment components could 

continue through other funding sources; the project, however, will need to limit 

enrollment, primarily because the youth it serves, who are generally legally involved, 

have greater needs and require more attention. 

Partners will try to absorb youth being served by the project after DOL funds end. The 

project should have enough funds to carry it through June 2004. MOWD has requested, 

and received, a no-cost extension. 

Staff members at MOWD and Goodwill believe that the bigger vision for the project is to 

create such a solid linkage with the Juvenile Justice system that the project becomes 
D-15 

institutionalized as an alternative sentencing option. A second goal is to create youth 

One-Stops in an area where there are few service providers. 

Barriers and Challenges 

A key barrier, as pointed out by the Goodwill staff, are the unrealistic expectations of 

youth themselves. When asked what they want from their experiences in the project, 

many clients claim that they “want a job.” According to staff, many older youth are 

shortsighted in that they often fail to understand the potential that entry-level jobs offer. 

As is the case in other cities where projects are found, placing participants in entry-level 

jobs such as retail or food preparation is not that difficult; but retaining them in those jobs 

has been a major challenge, especially for those participants with low educational 

attainment, drug and mental health issues, and other family and personal problems that 

often overwhelm them. 

An area of greatest need for improvement involves the project’s difficulty connecting 

with the workforce development system (Organizational Attribute No. 5). During the 

second site visit the project manager at Goodwill noted that the project had struggled to 

get the One-Stop delivery system fully involved with project youth. Apparently there is a 

good deal of reluctance by One-Stops to serve this population, whose members often 

have staggering educational and training deficiencies as well as personal needs, such as 

help with family problems and drug and alcohol issues – all of which limit their 

possibilities for acquiring good paying jobs with career potential. 

This situation is hardly unique to Chicago’s project, however. Many other first and 

second round projects faced similar difficulties. And, there are no easy solutions, perhaps 

other than providing even more intensive services and training to help youth overcome 

great difficulties before and after they enter the workforce. These efforts, however, would 

require a much larger amount of money, greater community support, and much more time 

to bring about significant changes to help youth enter the workforce at other than entrylevel jobs in service industries. 

Since Goodwill became grantee for the third round demonstration the situation has been 

somewhat ameliorated. Since August 2002 the second round project no longer has 

recruited older youth, who often need and want jobs above all else. This change in focus 

has allowed the project to concentrate more intensely on the pre-employment, especially 

educational, needs of the younger youth before they are handed off to the third round 

project once they turn 18 and begin to seek work in earnest. If experience holds true, 

connecting the third round project to the One-Stop delivery service system will take 

considerable effort and time if the effort is to be successful. 

The last area concerns delays in implementation that resulted from having a less-thanadequate implementation plan in place early on (Organizational Attribute No. 1). 

Unfortunately, the delay meant that the project did not start recruiting participants until 

May 2002, or about half-way through the grant period. Recruitment continues to lag 

beyond expectations, reaching only about one-half of the project’s initial goal. 
D-16 

It should be pointed out, however, the project has made considerable and remarkable 

progress in recovering the footing that it had lost early on. In summer 2002 Goodwill 

applied for and was awarded funds for the third round of the Demonstration, which 

appears to indicate that Goodwill had learned valuable lessons from the round two 

experience. 

Sustaining the project after grant funds end in June 2004 appears to be a problem for 

Chicago’s project. At the time of the third site visit, no additional pledges of support had 

been offered and the Round Three part of YouthLink had run out of funds early. Latino 

Youth is a trusted mature agency, which may continue to provide some aspects of the 

project, such as route counseling services, even after funding ends. There appears to be a 

consensus among project staff that if YouthLink is to survive, it will need to become an 

alternative sentencing program. 

MOWD’s plan is for Goodwill to go after WIA youth funds. MOWD will issue an RFP 

for grants that will be awarded in July 2004. And, Goodwill and MOWD are working 

together to advocate for development of two youth One-Stop Centers in the target area. 

The MOWD and project also are pushing for a community assessment of the target areas 

to identify resources, and they plan to use the project’s Gang Prevention Advisory Board, 

with its diverse membership, as part of its effort to ensure that the project becomes 

sustainable through highly coordinated service delivery efforts. The partners plan to look 

toward the Juvenile Justice system for additional funds to continue some route counseling 

aspects. Finally, the partners have been trying to increase involvement of additional 

community leaders such as Westside Ministers Association, which has ties to an 

influential alderman and is co-located in the facility where route counselors from 

Scholarship & Guidance work. 
D-17 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Process Evaluation 

Final Report Summary for 

Cincinnati, OH 

Project Description 

Context 

Cincinnati’s Youth Offender Demonstration Project serves Cincinnati and surrounding 

Hamilton County. Hamilton County covers an area of 414 square miles. Cincinnati, the 

county seat, is on the banks of the Ohio River and at the convergence of three states –

Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. According to the 2000 Census, the county population was 

845,303; about 40% of the population (331,285) lived in Cincinnati. While the 

Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area continues to grow, the population of Hamilton 

County itself and – to an even greater extent – the City of Cincinnati is declining. Like 

many large industrial centers in the Northeast and Midwest that have declined since the 

1970s, the area faces hardship, including increased poverty, crime, and low achievement 

in schools. 

Since 2001, when the project began, Cincinnati has had to deal with an economic 

downturn that project representatives believe has not improved for their target population. 

The Cincinnati unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) in July 2003 was 5.1%, up 

from 4.8% in July 2002, while the Ohio rate was up from 5.9% to 6.4%. In addition, 

many people are known to be out of the workforce, and, thus, would not be reflected in 

the rates. The difficult economic situation is seen as adversely affecting the availability 

of jobs for youth, especially youth offenders. 

The educational system is described as not serving the offender population well. For 

example, the school system’s zero tolerance policy regarding violence and drugs is seen 

as making it harder for offender youth to get educational services. Youth offenders are 

more likely to be put “out on the street,” and there are no educational services for them 

while out of school. Vocational education services have been eliminated. Project 

managers believe that tougher testing has also pushed some youth out of school. They 

described the dropout rate as greater than 60% overall and greater than 80% among inner 

city black youth. Fees required to get a diploma are also seen as an obstacle to some 

youth. 

Particularly troubling is the history of racial tensions within the city. In April 2001, the 

police killing of an unarmed black man, the 15th since 1995, set off the city’s worst riots 

in more than three decades. The street protests, police confrontations and vandalism of 

businesses brought national attention to the city. Project staff describe police enforcement 

since the April 2001 riots as having been “on a roller coaster.” There was “almost a work 

stoppage” by police for a year or so, and arrests plummeted. Since March/April 2003, 
D-18 

police have been much more aggressive in enforcement, and the prosecutor’s office has 

become tougher in bringing cases. As a result, by late 2003 there was more community 

awareness of crime--and there were probably more arrests for criminal activity--but this 

was seen as more related to enforcement policies than to the amount of criminal activity. 

Police briefings to project staff suggest that criminal activity has become more violent, 

and younger youth are involved. More females also seem to be engaged in criminal 

activity, while at the same time they may be less likely to be imprisoned, in part because 

there is a lack of facility space for females. Most crime in this population is thought to be 

drug related. The Police Anti-Gang Task Force was dispersed with the assertion that 

gangs are not a problem. But the justice system agrees that there is “neighborhood 

focused” criminal activity and “turf-related activity that is negative in nature.” Youth in 

the project have a keen sense of where it is safe for them to go, and where it is dangerous 

for them to go. 

There are, however, encouraging signs. In January 2002, at the time of the first 

evaluation site visit, the mayor announced a large redevelopment project to clean up what 

has been a dividing line between east and west, between the poor and more affluent parts 

of the city. According to the mayor, the redevelopment of Vine Street near the epicenter 

of the riots would “be a signal” that that area, known as Over-the-Rhine, is a 

neighborhood for all, “not just people at the lowest income level.” In his State of the City 

address in January, the mayor also set several goals to improve police-community 

relations. The Human Relations Commission, which was formed after the riots, is seen 

as having had a positive influence on the community context. The number of local 

community organizations has increased, and there are more multi-party agreements, such 

as the corporately funded Cincinnati Action Now. A faith-based group, the Amos group, 

has emerged as a strong advocate for youth offender issues. An Ex-Offender Task Force 

is also focusing the community on this population’s needs. 

Organization 

As the project comes to an end in December 2003, the City of Cincinnati’s Department of 

Community Development and Planning is the grantee, and all direct services for youth 

are provided or arranged by the Service Navigator Unit (SNU) of the Work Resource 

Center (WRC). WRC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has grown to include 

several community-based employment and education sites throughout Greater Cincinnati 

since it was founded in 1972. In addition to its responsibility for the project, it also has 

the contract to provide Workforce Investment Act (WIA) services to all youth in 

Cincinnati and Hamilton County. About 10% of the SNU’s active caseload in October 

2003 were PROJECT youth. 

Several significant organizational changes have occurred over the life of the project. The 

location of workforce development services within the city government has changed 

since the project began, key managers have been reassigned or left the organization, and 

the number of staff assigned to workforce issues has been sharply reduced. For example, 

the PROJECT has had two project coordinators, and neither of them has been on the job 
D-19 

for the last few months of the project. Service delivery was originally contracted to 

another organization before it was transferred to the SNU, and there were some 

difficulties in transferring records and responsibility. The project design and the 

community partners involved, however, have not changed significantly over the course of 

the project. 

Recruitment and Retention in the Program 

In order to be eligible to participate in PROJECT, youth must document that they 

• have been “adjudicated for committing crimes and/or delinquent acts,”

• are between the ages of 14-25 and have parental/legal guardian consent if they are 

a minor, 

• are a resident of Hamilton County and a U.S. citizen, 

• assert that they are willing to work to further their education and/or career, and

• meet WIA economic eligibility guidelines.

Because of its emphasis on starting with capacity building, the demonstration did not start 

actively recruiting youth until about October 2002. For the quarter ending on September 

30, 2002, it reported the first youth enrolled. As of September 30, 2003, the project 

reported a cumulative total of about 175 youth recruited and 107 enrolled. Of those 107, 

about half (53) are youth whose “service start date” was before October 2002. That is, 

they enrolled in WIA and were later counted as project youth, even though they were 

unaware that they were enrolled in a separate program and received no different services 

than what they would have received if the project did not exist. 

The project’s active recruiting consists largely of community contacts and presentations 

at correctional facilities. Some youth also come into the project as an alternative to 

incarceration. In addition, service providers in the community have been made aware 

that they may be compensated for services to youth offenders if the youth can be 

determined eligible for WIA, so they may get youth into the project through a “reverse 

referral.” 

Youth in the project are all offenders, consistent with a target group change that was 

made after funding was received. The 107 youth enrolled as of September 30, 2003 were 

about equally divided between those under 18 and those 18-24 years old (52 and 55 

respectively). The majority of the youth are male (78%) and African-American (83%). 

The project has had more out-of-school youth (61) than in-school youth (46) enrolled. 

They had expected to enroll more “older” youth, but the eligibility documentation 

requirements have made it especially hard to enroll them. The economic eligibility 
D-20 

documentation, in particular, has been an obstacle for enrolling youth, as parents and 

others, such as a girlfriend the youth might be living with, are reluctant to provide 

documentation of their income. Also, the documentation requirements have kept them 

from starting to work with younger youth while they are incarcerated because they have 

difficulty getting information from parents to support the youth’s eligibility. 

Project managers have focused largely on getting youth into the project rather than on 

keeping them enrolled. A recent analysis showed that the 45 youth who have left the 

project--largely without achieving their goals—represents a higher percentage (42%) of 

departures than is typical of their WIA clients. They are considering what kind of 

strategies might be more effective in retaining youth offenders 

Project Planning and Sustainability 

This project was characterized from its beginning by a 2-part focus on (1) planning for 

community capacity building and (2) delivering services to youth in a way that would 

“build in” sustainability after funding ended. The challenge facing the project was to link 

the emphasis on community capacity building with improved service delivery to 

participants. It was hoped that, by the end of the project, more youth offenders would be 

recruited to and receive services from the WIA provider than would have been the case 

without the project. In addition, there would be an enhanced awareness of the unique 

needs of this population and a more extensive and integrated network of community 

services available for them—with the result of improved employment outcomes. 

The project’s vision was to involve a broad coalition of partners in its planning activities. 

Community partners were to be involved not just in periodic formal meetings but also in 

work groups to focus on specific areas, such as administrative, programmatic, and system 

development. The hope was that these partners’ interaction would lead to more 

awareness of the unique needs of this population, more awareness of the range of services 

now available to meet their needs, and more willingness to collaborate to serve this 

population. 

Partners met regularly at first, but the last meeting was in February 2003. The plan is to 

convene the partners again in early December 2003. At that time, they will be connected 

with the Ex-Offender Task Force and its Reentry Subcommittee, which will continue to 

address initiatives for this population. It is the role of the Workforce Policy Board to take 

the lead in initiatives for youth, and offenders are one of the target groups they are to 

address. The Workforce Policy Board’s Youth Council will continue with the effort 

begun under the project to develop an “open referral process,” that is, a way that a single 

application and set of materials about a youth will be acceptable to the various agencies, 

instead of the youth having to start all over again with each agency. 

The focus on sustainability in service delivery relied on full integration with the existing 

WIA-funded services for youth. Even though project participants would be receiving 

services from the same provider who served WIA youth, the original plan was that the 

project would fund one or more individuals to focus specifically on project youth. 
D-21 

Instead, project funds have been used to fund general operations of the SNU, and project 

youth have received route counseling and services through a system that is the same for 

them as for other youth coming through WIA. 

After December 2003, youth offenders already enrolled in the project will continue to be 

served by the same organization. As new youth offenders are recruited, those over age 

21 will be served by Affiliated Computer Systems, the organization that has the contract 

to serve WIA-eligible adults. The only difference might be that some youth eligible for 

the project might be ineligible for WIA service because their family income is too high. 

Given the current integration of WIA and the project, staff feel there is no need for the 

project to make a “case” for sustainability. There has been little or no involvement of 

youth, parents, employers, or community leaders in planning for sustainability. 

Services Offered by Project 

The grantee contracts all service delivery to the Service Navigator Unit (SNU) of the 

Work Resource Center. The SNU, in turn, sub-contracts all services except route 

counseling to providers with contracts to serve WIA youth (WIA providers) or to nonWIA providers. By contract, the SNU is not allowed to provide direct services, such as 

work readiness training or job placement, unless they are a “last resort,” i.e., no other 

provider can be found to meet the client’s needs. However, they can let clients use the 

resource materials available at their office for self-directed assistance while they pursue 

the sometimes lengthy process of certifying their eligibility for WIA. The grantee’s 

policies have not allowed them to refer project youth for services until their WIA 

eligibility was determined. 

Youth receive route counseling services at the SNU office. For other services, they are 

given a referral and go “on their own” to meet with other providers. Youth receive the 

same services they would receive as WIA youth not in the project. There is no public 

acknowledgement that some youth are in the project and others are not. Some youth have 

discovered on their own, however, that other offenders are in the project. To some extent 

they have formed an informal, unofficial support group. 

The array of services project youth receive is limited to those regularly available through 

the workforce development system. Service emphasis is on assessing and improving 

basic educational skills, work readiness, and job placement and retention. At the 

initiative of the justice system, there has been some use of participation in the project as 

an alternative to incarceration. Services generally expected, or required, to be part of the 

project that are not included in Cincinnati’s project include substance abuse and mental 

health assessments and treatment; aftercare; community service; anti-gang support; 

screening and referral for health and housing needs; recreation; and mentoring. 

Assessments 

The SNU assesses each youth in order to set goals, develop an individualized service 

strategy (ISS), and decide which provider to use to deliver needed services. The major 
D-22 

required focus of the assessments is the youth’s basic educational skills level; each youth 

completes both the Wide Range Achievement Test and the Test of Adult Basic 

Education. Beyond these instruments, information comes primarily from interviews with 

the youth or--if the youth was referred to SNU by a service provider—from information 

that came with the referral. Information from a provider might include assessments 

performed by the provider. Areas of need that might become apparent in the interview or 

in information from a provider would include work readiness, occupational skills 

training, living situation, physical/mental health needs, or supportive services such as 

transportation. No substance abuse or mental health screening or assessment tools are 

used, but the referral, if there is one, may provide some information in those areas. 

Route Counseling (Case Management) 

In assessing the areas of need for each youth, each youth is automatically determined to 

need “comprehensive guidance and counseling”—their term for route counseling or case 

management—which the SNU provides. A first item of business for the Navigator and 

youth is to agree on the ISS, including a service provider, and have the youth sign the 

agreement. If the youth is a minor, a parent or guardian must give signed permission for 

a youth to enroll in the program; sometimes that person is also involved in establishing 

the ISS. If an agency has referred the youth, that agency may also review the plan. The 

ISS can contain up to 3 skill attainment goals, called “system” goals, for which the SNU 

and other providers will be held accountable in performance measures. An example 

would be “improve reading skill by one grade level in no less than 6 and no more than 12 

months.” If the youth is deficient in basic educational skills, that must be one of the 3 

goals. 

Each Navigator has a caseload of about 80 youth. The Navigator is expected to review 

the youth’s progress—preferably at an in-person meeting—at least every 90 days. At 

that time, skill attainment is documented and new goals are set as needed. This also 

provides an occasion to identify and secure additional support services if they are needed. 

Workforce Development Services 

The SNU has standing contracts with six providers for workforce development services. 

The choice of provider would be determined, in part, by particular youth characteristics. 

For example, Literacy Center West serves out-of-school males ages 19 through 21. 

Arrangements can also be made for services delivered by a wide range of other providers. 

For example, youth ages 22-24 can be referred to the organization that provides WIAfunded services for adults. The specific curriculum and activities depend on the provider. 

All of the WIA providers offer work readiness training and job placement, and most of 

them can address basic skills deficits. Some of the providers may have employer 

networks and relationships that help them find jobs for youth and allow them to follow up 

with employers to confirm job retention and attempt to resolve any difficulties that may 

have come up. The SNU itself does not work directly with employers to arrange job 

placement or encourage job retention. 
D-23 

The SNU provides little in the way of supportive services, such as occupational skills 

training or education or treatment for substance abuse and mental health problems, that 

might help youth overcome employment barriers. In the case of substance abuse and 

mental health, the Navigators do not attempt to determine whether such needs exist. 

With respect to vocational or occupational skills training, they may be aware that such 

training would be helpful, but they are unaware of many resources in the area for referral. 

According to SNU managers, for them to get approval to use funds from their budget for 

supportive services is a difficult process, and the amount of funds is small. 

Reentry Services 

The project’s involvement with reentry services has been largely at the system-wide, 

rather than individual, level. As part of its community capacity building efforts, the 

project brought partners together to share information about gang activities and discuss 

anti-gang efforts. At the individual level, the SNU has had no direct involvement with 

any anti-gang activities and is unaware of whether any of the project youth are involved 

in an aftercare program. The SNU has had some informal involvement with alternative 

sentencing, in that a judge has sometimes allowed a youth to participate in the project in 

lieu of being incarcerated. SNU managers could not say how often this has happened, 

since their management information system does not track this informal alternative 

sentencing as a service. A youth in this situation would receive the same services as any 

other youth, and there would be no provision to report back to the judge about the youth’s 

participation. Follow up to ensure the youth continued to meet the terms of this 

alternative sentencing agreement, if there is any, would be the responsibility of the parole 

officer. 

 

Public Management Model 

Organizational Attributes 

The project has manifested few of the organizational attributes considered important for 

successful project implementation. The project’s original plan was well-developed, with 

a clear and focused vision and mission. That plan was described as being based on the 

Public Management Model. Implementation of the plan, however, became largely a 

matter of revising deadlines as they were missed rather than reconsidering whether 

certain goals, objectives, and tasks were realistic. The grantee had limited prior 

experience with the justice and health care systems. Community organizations were 

willing to be involved with the project at a systems level, but there was weak support for 

the program at the level of improving services for individual youth. The grantee was 

actively involved with carrying out the specific tasks involved in community capacity 

building efforts but did not provide effective leadership for the project as a whole to 

ensure that the capacity building and direct service delivery came together to improve 

service delivery for the youth offender population. Connection between the workforce 

system and the juvenile justice system improved somewhat at the level of the individual 

youth but less so at a higher, system-wide level. Little to no improvement appears to 

have been made in connection between the workforce system and behavioral health care 
D-24 

services. Although multiple partners came together for discussions, there appears to have 

been little to no leveraging of resources to improve services available to youth. There 

was also little to no meaningful sharing of project information, decision making, and 

leadership with stakeholders. 

Workforce Development Services and Reentry Services 

The project provides a very limited array of workforce development and reentry services, 

in comparison with those advocated as desirable for this population. Services focus 

primarily on removing basic educational skills deficits and providing work readiness 

training. Youth receive no services specifically intended to address obstacles to 

employment they might have because of their history of involvement with the justice 

system. Even though this population is known to be at high risk for substance abuse and 

mental health problems, the project neither assesses the presence of such problems nor 

provides referrals for education or treatment. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

The grantee receives little information about youth enrolled in the project, services they 

are receiving, and outcomes occurring--and management has made little use of what 

information they did get. For example, the quarterly reports the grantee sent to the 

Department of Labor (DOL) showed that, after the project had been in place for almost 2 

years, no youth had ever been in GED preparation and none had ever been in either 

subsidized or unsubsidized employment. But there is no evidence that project managers 

noted these facts with concern and inquired as to whether they were data errors or danger 

signs for the success of the project. 

The SNU collects much more detailed information about youth since they collect all the 

information required by DOL for WIA youth. For example, their database includes the 

goals set by each youth and how many of them are attained. As of October 2003, 

however, the SNU had just begun to analyze the data to learn anything about their 

success with project clients or ways in which they might improve services for those 

clients. 

Neither the grantee’s nor the SNU’s databases contain all the information needed for the 

quarterly reports to DOL. For example, neither data base contains information about 

those recruited but not enrolled in the project or which youth are studying for their GED. 

Instead, the additional information needed is manually compiled each quarter. 

Continuous Improvement Loop 

The Cincinnati project exhibits a weak to nonexistent continuous improvement loop. The 

PMM envisions continuous improvement resulting from the use of appropriately 

analyzed data, in the context of an organization managed in accordance with the desirable 

organizational attributes to deliver needed workforce development and reentry services. 

 
D-25 

The lack of a meaningful continuous improvement effort is no doubt related to lacks in 

the other four components of the PMM: available data are not used to manage the project, 

desirable organizational attributes are missing, and reentry and supportive services are 

lacking. 

Grantee officials had originally expressed a strong commitment to project monitoring and 

continuous improvement. The grant application had outlined internal evaluation plans, 

and a detailed implementation plan was developed. Periodic review of the 

implementation plan was intended to provide an opportunity to determine where things 

were not “on track” and corrective action was needed. In practice, however, the 

implementation plan was used more as a way to document revised deadlines than to 

identify changes that might be needed in goals, objectives, or processes to attain them. 

As of October 2003, the internal evaluation was still being discussed but had not yet been 

designed or implemented. 

The project has sought and received technical assistance and has had three visits from 

evaluators. Project management describes the input from these sources as valuable and 

can point to some changes that were made in response. For example, eligibility criteria 

were changed in response to the evaluator’s observations after one visit. 

Outcomes 

Individual Client Level 

At the individual youth level, the project has little quantitative or anecdotal info about 

outcomes. Of the 61 out-of-school youth, 8 have obtained subsidized or unsubsidized 

jobs. Of the 45 who have exited, 5 were considered to be leaving with positive outcomes. 

Of the 40 who were terminated for negative reasons such as refusal to participate, 6 had, 

nevertheless, attained the goals in their ISS. The project’s focus has been on getting 

youth into the project more than on getting them employed or achieving other positive 

outcomes. 

Project/System Level 

SNU managers and grantee representatives believe that the project process—especially 

the involvement of partners in the community audit and other system-wide activities—

had value. People came together and talked about the needs of this population, which 

had not happened before. Other system changes that they agree are positive include the 

following: 

• the workforce development system is better connected with the justice system; 

• using more non-WIA providers has built relationships and partnerships and 

opened opportunities for staff development, which will benefit all youth; 

• attitudes in the community about working with youth offenders have changed; 
D-26 

• experience with the project has raised issues about appropriate goals for 

workforce development programs (e.g., whether contracts with the city and 

county should specify a required minimum of 6 months for achieving 

improvement in basic skills and whether basic skills improvement should be the 

primary focus with older youth); 

• future workforce development services for the offender population will be 

improved by the strategies developed to recruit and serve project clients; and 

• several local policy decisions for the project and WIA have been seen to be too 

restrictive and in need of change. If they can be changed, the benefit will be to all 

WIA youth, not just youth offenders. 

Opinions differ, however, on the value of the report that resulted from the months-long, 

labor-intensive community audit. The grantee representative believes that the 377-page 

resource directory, with its Executive Summary with recommendations, is a useful 

resource. But others feel the material will not be very useful until it is better organized 

and analyzed. Even though the directory was completed in April, as of October 2003 it 

was not being used by the Navigators to find appropriate resources for offenders. 

Barriers and Challenges 

Sustainability, in the sense of some organization’s providing workforce development and 

related services to youth offenders in Cincinnati, is not in doubt. Uncertainty remains, 

however, about how well the demonstration’s overall goal—to help youth offenders and 

youth at risk of court involvement prepare for and secure long-term employment at wage 

levels that will prevent future delinquency and break the cycle of crime and juvenile 

delinquency—will be met. As the project comes to an end, project managers are just 

beginning to focus on outcomes for the youth as well as on enrollment goals. The 

challenge facing the workforce development community is to increase the focus on 

outcomes and to use program data in a continuous improvement approach to modify the 

program as needed to generate more positive outcomes. In addition, the community 

capacity building efforts that will continue, especially the Ex-Offender Task Force, need 

to be used to leverage additional resources to improve services for youth offenders: the 

system-level and individual level efforts need to be closely linked rather than operating 

on parallel, non-intersecting tracks. 
D-27 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Process Evaluation 

Final Report Summary for 

Colorado 

Project Description 

Context 

Colorado’s Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Corrections is grantee for 

the Colorado Category II Youth Offender Demonstration Project. In the state of 

Colorado, the youth correctional system is part of the Department of Human Services, 

which has a history of cross-program collaboration. The project has the political support 

of the Governor and leaders in the Department of Human Services. It is a policy of 

Colorado, however, to accept federal grants only with the understanding that the State 

would not be expected to assume responsibility for the funded activities at grant’s end. 

The project operated during a difficult fiscal period for the State of Colorado. The 

economic recession hit the Denver area hard because of its dependence on the high 

technology industry. The counties surrounding Denver are dependent on the 

metropolitan area economy, so the economic downturn affected all the counties in 

Central Colorado, the catchment area for the Youth Offender Demonstration. 

The State budget crisis surfaced in many ways during the project. Members of the 

Consortium of stakeholder-advisors experienced layoffs. The parole period for youth 

offenders dropped from 9 to 6 months. The capacity of Lookout Mountain Youth 

Services Center (LMYSC) increased from 210 beds to 240, and young men were doublebunked to accommodate everyone. Services usually provided with Division of Youth 

Corrections funds were absorbed by DOL grant funds: Housing, mental health and 

substance abuse services. 

Project Purpose 

The title of the project is “Youth Employment and Academic Resource Services” 

(YEARS) a name given through a contest among the leadership of the youth incarcerated 

at Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center, the target facility for the demonstration. 

LMYSC is partially operated by the state and partially privatized; it is on the former 

campus of the Colorado School of Mines at the western edge of Golden, CO. LMYSC is 

the most secure facility for young males in the Division of Youth Corrections system, and 

receives youth from all over the State of Colorado. 

The demonstration differs from most of the other demonstrations in that a strong aftercare 

program was in place before the grant, and the DOL funds added a workforce 

development dimension to an already rich array of services and supports. DOL funds 

provided work readiness and work experience opportunities to the young men while they 
D-28 

were still incarcerated, and job placement and employment retention services through a 

local One-Stop center upon release to their home counties. Several factors affected the 

original design. 

Midway through the project, it became clear that many of the youth were being released 

to “step-down” facilities somewhere within the Division of Youth Corrections 

participating regions (Central, Denver, and Northeast). This meant that the workforce 

specialists were traveling some distance among the youth in their care rather than having 

them concentrated in their four county workforce catchment areas. Youth were, at least 

initially, uncomfortable going to the workforce centers. Workforce specialists, therefore, 

continued to meet them at or near their homes, schools, or work places. Toward the end 

of the grant period, fewer youth were being assigned to step-down facilities, so more 

youth were returning directly back to the places where they had gotten into trouble. 

Grant funds were allocated to the Center for Network Development to assist key 

stakeholders in developing a common vision of the project and resources for sustaining 

their collaboration for youth offenders. The project envisioned a sustainability strategy 

from the start, given the state policy of not absorbing additional services after grants. 

Because of the budget cuts described earlier, the project leadership continued to struggle 

with the sustainability strategy, but the remaining members of the Consortium committed 

to finding a sustainable path by March 2004, three months before the end of the DOL 

grant money. 

The Y.E.A.R.S. project will complete the DOL funds in June 2004. Youth will not be 

enrolled after February 2004. Youth enrolled up to February will receive the program of 

services that were designed for the final phase of their incarceration plus the post-release 

job placement and retention services through June 2004. Services will continue at 

LMYSC, through June 2004. 

Project Organization 

The Division of Youth Corrections subcontracted out the entire demonstration project. 

The Tri-county Workforce Center, the Workforce Investment Board for Jefferson, Gilpin, 

and Clear Creek Counties received the bulk of the funds, and it is the fiduciary agent for 

the grant. Tri-county Workforce Center subcontracted funds to each of the other 

workforce development centers serving the youth in the central region of the state: 

Adams, Arapahoe-Douglas, and Denver Counties’ workforce development centers. 

The Tri-county Workforce Center hired an experienced grants manager to be the project 

manager. Each workforce development center hired a workforce specialist who would 

link youth at LMYSC to jobs in the respective counties and assist the youth with 

employment retention. Each center used the hiring standards and procedures it used for 

hiring any other professional staff. Once hired, the staff received the training required of 

any worker assigned to LMYSC; staff members also received the regular orientation and 

training required by the hiring workforce center. 
D-29 

Workforce development services began while the youth were incarcerated at LMYSC. 

Before the grant, the youth were encouraged to complete the GED or high school 

diploma and received training in construction, silk screening, central dining, facilities 

management, and culinary arts. The project added construction and refurbishing of horse 

trailers and detailing them. Honors youth, called Eagles, were allowed to attend classes 

at Red Rock Community College or to work off campus. Project youth received stipends 

for their on grounds work experience while other youth who qualified for these jobs did 

not. 

Workforce specialists began working with the youth 90 days before release: Establishing 

rapport, leading workforce development sessions, working with youth to find a job even 

before release. Workforce specialists also contacted families to let them know about the 

program and the assistance they were trying to provide to the young men. 

After release, workforce specialists brought youth to the One-Stop centers to learn about 

their resources and to learn about specific job openings that matched youth’s interests, 

skills and schedules. Youth made job interviews by themselves, but the workforce 

specialists might accompany them. Workforce specialists also visited youth at places of 

employment or schooling to facilitate problem solving, if that seemed appropriate. 

The parole period of the youth was the responsibility of the Client Manager/Parole 

Officer. This person supported the employment component of the youth’s individual 

plan, and the two professional staff members contacted each other with relevant 

observations and concerns. After parole, youth tended to slip—stop taking their 

medications, returning to substance abuse, etc. Youth often thought that the workforce 

specialists’ role would end with the end of parole. The workforce specialists counted on 

the support of families to keep the youth on target with his medications, rehabilitation, 

work readiness and employment goals, and families as well as participants received 

incentives for youths’ progress. 

A small portion of the grant funds went to the Center for Network Development for 

assistance in developing a youth employer network and for facilitating the development 

of the stakeholders into full partnership. The Consortium included representatives of all 

subcontractors, the grantee, the Director of LMYSC, and other collaborators. The 

Consortium struggled with its role and with the degree of members’ commitment. Some 

dropped out when they realized that their organizations would not receive funds from the 

grant. There were difficulties meshing the expectations of the workforce centers, 

LMYSC, DYC, other collaborators, and the project staff. The facilitator from the Center 

for Network Development reported that such struggles were part of forming a cohesive 

group that would be able to collaborate as the DOL funding was depleted. 

A small amount of funds awarded to the Center for Network Development was intended 

to develop an employer network, but this task was not accomplished. In June 2003, that 

portion of the subcontract ended. 
D-30 

Recruitment and Retention in the Program 

At the time of the third evaluation visit, the Y.E.A.R.S. project had enrolled 190 youth. 

Of that number, 26 youth were still incarcerated at LMYSC. All the youth entered the 

program by volunteering during the time they were at LMYSC, and they generally 

persisted through the time of parole. 

All the enrollees were male, and the average age at LMYSC was 17.7 years. That means 

that most youth were at least 18 at release. Many of the youth assigned to the Lookout 

Mountain facility had serious personal issues to address: mental illness, substance abuse, 

or lack of a family. Some youth were assigned there by virtue of the crimes for which 

they were convicted: violence and/or sex offenses. Some youth were assigned because 

they did not fare well in the less structured environments of other facilities. 

The Division of Youth Corrections did not automatically return a youth to incarceration 

for parole violations. If the infractions were minor, the youth was given a “time-out”—a 

day or a weekend in detention. A youth returned for lengthier periods for more severe 

infractions. These penalties interfered with the youths’ employment in some cases, but 

the Client Manager/Parole Officer worked with the workforce specialists to avoid 

disrupting the employment component of the youths’ plans. 

At the third visit, it appeared as though 60-75% of the youth were active. The other 

youth had violated parole, run off, or committed a new crime. Some youth in each 

workforce center area were still not working or in school, but they were considered active 

if they remained in contact with the workforce specialists. 

The Y.E.A.R.S. staff devised an incentive program for project youth. They received cash 

and non-cash incentives for achieving certain milestones; but to receive the cash, they 

had to also be in complete compliance with LMYSC or parole rules and regulations. 

Activities for awards included project participation and grades “C’ and above for those in 

school. Non-cash incentives involved gift certificates, phone cards, grocery vouchers, 

and family incentives (gas vouchers for helping youth with transportation, or grocery 

vouchers). Staff reported these as big “carrots,” keeping the youth engaged. 

Project Planning and Sustainability 

The Y.E.A.R.S. project designed its implementation plan according to the attributes of 

the Public Management Model (PMM). The initial planning for the proposal involved the 

staff of DYC, Tri-County and Arapahoe-Douglas Workforce Development Centers, the 

Center for Network Development, and LMYSC. The Consortium of stakeholders 

continued the planning. The Consortium, as mentioned earlier, lost members during the 

last year of operation as agency budgets were cut, but the members as of the third visit 

were: 

• Division of Youth Corrections – Central Region, Northeast Region, Denver 

Region 
D-31 

• Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center, 

• Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center – Metro State College-Denver Metro 

Academy.

• Tri-county Workforce Development Center, 

• Adams County Workforce Development Center, 

• Arapahoe-Douglas Workforce Development Center, 

• Denver Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, 

• University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 

• DAYS Youth Opportunity Center, 

• Jefferson County Justice Services, 

• Colorado Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, 

• Center for Network Development, 

• Jefferson County Public Schools, 

• Youth Track, and 

• Lost and Found. 

The initial plan for sustainability was that each workforce development center would 

assume responsibility for making permanent the workforce specialist it hired with grant 

funds. Occupational work experiences on grounds were sustained by the funds they 

acquired through the services they provided customers. The Consortium members would 

apply jointly for new grant opportunities. 

A sustainability plan was scheduled for February 2003, a time when the reality of the 

recession was on every agency’s mind, but the cuts proved to be much deeper than the 

Consortium members realized at the time. The period from spring 2003 through fall 

2003 was trying for the Consortium members. 

By then, the workforce development centers were still hoping to hire the workforce 

specialists; there was still hope that the industries on grounds would become selfsustaining; and there was some hope that the funds from the Department of Justice’s 

“Serious and Violent Offender” grant would be applied to the Y.E.A.R.S. effort. The 

Department of Vocational Rehabilitation’s (DVR) assignment of 2.5 full-time-equivalent 
D-32 

staff remained in place for another two years, with DYC paying 22% of the cost and 

DVR paying the remainder. The DOL Academic Skills grant award meant that cuts to the 

Metro Academy would be restored and other educational activities added. There was a 

sense that the DOJ funds would be used to make sure that the core elements of the 

sustainability plan would be realized, but the person responsible for the grant had not 

directly stated this. 

Services Offered by Project 

Assessments 

An array of assessments is performed at the Regional Assessment Center run by the 

Division of Youth Corrections (DYC), which is the grantee. All the youth spend time 

there getting an orientation to the system as well as receiving the assessments. Once they 

had the "Client Manager's Discrete Case Plan," youth were assigned to a facility within 

the Central Region. After arriving at LMYSC, the Metro Academy administered an 

educational assessment for placing youth in classes and the Vocational Rehabilitation 

staff for special employment considerations. The vocational rehabilitation assessment, for 

example, tried to gauge the effect of mental illness or developmental delays on work 

readiness and employment prospects. Each workforce center also administered an 

employability assessment. 

Individualized Service Plans 

As described earlier, the individual plan, the Client Manager’s Discrete Case Plan, is 

prepared at orientation to the correctional system. The client manager/parole officer, 

along with the facility treatment staff, assures that the youth is receiving the services and 

complying with other elements of the plan. When the workforce specialists and the youth 

prepare the employment portion of the plan, it becomes part of the Client Manager’s 

Discrete Case Plan, that is, the client manager also monitors youths’ compliance with this 

portion of the plan. 

Route Counseling (Case Management) 

Client managers provide one level of route counseling. They have responsibility to 

provide aftercare and reentry services. They are also responsible for connecting youth to 

schools. Client managers provide aftercare, health, mental health, substance abuse 

treatment/counseling and housing. Clients may disconnect from the program when 

they are no longer on parole. 

Workforce specialists provide another level of route counseling. The YEARS grant 

provides workforce development services (work readiness, placement, retention and 

follow-up route counseling). Workforce specialists try to make clear to their clients that 

the employment plan does not end with the end of parole. This has been difficult to do. 

One reason the workforce specialists stay in contact with families is so that families know 
D-33 

that the young men can still receive services after parole through the workforce 

specialists. 

Over the duration of the project, workforce specialists have established good 

relationships with many client managers (There are, for example 18 in Denver, 8 in 

Adams County.) They contact each other to resolve issues between the plan requirements 

or to consult about a youth. Client managers grew to appreciate the value of the 

employment component and the involvement of the workforce specialists. 

Toward the end of the project, grant funds were absorbing some client manager/DYC 

activities. Client managers continued to arrange substance abuse, mental health and 

housing service arrangements, but the DOL grant funds were paying for them as long as 

the services affected education or employment activities. 

Workforce specialists were well integrated with the LMYSC, but they worked differently 

from the One-Stop centers. One-Stops wanted clients to come to them while the 

specialists go to the clients. Arapahoe-Douglas Workforce center appreciated the 

progress youth were making with the support of the workforce specialist there, and staff 

began to use similar approaches for adult offenders. 

Workforce Development Services 

Workforce development services are offered through the Tri-county Workforce 

Development Center to youth who are residents of Gilpin, Clear Creek, and Jefferson 

Counties; and through the Adams County, Arapahoe-Douglas Counties, and Denver 

County workforce development centers. Youth receive work readiness and work 

experience while they are still at LMYSC. Work experience can be both on-site and 

within the community of Golden, while they are serving at Lookout Mountain. 

The Metro State College Lab School (Metro Academy) provided some work experience 

modules as part of its regular educational programming. The workforce specialists, along 

with the Metro Academy transition team members, organized and delivered the STEPS 

(Striving Toward Employment and Personal Success) workforce component as well. 

STEPS, initially developed by the Metro Academy and the Center for Network 

Development, was revised by the workforce specialists based on their experience with 

placement and retention issues with youth after release. It was offered from 7:45 am to 

1:15 pm (5.5 hours) for 5 days to groups of young men who are about to be released. 

Each workforce specialist reported that it was a much better preparation than the original 

readiness effort. The five days cover a range of topics: 

• Day One – Career assessment, 

• Day Two – Dress for success, phone interviews, introduction to job search 

resources, 

• Day Three – Resume, cover letter, reference list development, presentation of the 
D-34 

 offense, 

• Day Four – Mock interviews, 

• Day Five – Tape recorded interviews and critique. 

Another pre-release employment preparation is participation in “Be Real Games.” A 

workforce specialist received training to lead youth through the game sequence. Youth 

volunteer for this activity for 6-8 weeks, 3 days a week for an hour. Each youth is 

assigned a character and certain resources; part of the game is tracking the fate of these 

characters as they are given options about their lives and careers. At the end the youth 

compare notes about choices made and results experienced. It attempts to give the youth 

a more realistic sense of choices and consequences, and makes the point that good 

outcomes do not just happen to those who start out with the most advantages. 

Workforce specialists reinforce the STEPS training with youth at the workforce centers. 

Workforce specialists try to connect with youth within 48 to 72 hours after release. The 

workforce specialists try to offer the youth something useful at the time, like a bus pass, 

to establish that they are able to assist the youth with his plans. Getting the youth to 

attend a session at the workforce center is also an early objective, so youth can learn 

about the employment resources available there. 

Many of the workforce centers assigned a workforce aide to each workforce specialist. 

These aides research the labor market information in the center’s catchment area, and 

prepare lists of openings that match interests of the youth. Aides also handle requests for 

transportation assistance or child care that may arise in the process of a job search. 

Workforce specialists might go with the youth for the early job interviews, but once he is 

more confident, he goes alone. 

The kinds of jobs youth have found include the following: 

• Welding apprenticeship, 

• Food service, 

• Jiffy Lube, 

• Auto detailing, 

• Night watchman at a cattle company, 

• Events workers at the coliseum, 

• Landscaping/gardening, 

• Construction, 
D-35 

• Printing, 

• Window and siding installation, and 

• Pipefitting. 

After finding a job, workforce specialists contact the youth once a week for at least 90 

days or until he seems settled into his work. After that, the contacts are at least once a 

month. Many youth do not want to be contacted at work, and the workforce specialists 

honor that. If the youth is struggling with some aspect of his job, however, the workforce 

specialist may try to arrange a joint meeting with the employer. 

Youth with developmental disabilities, severe learning disabilities, mental illness, or 

other personal concerns that limit the kinds of jobs for which they are qualified are part of 

the caseload of the staff person from the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. She 

administers an assessment and assists the youth in finding work that is suitable from the 

employer network developed by the department. The departmental goal is that its clients 

find work for at least $10.00 an hour. 

YEARS purchased a package of Federal Bonding certificates, but has been unable to use 

it. Staff offered the certificates to others in the Consortium—just to see them get used. 

Reentry Services 

The project offers all reentry services, except alternative sentencing (all the youth are 

offenders). Anti-gang efforts at LMYSC consist primarily in group sessions to learn the 

effects of violence on communities. Gang members are forbidden to display and insignia 

or to make gang references. After release, youth returning to the Tri-county area can be 

assigned to the GRASP curriculum (Gang Reduction and Suppression Program) and 

those at other workforce centers receive anti-gang counseling as well. 

Community Service is part of most youths’ sentence, and they are able to apply 

participation in some activities to their assigned hours while they are at LMYSC. 

Similarly, many youth make efforts to work off their restitution while incarcerated. 

Following their release from the correctional facility, some youth are sent to a step-down 

facility that is much less structured while others are sent directly to home or another 

family, if the home family group was not appropriate. Although the youth at step-down 

facilities were still incarcerated, they receive more freedoms. Sometimes the step-down 

facility was in the boys' home county, but often it was not. So, the workforce specialist 

assigned to the youth because of his home county of residence had to drive to another 

county to check on a client. With the budget crisis, fewer men were sent to step-down 

facilities, but that meant that more were sent directly back to the milieu where they got 

into trouble. 
D-36 

DYC arranges other reentry services such as mental health treatment, drug rehabilitation, 

etc through the client manager/parole officers. Aftercare services and route counseling 

are offered by DYC as part of the state budget, but YEARS is picking up the expenses for 

some services as long as it is related to education or employment. 

The project assigned released youth to other activities within the community, such as arts 

organizations and a gay and lesbian support center, to assist them make the transition to 

the community safely. 

Education Services 

Almost all the education services are received while the youth are incarcerated at 

LMYSC. Metropolitan State College operates Metro Academy on the grounds and aims 

to have each young man finished with high school before release. Few youth are ageeligible to return to a high school after release, and others have been expelled. Few want 

to continue schooling unless they are close to earning the GED. 

While at LMYSC, youth get hands-on experience in silk-screen printing, furniture 

assembly (discontinued), construction, culinary arts, facilities management and 

construction/horse trailer repair, grounds keeping, institutional cooking, and webpage 

design. With the new academic skills grant, YEARS would like to attract an 

apprenticeship union to come to LMYSC to prepare the men as pre-apprentices so they 

would be eligible for apprenticeship training after release. There was some interest from 

the pipe fitters’ apprenticeship in teaching the numeracy skills the men would need to 

begin an apprenticeship in pipe fitting. 

Support Services 

Many youth are assigned to LMYSC because of the mental health issues they present. 

One residential unit at the facility is assigned to those with serious mental health issues, 

and every other residential unit has at least twelve youth with these issues. Part of the 

client manager’s discrete case plan is the requirement for the youth to remain on his 

medication and participate in other activities to treat his condition. If the youth is limited 

by his mental health issues, he is assigned to the staff from the Department of Vocational 

Rehabilitation for workforce development services. 

Substance abuse was a condition many of the youth experience. Individual and group 

intervention sessions were a routine part of everyday activities at LMYSC. The drug 

testing by the client manager after release continued to demonstrate that many of the 

youth returned to using alcohol and other drugs upon release. Client managers arranged 

for treatment services, and YEARS paid for them toward the end of the grant. 

Health assessments were part of the orientation process in which every youth 

participated. Health issues have not been a major difficulty for the young men. YEARS 

arranged for health insurance after release if the youth was not covered through his 

family. 
D-37 

Housing became more of an issue when step-down assignments became less common. If 

there were no appropriate family arrangements, the client manager took responsibility for 

working with the youth to secure housing. 

Successful Service Delivery Strategies 

The YEARS project used various strategies for coordinating service delivery: Route 

counseling by workforce specialists and by client managers and the use of individual 

service strategies. The route counseling became tighter as the project developed because 

the workforce specialists and the client managers were more likely to coordinate 

interventions with the youth between them. Together, as well, they tracked the youth’s 

progress with his individual plan and arranged for services the youth needed. 

Although co-location of services was essential for LMYSC services, after release, 

workforce specialists worked with youth one-on-one. YEARS arranged several Family 

Nights to develop a greater sense of camaraderie among youth who were trying to change 

their lives and to engage families in their efforts. These events proved difficult to 

produce, but toward the end of the project, YEARS held two events that were well 

received. They were held at the Youth One-Stop center at Denver Area Youth Services 

(DAYS). They involved a simple supper and the award of vouchers for groceries or 

gasoline. 

The incentive program seemed successful to the YEARS staff. The staff believed that 

periodically giving youth financial awards or vouchers for progress helped them persist 

when they were plagued with personal issues or struggling with employment. 

YEARS collected data from each workforce center, and a consultant developed a bridge 

program to aggregate the data for the DOL quarterly report. The aggregated data were 

not easily used for planning and management. The disaggregated data were not used for 

these purposes either, nor were data used to build a case for sustainability. This was a 

lost opportunity. 

The Public Management Model 

As mentioned earlier, YEARS prepared its implementation plan against the attributes of 

the Public Management Model (PMM). Staff admitted, however, that no one reflected on 

these attributes as part of managing the project. Nevertheless, the project demonstrates 

many of these attributes. 

The project developed a plan with clear objectives and strategies. The plan has been 

revised regularly during meetings of the Executive Committee of the Consortium and 

confirmed through Consortium meetings. It has served its purpose to keep the project 

focused on its goals. 
D-38 

Preparing the proposal was the first attempt to have the justice and workforce agencies

work together. The leadership showed foresight in planning to have a facilitator work 

through the issues of regulations, language and operating styles among the agencies 

represented in the Consortium. Each evaluation visit uncovered a set of tensions within 

the group, but it continued to meet regularly and to resolve many, if not all, of the issues 

that divided them. The budget difficulties raised old issues of responsibility and 

commitments, but they continued to work together to plan for the future. 

The grantee subcontracted all the grant funds to other agencies; yet the grantee remained 

involved, guiding the development of the project and supporting the initiative of others. 

The grantee leadership was respected by the other agencies. 

The project staff repeatedly reported that the political and administrative leadership 

respected the project. The staff did not work to develop a more public face for its efforts 

through strategies to develop community support. 

The project was extremely resourceful in gathering the partners of all the agencies 

whose services the youth needed: education, workforce, justice, vocational rehabilitation, 

and community-based organizations. Essentially every stakeholder was at the 

Consortium table. The budget crisis created tensions about the extent to which the 

agencies would commit to leveraging resources through this partnership. None of the 

workforce centers would say outright that it would hire the workforce specialists after 

DOL funding ended. Staff from the workforce centers reported that they hoped they 

could pick up the specialists through attrition by the ending of the grant. The justice 

agency had reduced budgets in its own office and at LMYSC, but it did have control of 

the “CARES” funding from the Department of Justice’s Serious and Violent Offender 

Initiative. The project manager had begun to replicate YEARS at other facilities in the 

Central Region, and stakeholders hoped that some of those funds would fill in the gaps in 

the YEARS services. The Department of Vocational Rehabilitation funding was secure 

for several additional years. 

The project shared leadership and information from the beginning. The grantee 

devolved the entire project to other agencies; the stakeholders held regular meetings of 

the Consortium; the executive committee involved multiple organizations. From every 

perspective except funding, the Consortium members share ownership of the project. 

The lack of use of the MIS was reported earlier, but the careful monitoring of the project 

in other ways demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement. The regular 

Consortium meetings, core staff meetings, and the opportunities to raise issues during 

these meetings led to a series of changes that reflect continuous improvement: 

• Initiation of STEPS; 

• Dropping the Employer Network subcontract, 

• Replaced the furniture assembly industry with the horse trailer refurbishing, 
D-39 

• Started work readiness at 90 days before release, instead of the planned 180 days, 

to improve skill retention, 

• Divided general responsibilities for the project among the workforce specialists, 

• Worked through the agency relationships on the Consortium, and 

• Utilize the computer system used by the workforce development centers on the 

grounds of LMYSC for career exploration and job searches. 

Outcomes 

The workforce specialists each reported that the project provided all the services youth 

needed. They believed that the coordinating mechanisms among the services and between 

them and the client managers worked well. Each maintained a list of where each youth on 

his/her caseload was, and there were few that were not engaged with either work or 

schooling. After some apprehension on the part of workforce center staff, there had been 

no incidents of any kind involving the youth offenders. Centers’ staff believed that these 

youth were indistinguishable from other youth seeking services. 

While no one could claim credit for reducing recidivism, the recidivism rate for YEARS 

youth was about 12% during project involvement, including those who were detained 

pending a court hearing for new charges. The grantee reported that the rate declined 

slowly over a period of years. When asked if they could predict outcomes when they 

were working with the youth, YEARS staff reported that the young men that were reincarcerated for a new crime rarely surprised them. They were youth who never 

committed to the case plan or its activities. Yet they reported that it was hard to know 

which youth would succeed. Even “Eagles” became disengaged or ran-off after release. 

The difference was that these youth tended to come back and try again eventually. 

The project, facing a budget crisis, still foresaw that the workforce development program 

at LMYSC would be sustained, and the educational services were assured by the 

academic services grant for another year or so. The representatives at the workforce 

centers believed that the staff no longer were fearful of the youth, and had learned ways 

to help them. With the CARES funding, plans were already underway to use the 

workforce specialists to train their counterparts at other workforce centers funded through 

the DOJ grant. Should some of the YEARS workforce centers decide not to hire its 

workforce specialists, their training and experience would be extended to these other 

centers. The Vocational Rehabilitation representative on the Consortium reported that 

the Department is pleased with the YEARS collaboration and believed that it could 

continue indefinitely. 

The main challenges and barriers are clear from the report. The barrier surfaces in 

different ways, but it is essentially funding. Finding the budget to continue activities 
D-40 

every stakeholder reported as worthwhile will be the most serious task for the remainder 

of the project. 

The challenges remain the multiple concerns of project youth and the development of an 

evidence basis for documenting project achievements and concerns. The MIS is in place, 

so the documenting task would not be too difficult. The challenges the youth bring to the 

project will remain, but the project demonstrated that good case planning, careful 

monitoring, incentives, and patience with relapses paid off for most youth. 
D-41 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Process Evaluation 

Final Report Summary for 

Des Moines 

Project Description 

Context 

Des Moines, Iowa’s capital and largest city, is located in Polk County in the center of the 

state. The city has a population of over 190,000, the county population is 327,000, and 

the metropolitan area approaches 400,000. Polk County as a whole has relatively high 

rates of adults with a high school diploma, low rates of households receiving TANF, a 

low proportion of 16- to 19-year-olds who are not in school or employed, and a relatively 

low percentage of families with children below the poverty level. 

In contrast, some areas of Des Moines have much higher proportions of the population 

with high-risk factors (e.g., low-income, low educational levels, high proportion of 

single-parent families). Specifically, the grantee has identified an area consisting of 12 

contiguous census tracks in central, north-central, and eastern Des Moines, including the 

city’s federally designated Enterprise Community, to form the target area for the Youth 

Offender Demonstration Project. 

These census tracts also have a higher proportion of persons who are on parole or 

probation. The grantee noted in its application that while the minority population 

consists of approximately 11 percent of the city’s residents, minorities comprise a 

disproportionately large percentage of youth offenders in Polk County. Between 1993 

and 1999, over 40 percent of the youth held by Polk County in juvenile detention 

facilities were members of minority population groups. The application also notes that 

while gang suppression activities brought some success during the 1990s, recent reports 

indicate an increase in gang recruitment. 

The need for the Youth Offender Demonstration Project was established during a 

comprehensive planning process undertaken by Polk County in 1999 to identify and 

address gaps in meeting the needs of youth offenders and youth at risk of court or gang 

involvement. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention led the 

planning process, resulting in a report “A Comprehensive Strategy for Polk County 

Youth: 1999-2019.” The community planning team included 75 organizations involved 

in human and social services, education, law enforcement, juvenile courts, health, 

housing, government, and the faith community. 

One gap identified in the Comprehensive Strategy was the lack of work preparation 

programs for system-involved youth. As the grant application stated, “Youth offenders 

and at-risk youth who are no longer in school, or who are not ‘attached’ to school as a 

result of truancy issues or residential instability, are missing out on career development 

activities that are critical in establishing self-sufficiency and reducing recidivism.” 
D-42 

In assessing existing services, Comprehensive Strategy team members noted that 

“provisions are not in place to link youth in graduated sanctions to work preparation 

programs.” The needs of some specific groups of youth offenders and at-risk youth were 

not being met and some of the available services were not connected to other programs 

and services in the community. 

The local Youth Advisory Council consists of members of the Workforce Investment 

Board who have a special interest or expertise in youth policy, as well as a number of 

persons representing agencies serving youth, the local public housing authority, juvenile 

justice, parents of youth eligible for WIA or served under JTPA, former JTPA Youth 

Program participants, Job Corps, and the private sector. A primary goal of the Council 

was to seek to strengthen relationships among partners as service providers, provide input 

to the project, and work to build networks and capacity to serve the target population 

beyond clients in the Demonstration. A staff member of the Central Iowa Employment 

and Training Consortium provides support to the Council. 

Project Organization 

The Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC) is the grantee for the 

project, and the principal partners are Iowa Comprehensive Human Services (ICHS) and 

the Spectrum Resource Program. CIETC is the region’s One-Stop Center operator and 

WIA Title I Adult Program provider; ICHS is the region’s WIA Title I Youth Program 

provider; and Spectrum is a private non-profit organization that provides employment 

and training services in the construction industry for ex-offenders. 

Service delivery is primarily carried out by the two partners as subcontractors. Intake can 

occur at either location, and from that point, case managers meet with clients to complete 

an individual service strategy form, entitled Career Awareness and Navigation. 

While the initial project seemed to have the two partners as essentially operating mostly 

distinct programs for younger and older youth, with no clear overall project manager, the 

grantee did appoint a project manager approximately nine months into the project. Since 

that time, the project seems to have taken more of a team approach to planning and 

decision making, relying on active involvement from all three organizations. It is clear 

that the two partners that are responsible for case management have developed a close 

working relationship and continually consult each other about the needs of individual 

clients. 

With regard to the project’s relationship with the local One-Stop center, some youth have 

been able to make use of the One-Stop Center’s resource room, but the project overall has 

had very little success with job placements. Project staff believe this is largely due to 

WIA performance measures whereby One-Stops must do a certain amount of “creaming” 

of clients whom they believe can gain outcomes the most quickly, which is not the case 

for the Youth Offender Demonstration population who need more time-intensive support. 
D-43 

Project staff did note that youth are co-enrolled for WIA youth services, which has 

helped to pay for various support services. 

Over time, the project has been gradually building a stronger relationship with the 

Juvenile Court, which sees ICHS as providing opportunities for positive work 

experiences which the Court does not have the staffing to do itself. The ICHS case 

manager has been going with some project youth to the Court to get reduced or 

suspended sentences based on the condition that the youth continue to participate in the 

program. 

Recruitment and Retention in the Program 

In its implementation plan, the project identified a number of community partners with 

which to work to select youth for the program. Partners include Juvenile Court, Polk 

County Decategorization (probation and parole), Youth Offender Program, PACE, Urban 

Dreams, Creative Visions, the One-Stop Center, and the Des Moines School District, as 

well as other community organizations. In addition, ICHS and Spectrum began to 

receive direct referrals to their agencies as the program became better known. 

The initial project plan called for recruitment of an average of 10 youth per quarter, or 40 

per year. Each person was expected to be in the program at least two years and thus the 

project expected to have served approximately 80 clients by the end of the first two years 

of the grant. Project staff indicated at the first site visit that it was their intention to start 

with a small number of clients in order to evaluate an initial group as the clients move 

through the process, and make refinements before a large number entered the program. 

Project staff were concerned that they not “oversell” the program at the beginning, and 

believed that there would be more than sufficient referrals from community partners to 

meet the goal of 10 clients per quarter. The project retained that steady approach to 

recruitment throughout the period of the grant, and by the time of the third site visit, the 

project had enrolled over 90 youth. Recent referrals have come primarily from word of 

mouth and from probation and parole. 

As will be discussed further in the section on services, the project has developed a new 

approach for working with out-of-school youth that seems to have had a positive effect 

on retention. Youth who participate in a daily, one-hour life skills and leadership class, 

and then continue on directly to a two-hour GED preparation class are experiencing high 

rates of retention and persistence through to achievement of their GED. Youth are paid 

stipends (minimum wage) for the three hours in the morning and then receive further 

compensation through a new arrangement with YouthBuild, or in other subsidized work 

experience, in the afternoon. Project staff report that youth have specifically stated that 

they would not have stayed in the program without the financial incentives. In addition, 

the compensation for GED participation is only paid if the instructor certifies the youth is 

making progress. This approach has been in effect since December 2002, and as of the 

third site visit, no youth had quit the program and a number had already completed a 

GED, at a faster rate than had been the experience earlier in the program. For in-school 

youth, the project has also provided subsidized work experiences from the beginning of 
D-44 

the program, and there has been a very high rate of retention in school for this group as 

well. 

Project staff also noted that for the out-of-school youth, there may be other motivation at 

work besides the financial incentives. As part of the daily life skills class, there is weekly 

goal-setting, which had previously been done on a periodic basis through the wraparound 

process, and that youth seem more motivated when they report weekly progress toward 

goals, no matter how small, to their peer group and to the two case managers conducting 

the class. In effect, the case managers act as “team mentors” and in their own view of 

their role, sometimes as parents as well. (Both case managers are the age of parents – one 

is a white female, the other a black male – which seems to provide a good balance in their 

relationships with youth experiencing a broad range of problems and barriers; there is 

always someone to talk to.) 

Project Planning and Sustainability 

The project planned to use the Demonstration grant to address the findings of the 

community report, “A Comprehensive Strategy for Polk County Youth: 1999-2019,” to 

develop partnerships that would build capacity and a collaborative approach to service 

delivery that could be sustained beyond the period of the grant. 

In December 2002, project staff participated in a conference call with Technical 

Assistance at Research and Evaluation Associates, during which future funding was 

discussed. As a result, a group from the three partners participated in a site visit to West 

Palm Beach, which had demonstrated a highly-successful approach to providing for the 

sustainability of their project. Further technical assistance was provided by a consultant 

who attended the West Palm Beach sessions and conducted a follow-up session in Des 

Moines in February 2003. The consultant discussed the need for placing more emphasis 

on systematically sustaining the method of service delivery established in the 

Demonstration through collaborative efforts, as opposed to attempting to sustain the 

project as a “stand alone program.” The project was advised that at this juncture, it would 

be best for project staff to closely analyze, and if necessary strengthen, its current 

priorities and activities and then evaluate the outcomes that have been produced through 

the Demonstration. This analysis would assist the project in enhancing its plan of action 

for sustaining its current delivery strategy, whether in its entirety or in part. 

As a product of this technical assistance initiative, the grantee was to draft a sustainability 

plan to submit by March to the TA team at Research and Evaluation Associates. An 

outline plan was received in April but the grantee did not resume work on planning for 

sustainability until later in the grant period. As of the third site visit in September 2003, 

the grantee (CIETC) had formed a “Community Coalition” in conjunction with the 

Director’s Council, a non-profit group of inner city provider organizations in Polk 

County. They have prepared a PowerPoint presentation and working document entitled 

“Polk County Low Income Workforce Initiative: Building an Employable, Self-Sufficient 

Community.” As stated in the materials, this partnership “will serve as the driving force 

in the development of a comprehensive service network.” They intend to provide 
D-45 

evidence that collaborations such as the Youth Offender Demonstration produce results. 

They also plan to bring in more organizations to broaden the community commitment to 

changing the system, and make presentations to funders as a group based on the argument 

that collaborative approaches are more effective and in fact necessary to meet the needs 

of the target population. 

With regard to continuation of services to youth, CIETC, ICHS and Spectrum are likely 

to stay together as the core group, and they expect continued partnerships with 

YouthBuild, the justice system, Polk County Decategorization, Des Moines Area 

Community College, Human Service Planning Alliance (United Way), and Grubb 

YMCA. ICHS plans to provide for the continuation of the case manager who has been 

with the project since inception, enabling some case management for currently-enrolled 

youth and a few new youth, depending on other sources of funding. They also expect to 

continue the daily life skills class and wraparound approach, as well as subsidized work 

experiences if the youth are eligible and there are slots available through other programs 

such as WIA Youth Services and Promise Jobs (welfare-to-work). It will be more 

difficult to provide support services that the Demonstration grant has paid for, such as 

bus passes, books, cost of drivers education classes (required in the state of Iowa to get a 

license), emergency needs such as rent, and the stipends for the three hours of daily 

participation in the life skills and GED classes. 

At the time of the third site visit, the project staff were beginning to assess the data on 

youth in order to better support their case for sustainability. They have not really 

performed internal evaluations and because of problems of gaining agreement on a 

common database with the One-Stop, the project was slow in putting together a single 

database system that would have facilitated tracking of youth and their outcomes. At the 

grantee level, there seems to be a feeling that it takes all their time and energy just to 

keep the project operating, and thus they haven’t developed a plan or process for analysis 

of the data they have. There does seem to be some recognition by the project director at 

the grantee level that the example of West Palm Beach, which had an internal evaluator 

on the project staff from the beginning, could be informative going forward. The Des 

Moines project has indeed accomplished a lot but needs to better document successes, 

beyond the anecdotal success stories of selected youth, to demonstrate how the lives of 

the youth, at least during the grant period, are very different from similar youth in the 

inner city area of Des Moines. 

Services Offered by Project 

While the grantee is the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC), 

service delivery is primarily carried out by two subcontractors: Iowa Comprehensive 

Human Services (ICHS) and Spectrum Resource Program. Intake can occur at either 

location, and from that point, case managers meet with clients to complete an individual 

service strategy form, entitled Career Awareness and Navigation. This collects 

comprehensive information about the client, including employment history, education, 

public assistance, household situation, health care, and status with the justice system, if 

any. 
D-46 

As the client becomes more fully involved in the program, a “wraparound” process is 

scheduled, which becomes the central method for ensuring integrated service delivery. 

The case manager for the client convenes a session where what the project terms 

“supporters” (representatives of relevant service providers) work with the client to 

identify strengths and barriers facing the youth. With the active participation of the youth, 

goals are established whereby both supporters and the youth agree to actions to be taken, 

such as completing requirements to re-enter school, work on job relationships, open a 

bank account, obtain child care, etc. 

In some cases, the client can take the actions and in other cases assistance from 

supporters would be needed. The group also identifies leisure activities and community 

service choices as appropriate. At the next session, progress on the goals is reviewed and 

additional goals established. The range of services encompasses all types of services 

envisioned for the Demonstration and can produce a fully integrated service approach for 

each youth. This approach has been used from the inception of the program. 

As noted in an earlier section, the project has added another approach to case 

management and service delivery for out-of-school youth. In this case, the wraparound 

process is not needed since the two case managers meet with the youth on a daily basis in 

the life skills class. Through regular interaction with these youth, case managers can 

assess individual situations and problems as they occur, and then make referrals for 

services and treatment interventions as appropriate. 

Assessments 

Initially, the project lacked access to assessment tools used for mental health or substance 

abuse, but as of the third site visit, the project had developed a partnership with Polk 

County Primary Health Care. This enables the case manager to make a referral for 

assessment based on the individual service strategy and information gained through 

interaction with the youth over time. The staff looked at academic/career assessment 

software based on recommendations from the technical assistance team, but was not able 

to purchase the software due to lack of resources. Drug tests are not required, although 

the staff may suggest testing if they are concerned about youth behavior. 

Route Counseling (Case Management) 

Iowa Comprehensive Human Services (ICHS) and Spectrum Resource Program provide 

route counseling for project youth. As of the third site visit, case managers had a caseload 

of approximately 25 youth each, though not all of the youth are “active” to the same 

degree. 

Based on the information collected through the Individual Service Strategy (ISS) form, a 

case manager will contact service providers to confirm they can provide services for each 

youth, and often accompanies the youth to the provider. Youth offenders and youth atrisk of court involvement have access to the same range of services. 
D-47 

The project appears to have sufficient access to services within the community to meet 

the needs of the youth. In part, this has been possible because the project staff has 

purposely added youth at the rate of about 10-15 per quarter, thus not overburdening 

service providers with requests. Services are well integrated due to the project’s 

wraparound approach, along with the new approach to working with out-of-school youth 

on a daily basis. 

Workforce Development Services 

Project staff at ICHS and Spectrum provide a foundation for work readiness through the 

daily life skills and leadership class for out-of-school youth. This is complemented by 

subsidized afternoon work experiences with Youthbuild and other organizations, which 

are intended to combine work experience with a learning component. The project has 

been able to get some Workforce Investment Act (WIA)-supported training but not as 

much as they would have liked. A few youth have recently enrolled in degree programs at 

Des Moines Area Community College. 

Project staff also assist youth in getting short-term, entry-level unsubsidized jobs, which 

youth have indicated are needed for them to be able to continue in the program. As of the 

third site visit, a few youth were being placed in full-time employment in construction 

based on their work experiences at Spectrum and YouthBuild. The project has 

encountered difficulties in developing an employer network beyond the construction 

field, and the One-Stop does not have a network of employers who hire youth offenders. 

Case managers do periodic follow-up with youth who are employed, but there is not a 

structured system for retention. 

Reentry Services 

By the time of the third site visit, the project had made progress in building a partnership 

with the Juvenile Court, and case managers go with youth to the Court as needed to 

demonstrate that the youth is meeting the conditions of probation. Information is 

collected on requirements of probation or parole during the intake process. As part of the 

daily life skills class, youth indicate the goals they need to meet to satisfy conditions of 

probation or parole; e.g., get a job to pay restitution. These goals then become part of the 

regular goal-setting and weekly review process. 

The cohort of out-of-school youth have recently participated in some community service 

that is not court-ordered but voluntary, including building and installing benches at a 

local senior home facility and painting the GED classroom at the YMCA. While the 

project does not necessarily have an organized anti-gang strategy, project staff believe 

that the current approach for working with out-of-school youth (a full day of activities: 

life skills class, GED class, afternoon work experience) may be the best “anti-gang” 

strategy because it does occupy the full day and thus youth have less time to interact with 

neighborhood friends who are in gangs. 
D-48 

Other Support Services 

Out-of-school youth attend GED classes on a daily basis until the GED is completed, 

receiving a minimum-wage stipend for attendance and progress. In-school youth had an 

opportunity for one-on-one tutoring during a summer program sponsored by ICHS, but 

there is no longer funding for this program. 

Through its recent partnership with Polk County Primary Health Care, the project has 

been able to arrange for assessments for substance abuse and mental health, and then that 

agency makes referrals to community services providers for actual treatment as needed in 

each case. PCPHC also provides direct services for health care, which had not been 

available on a regular basis earlier in the project’s history. Housing has continued to be a 

major challenge for youth enrolled in the program. Youth under age 18 cannot obtain 

housing on their own under Iowa law, but in the view of case managers, many should not 

be living at home because the family environment is not positive or supportive. The local 

YMCA no longer accepts youth offenders in its residential facility. 

How Workforce and Reentry Services Mesh 

While the wraparound process was originally the central focus for the coordination of 

services, this is only used “as needed” for some youth. For most (older) youth, the daily 

life skills class provides an opportunity to surface a youth’s needs, issues, and barriers, 

and then the case manager in effect negotiates services with each provider as appropriate 

for that youth. For younger youth, the primary goal is to keep them in school and 

productively occupied during their after-school time, generally through subsidized work 

experience. 

Public Management Model 

Organizational Attributes 

While the project did not consciously follow the organizational attributes that were 

presented at the Post-Award Conference in October 2001, they do exemplify some 

organizational attributes that seem to contribute to project success. Of particular note is 

the project plan to recruit youth at a steady rate over the period of the grant, rather than a 

major effort at the beginning. This enabled the project staff to implement the program on 

a gradual basis, and then make changes and improvements as they went along. By the 

time of the third site visit, the project was right on schedule for the number of youth they 

had planned to enroll by the end of the grant. This approach had the added advantage of 

permitting case managers to shift attention to new youth as earlier youth completed their 

individual service plans. 

Another attribute is evident in terms of shared leadership and information, in this case, at 

the case manager level. Though the project originally seemed to have two relatively 
D-49 

separate entities that were each carrying out a particular mission for younger and older 

youth, these distinctions have blurred over time. Now, senior staff at both subcontractors 

work together throughout the process, regardless of the age or interests of the youth. 

While the intent of this organizational attribute may have been directed at the 

management level of participating organizations, a team approach among front-line staff 

may be as important in terms of meeting the immediate needs of the youth being served. 

This goes back to a theme that has often been expressed in programs working with youth, 

and that is the importance of a caring adult in a young person’s life – in this case, two 

caring adults who work with out-of-school youth on a daily basis during the life skills 

class. While this approach is very labor-intensive, it seems to be highly effective in 

fostering youth’s persistence in the program. The team approach may also help facilitate 

the development of new strategies by sharing information about what works and what 

doesn’t work when dealing with the range of challenges and barriers facing these youth. 

Despite this evidence of positive attributes, especially with the case managers, the 

organizational attribute of grantee involvement has been a question throughout the period 

of the grant. After the initial site visit report noted that there were two subcontractors 

leading the project but no overall project director, the grantee appointed a project 

director. However, the grantee never really assumed responsibility for actively providing 

direction for the project. The staff of the two partners really provided leadership, 

direction, and day-to-day management, but lacked authority to push the project forward. 

This was especially evident when despite intensive technical assistance on sustainability 

in early 2003, by the time of the third site visit in September 2003, the grantee was just 

starting to bring together a broader group of partners to develop a plan for sustainability. 

This has left the project in a tenuous situation at the end of the Demonstration grant, and 

could potentially have been a factor in affecting the grantee’s applications for other 

funds. 

Grantee involvement also affects the ability of a project to leverage resources through 

partnership and collaboration. While staff at ICHS and Spectrum were able to gradually 

develop a network of staff at other service providers over the course of the grant, the 

grantee only lately has seemed to recognize the importance of gaining the support of 

directors of community-based organizations and other senior administrators at key 

agencies. These partnerships, with commitments at the top, take months if not years to 

develop. Front-line staff at the two subcontractors were able to negotiate services for 

individual youth, but didn’t have the clout to get organizations to make commitments to 

provide services on a continuing basis. To some extent, this may reflect a typical history 

in communities where various agencies working with youth see themselves more as 

competitors than partners. The grantee has recognized the degree of the challenge 

involved in changing the culture and increasing the level of trust in order to change the 

system to better serve a traditionally hard-to-serve youth population. But it will take a 

substantial commitment from CIETC and the WIB to bring about systemic change. 

Fortunately, the grantee has gained enough experience through the Demonstration grant 

to be able to present a case to the community that collaboration, where youth are treated 

in a more holistic way, can really make a difference in youths’ lives. 
D-50 

Workforce Development Services and Reentry Services 

By the end of the grant period, the project has been largely able to provide a full array of 

services to the target population. While developing partnerships with some community 

agencies has been a slow process, the addition of Polk County Primary Health Care has 

helped to close some gaps in service. 

By the time of the third site visit, it was too early to assess the full extent of the 

workforce development services being received. Even though the project began enrolling 

youth in the fourth quarter of 2001, many of the youth were either in school or in GED 

preparation programs. The project also placed considerable emphasis on subsidized work 

experiences as a foundation prior to further job training or placement in full-time 

employment. And because the project intentionally enrolled a relatively small number of 

youth each quarter, there has not been enough time for many of the youth to complete 

their individual service plans through to training and employment. Consequently, this 

aspect of workforce development cannot be assessed at this stage in the grant. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

The project had originally intended to take advantage of a comprehensive WIA database 

at the One-Stop to record services and monitor progress of the youth. However, the 

grantee was never able to resolve internal problems with maintaining confidentiality. 

Essentially, each subcontractor started out maintaining records on the youth they had 

enrolled, and then ICHS accumulated the data to provide for the DOL quarterly reports. 

As a result, the project never seemed to recover to develop a strong database system with 

thorough information on youth that could be accessed in an efficient manner. 

There is also little evidence that CIETC as the grantee has been involved in the analysis 

of data to document the achievements of the project and its youth. This may have 

contributed to difficulties in winning grants, since evidence of success was largely 

anecdotal, rather than showing analysis that supported the contention that youth were 

doing substantially better on several key outcome measures than similar youth in similar 

personal and family circumstances would have been expected to achieve. 

Continuous Improvement Loop 

A key example of continuous improvement is the willingness of the staff to conduct 

internal self-assessments of their approach to service delivery and case management. 

Front-line staff regularly obtains feedback from youth about what it would take to keep 

youth interested in obtaining a GED. When youth consistently expressed a need for at 

least some income, the monetary incentive for participation in the life skills and GED 

classes was instituted. In addition, through internal discussions, staff recognized that the 

population they were serving needed a more intensive and structured approach – 

essentially a full day of activities, for five days a week until a GED is completed – and 

even beyond. In effect, this was what might be termed a “mid-course” correction for their 

approach with out-of-school youth. 
D-51 

In a broader sense, it is not clear that the grantee has made continuous improvement and 

self-assessment a regular part of its management strategy. The project managers indicate 

that they use their team meetings as a central mechanism for continuous improvement, 

whereby the three partners bring issues to the table for discussion and decision-making. 

The project also works with its Youth Advisory Council by presenting progress reports 

and getting feedback and suggestions for future actions. On the other hand, at the time of 

the second site visit, managers indicated that they had not found the Public Management 

Model to be useful in project management because they spend so much time and effort on 

day-to-day operations that they were not been able to develop a strategy for adapting the 

PMM attributes into their routine practices. 

Outcomes 

Individual/Client Level 

At the time of the third site visit, project staff was still compiling some information on 

outcomes beyond that provided in the quarterly reports. There had been a total of 94 

youth enrolled up to that point, and the project had a very good persistence rate for 

younger youth to stay in school and older youth to complete a GED. In fact, starting with 

the cohort enrolling in the fourth quarter of 2002, when the project instituted the daily life 

skills and GED classes, essentially all of the 23 out-of-school youth have persisted in the 

GED classes. Of that number, 11 have already received a GED. 

Given that the project has placed so much emphasis on keeping youth in school or 

working toward a GED, it is too early to assess the extent to which these youth will 

continue on to training and employment. The two case managers believe that youth in the 

early stages of their participation in the program still have enough risk factors that fulltime employment is not often feasible. Instead, the youth first need to have an adequate 

amount of work experience, subsidized or otherwise, to achieve a level of 

“employability” to increase the likelihood of employment that would persist. The life 

skills class and the YouthBuild-type experiences provide an opportunity for project staff 

to continually reinforce positive behaviors needed to be successful employees later on. 

In terms of outcomes related to the justice system, project staff feel that the potential for 

delinquent behaviors has been significantly reduced due to the full-day schedule for outof-school youth and the daily support of the case managers and their peers in the 

program. While almost 65% of enrolled youth had prior involvement with the justice 

system, a very small proportion have been involved in the justice system since their 

enrollment in the program. 

Project/System Level 

Project staff believes that a major accomplishment of the project has been the creation of 

new partnerships, including the Juvenile Court, Polk County Decategorization, Polk 

County Primary Health Care, YouthBuild, Des Moines Area Community College, and the 
D-52 

Grubb YMCA. All of these relationships are expected to continue after the end of the 

grant period. In the view of the evaluator, the grant has also enabled staff at ICHS and 

Spectrum to have the time to identify service providers and other key organizations and 

work with their counterparts in those organizations to ensure that youths’ needs can be 

met. 

The project director at the grantee also noted that the grant has provided critical 

experience in working with this youth population that will be valuable in developing the 

plans for the “community coalition” consisting of a range of community partners. In the 

working paper for the coalition, they specifically cite continuation of the efforts of the 

Youth Offender Project with plans to expand the approach to adults. As stated in the 

paper, “The focus of the Coalition will be to garner resources for the creation of a virtual 

network of services among Community Coalition agencies and emphasize the concept of 

developing self-sufficiency at a community, neighborhood, family and individual level.” 

The Demonstration grant appears to have provided the foundation for bringing together a 

variety of organizations in a collaborative approach to service delivery in a way that 

would have been unlikely without the experience of the project. Planners for the coalition 

have identified specific service providers in the core areas of housing, employment, 

supportive social services, supportive “concrete” services (child care, clothing, food, and 

transportation), and continuing education services. 

Barriers and Challenges 

While the three partners have been able to rely on each other to meet many of the needs 

of their clients, for much of the period of the grant it had been a challenge to bring in 

stakeholders from other systems, including juvenile justice and health care. This was 

evident when they tried to bring in representatives from various community agencies to 

the wraparound process and not every relevant service provider would be represented. It 

also appears there may not always be enough “buy-in” from service providers to meet the 

needs of clients on a timely basis and within the budget constraints of the project. The 

recruitment of Polk County Primary Health Care as a service provider in the later stages 

of the grant indicates that progress is being made to solidify some of the crucial 

relationships with service providers. 

The project also faces challenges in the local economy that have been common among 

many communities during the last year or so of the grant period. Employers have been in 

a “buyers” market and can afford to hire adults with substantial work experience and 

without a record of involvement in the justice system. In fact, the project has experienced 

significant difficulties in placing youth in jobs in the construction industry, which is the 

strong suit of Spectrum. Throughout the period of the grant, it has been difficult to build a 

network of employers who are willing to look at this youth population. In addition, there 

does not seem to be sufficient local advocacy for improving opportunities for youth 

employment compared to an interest in adult workers and displaced workers. It appears 

that the One-Stop system itself has not gotten buy-in from employers in general, so this 

potential resource is even less likely to be able to affect youth employment. 
D-53 

The project continues to face challenges in developing collaborations and partnerships 

that would bring resources sufficient to sustain the project over the long term. As 

discussed previously, the grantee has been slow to develop and implement a plan for 

sustainability that would draw on a broad group of key stakeholders. If the Community 

Coalition does succeed in bringing together those stakeholders around the concept of a 

comprehensive service system, then the project could point to the grant as a crucial 

foundation in the effort to build a system that could be sustained and further expanded. 

As part of the process of building a case for sustainability, the project seems to be still in 

the relatively early stages of developing an integrated, comprehensive data management 

system. While they are able to collect and maintain the DOL data elements, only recently 

have they begun to add other types of data to be tracked that would provide more 

information on the accomplishments of the project in terms of youths’ outcomes. 
D-54 
D-55 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Process Evaluation 

Final Report Summary for 

Erie, PA 

Project Description 

Context 

Erie’s Category III Youth Offender Demonstration Project, called BroadReach, targets 

youth ages 14 to 24 who are already involved in the juvenile justice system or who are at 

risk of becoming involved in the system. The primary target area for the project is Erie 

County with a population just under 280,000. 

Erie County and the city of Erie are in an economic transition. Many factory jobs have 

been eliminated as large plants have closed. Much of the inner city contains the empty 

buildings where workers and jobs used to be. Like other states, there have been dramatic 

cuts in state funds for health, education, and other human services. While federal funds 

have replaced reduced state funds in the latest budget cycle, the long-term availability of 

adequate resources is questionable. 

In addition to the poor economic condition, other conditions make the need for services 

for these youth imperative. 

Poverty: Thirty percent (30%) of Erie city’s public school students live in poverty; 67 % 

qualify for free or reduced lunches; and 25% live in Public Housing Authority projects. 

Erie ranks 12th on the list of U.S. cities with the highest percentage of citizens in poverty. 

The average per capita annual income of $23,622 trails both the state and national 

averages. 

Families: Over half of the students in the Erie City schools live with just one parent; 

with guardians; with a step-parent; with near relatives; or in foster care. While most 

youth are Caucasian or African American, English as a Second Language has grown from 

100 students in 1990 to over 500 students by 2000 due to a significant increase in Balkan 

family immigration. 

High Youth Population: Erie has the highest percentage of population under age 20 for 

any urban area in Pennsylvania. A research study cited job training for these young 

people as one of the most critical challenges facing the local economy. 

Educational Level: Eighty percent (80%) of all Northwest Pennsylvania regional 

employers now require technical training beyond a high school diploma or general 

equivalency degree (GED). However, 26% of Erie adults have not completed their high 

school education and only 13% have college or graduate degrees. Student performance 

as measured by state tests is in the bottom quartile, and takeover of the school district by 

the State is being considered. 
D-56 

Juvenile Crime: No significant progress has been made in the last decade concerning 

the total number of juvenile arrests per annum, which stands at between 3,000 and 3,500 

per year. The violent juvenile arrest rate is 19% higher than the average Pennsylvania 

urban third class county rate. 

The number of youth involved in violent crime has increased over the past 10 years. 

These increases include: 11-12 year olds (25%), 13-14 year olds (24%), 15 year olds 

(87%), and 16 year olds (24%). Juveniles under the age of 16 were responsible for 58% 

of weapons arrests. They were also involved in over 22% of all drug abuse arrests. 

Teen Pregnancy: Erie County’s birth rate for teens, ages 15 to 19, consistently falls 

between the national rate and that for the State of Pennsylvania. Although the local teen 

pregnancy rates are not exceedingly high, single teens in Erie County are more likely to 

have their babies than teenagers who live elsewhere. This may be due to teens having 

fewer abortions and receiving better prenatal care which results in fewer fetal demises. 

The birth rates of teens of different races and ethnicities vary considerably. The birth rate 

for Blacks is much higher than that for Whites, but the rates for Blacks, unlike that for 

Whites, has declined over 29% from 1989 to 1998. 

The needs of youth in Erie County are numerous. The project saw an inter-agency 

collaborative effort to train at-risk and youth involved in the criminal system and to help 

them find employment as one promising solution to many of these problems. 

Project Organization 

The BroadReach program was built upon two existing programs that had close ties to the 

community’s agencies and programs for youth. Strong interagency agreements and 

alliances were in effect when the program was initiated. The primary services of the 

BroadReach project are provided by the Perseus House, the grantee, and by The Bayfront 

Center for Maritime Studies through a subcontract. Perseus House is a non-profit 

organization that provides services for youth who are at-risk for becoming or already 

involved in the juvenile justice system. It provides prevention and rescue services 

through its own organization and through partnerships with agencies such as the Erie City 

School District, the Erie County Office of Children and Youth Services, the Erie County 

Juvenile Probation Department, the Erie Department of Mental Health/Mental 

Retardation; and a local children’s center. For the BroadReach project, Perseus House 

provides administration of the overall project and route counseling. 

The Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies is a non-profit organization that provides 

maritime experiences to teach citizenship, discipline and teamwork, self-esteem and 

confidence, and craftsmanship. The center works with neighboring school districts, the 

Erie Catholic Diocese, all of the juvenile placement facilities in Erie County, Scout 

groups, and others. For BroadReach, the Bayfront Center provides an 8-week program 

on Saturdays designed to prepare youth for work and to develop basic workplace skills. 
D-57 

Participating youth are introduced to Career Link, the area’s One-Stop center and are 

registered there and in the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) program for youth. The 

latter is important because it provides stipends for attendance at the Bayfront Center and 

for work experiences after the eight-week program for those youth who are too young or 

insufficiently trained to obtain a regular job in the community. 

Other services, specified in each youth’s Individual Service Strategy (ISS), are provided 

by appropriate community agencies, e.g., mental health, health, substance abuse, etc. 

Recruitment and Retention in the Program 

The initial plan for the BroadReach program was to recruit youth from Perseus House 

programs. These included residential programs for court-ordered youth, community 

based programs for court-ordered youth, and the Erie City School’s Alternative 

Education program housed at Perseus House. During the first year, the project 

experienced difficulty in retaining youth from these programs on a purely voluntary 

basis. 

A second plan was developed and implemented in the second year that increased the 

number of organizations from which referrals were sought. Also, arrangements were 

made with the WIB to pay youth $3.25 per hour for participation in the eight-week 

Bayfront program. These two strategies helped the project to recruit and retain sufficient 

numbers of youth and to expand the program to more of the community’s youth. 

Referring agencies for the second and third years included: 

• Perseus House Chronic Incorrigibility Resources: A Community Linked for 

Effectiveness (C.I.R.C.L.E.), 

• Perseus House Florence Crittenton Female Maternity Facility, 

• Perseus House Collaborative Intensive Community Treatment Program, 

• Perseus House Boys Residential Education Program, 

• Erie School District Alternative Education program (housed at Perseus House), 

• Area school districts, 

• Erie County Family Services, 

• Stairways Behavioral Health, 

• Erie County Wrap Around Services, 

• Greater Erie Community Action Council (GECAC) [a substance abuse program], 
D-58 

• Erie County Case Management Support Services, 

• Erie County Juvenile Probation Department 

The only restrictions to enrollment were for girls who were or became pregnant. The 

chemicals used in boat building at the Bayfront Center were considered a risk for their 

pregnancy, and they were not allowed to participate. 

As of June 30, 2003, the project had recruited 318 youth: 203 were at-risk and 115 were 

youth offenders. Of these 86 at-risk youth and 58 youth offenders were enrolled into the 

BroadReach program. Two-thirds of the enrolled youth were male and most of the youth 

(114) were still in high school. 

The project initially hoped to select 20 youth for each of its four session or 160 total per 

year. This was determined to be an excessive number (80) for the two Aftercare 

Coordinators. A decision was made to try to keep the number of enrolled youth to less 

than 15 per eight-week session that would provide the Coordinators with 60 youth per 

year to oversee individually-based services. Since the project enrolled 144 youth, the 

actuality was somewhere in between. 

Project Planning and Sustainability 

Changes are planned for the program when the DOL grant funding is over, a number of 

which are already underway. Both Perseus House and the Bayfront Center for Maritime 

Studies found that the short-term program at the Bayfront Center was insufficient for the 

needs of these youth. As a result, the eight-week program for workforce preparation at 

the Bayfront Center will be discontinued at the end of the DOL grant funding. 

However, the major design for workforce activities developed by the project will 

continue and expand at Perseus House. 

During its experience with the BroadReach project, Perseus House created a new 

emphasis on workforce preparation, placement and retention within its programming for 

youth. Three new full-time Perseus House staff, one of the Aftercare Coordinators, the 

Project Director of the BroadReach grant, and a new workforce administrator recruited 

from the One-Stop, will work with Perseus House youth on workforce placement and 

retention as will a teacher at the new charter school. This will provide workforce services 

and activities for youth in residential treatment, community treatment, and alternative 

education as well as in a new “Earn-N-Learn” program and Perseus House’s new charter 

school. 

The Workforce Essential Skills program used in the BroadReach project will become part 

of the curriculum of all Perseus House programs, i.e., the residential, community-based, 

alternative education, and charter school programs. In addition, Perseus House received a 

supplemental DOL grant to place academic and keyboard skills software at all of its sites. 
D-59 

This effort is designed to meet the educational needs of youth that have, to date, limited 

their ability to find employment. 

 

A new six-week summer work experience program, named “Earn and Learn,” has been 

designed by Perseus House, the Erie City School District, the Erie County Office of 

Children and Youth, the Erie County Juvenile Probation Department, and the Workforce 

Investment Board (WIB). Based on what was learned from the BroadReach project, the 

program was initiated in July of 2003. Fifty-seven youth participated in a three-level, 

paid, supervised work experience and education program paid for and staffed by the 

participating partners. Seventeen staff representing four agencies staffed the program. 

Youth earned over $30,000 as “employees” in 14 various employer-sponsored sites 

spread throughout Erie County. The court-involved youth who owed restitution were able 

to pay over $11,000 back to their victims. The Erie School District afforded all program 

enrollees the opportunity to earn transferable academic school credits in conjunction with 

the workplace skill development learned on the worksite. Certified teachers awarded 30 

school credits to 17 youth in 12 different academic disciplines. Expansion to a year-long 

work experience is anticipated. 

 

New partnerships, created with the Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies and the local 

WIB, will continue. It is anticipated that youth in Perseus House residential programs 

will continue to participate in programs at the Bayfront Center. The WIB will continue to 

be an important partner as Perseus House strengthens its workforce preparation and 

placement activities for the youth its serves. The WIB is already a partner with Perseus 

House and other community organizations for youth in the new “Earn-N-Learn” program. 

The BroadReach experience and the strategic plans of Perseus House led to the 

successful creation of the Perseus House Charter School of Excellence. This school, 

which opened in September of 2003, seeks to enhance the academic success of low 

performing youth in 6th through 12th grades with the ultimate goal of developing 

educational and workforce competencies and achieving a high school diploma. 

Although it will not continue to serve as a component of the city’s workforce services for 

youth involved in the juvenile justice system directly, the Bayfront Center for Maritime 

Studies will continue to serve youth at risk and those with court-ordered placements with 

workforce and life preparation services using maritime activities. The Center has 

received state funding for a new, permanent building. This will provide more room and 

more appropriate facilities for its activities. Like Perseus House, the Bayfront Center is 

working to develop a charter school that will provide an experiential learning program for 

needy youth. 

There were a number of accomplishments of the program, many of which both Perseus 

House and the Bayfront Center will be able to use in future program building efforts. 

They include: 

1. More youth were served than would have been served without the 

project. 
D-60 

2. There were important outcomes for youth, most of whom were ages 

14-17. Ninety-percent of the school aged youth (114 of the 144) 

stayed in or returned to school. Forty-seven youth were employed. 

Only five youth were convicted of a crime, three of which were 

incarcerated. 

3. The staff had the opportunity to network with other professionals 

across the country. This provided fresh new looks at what was 

being done locally and modifications for improvement in existing 

services and activities. 

4. The project provided funds for a new collaboration between the 

Perseus House and the Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies. Future 

collaborations are envisioned as a result. 

5. The BroadReach project gave credibility in the community and state to 

the Perseus House and the Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies. 

6. The project gave the participating organizations a large entry into the 

WIA and its resources. It also opened the eyes of the local W.I. B. and 

staff as to what the Perseus House and Bayfront Center were doing. 

7. This new partnership with the WIA and the BroadReach activities 

have led both the Perseus House and the Bayfront Center into new 

directions in workforce preparation for needy youth. 

8. The BroadReach project sparked a new program called “Earn-NLearn.” 

Services Offered by Project 

BroadReach services, which are designed to assist youth in developing workforce skills 

and in acquiring jobs, are provided through an eight-week program at The Bayfront 

Center and a year-long individualized aftercare program managed by two route 

counselors at the Perseus House. The eight-week maritime program is supplemented by a 

formal workforce development education curriculum, “Workplace Essential Skills 

Program.” The aftercare services are based on a comprehensive, individualized needs 

assessment and the core elements in the WIA Youth Program. All youth are enrolled in 

CareerLink, the local One-Stop center, and participate in their programs and services as 

appropriate. Leadership training is provided through Family First, a local sports facility. 

The first year of project operation revealed that most of the youth were under the age of 

18. For this reason, the majority of project activities focused on support for youth 

remaining in school (with 90% of the youth doing so) and workforce exploration and skill 

development. Few youth were in jobs because few were 18 and older and because of the 
D-61 

economic downturn. Shadowing and work stipends were added to provide meaningful 

work-related experiences for the younger youth. Also, “Learning for Life,” a career 

exploration program sponsored by the French Creek Council of the Boy Scouts of 

America was added during the second year of the project for youth ages 14-15. Budget 

cuts in the Boy Scouts organization, however, resulted in cancellation of the program in 

the third year. 

Assessments 

Youth receive assessments for medical, drug and alcohol treatment and education needs. 

They are also assessed for employment and criminal histories, family background, 

appearance, behavior, and speech difficulties. 

Route Counseling (Case Management) 

Individualized service strategies are planned and coordinated by Perseus House route 

counselors, who are called “aftercare coordinators.” Services such as education, health, 

transportation, substance abuse, etc. that are provided to clients vary according to the 

individual needs of the youth. These services are not provided directly by the project, but 

are provided by appropriate community agencies. Workforce services also vary, primarily 

by the age of the youth. Younger youth (ages 14-15) participate in career exploration 

activities while older youth participate in activities designed to lead to employment. 

Family Sports Park, a faith-based sports center, offers recreation through its scholarship 

program for needy youth. 

Workforce Development Services 

Work readiness, job placement, job retention, academic education and mentoring are 

offered to project youth. Group services related to workforce and education for all youth 

participating in the program are subcontracted to the Bayfront Center for Maritime 

Studies. Workforce development education at the Bayfront Center is provided under one 

roof. 

A formal workforce development education curriculum, “Workforce Essential Skills” 

from the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), was added to the Bayfront Center’s 

maritime and environmental experiences in the second year of project operation. This 

program provides instruction via video and accompanying workbooks for developing 

math, reading, communication and employment skills. It was added to provide needed 

academic skills and to enhance the workforce readiness skills of the youth. Additional 

workforce services are provided through collaborative agreements with CareerLink, and 

the Youth Services Division of the local WIB. 

CareerLink, which is a project partner, provides workforce services. For example, youth 

are initially taken to CareerLink offices where they are trained to use the One-Stop 

center’s resources. After the initial visit, youth reach CareerLink in variety of ways. As 
D-62 

an example, the Therapeutic Support Staff (TSS) of Perseus House may transport them to 

the center. 

 

The individual service strategies prepared for participants are provided to CareerLink for 

its reporting requirements (all strategies are linked to WIA Youth Services Elements). 

CareerLink also provides funds to the project for stipends for attending the workforce 

preparedness program at the Bayfront Center and for work experiences following the 

Bayfront experience. 

Reentry Services 

Reentry services are not part of the project per se. Perseus House, which has multiple 

ongoing contracts with agencies in Erie County involved with residential treatment 

centers, alternative high schools, and delinquency prevention programs, provides these 

services for the youth enrolled in its programs. Other youth receive these services 

through their schools or other community agencies. Youth in the BroadReach project 

receive a year of individualized services designed to meet their workforce needs. If there 

are overlaps, these may be coordinated with their reentry services. If there is not overlap, 

the services are provided through the project directly or through referrals. 

Public Management Model 

Organizational Attributes 

The greatest strength of this project is the existing infrastructure in Erie for services to 

youth in trouble or at risk of becoming so. Several local agency leaders have, over the 

years, actively sought to collaborate with others and combine resources to provide 

integrated education, mental health, substance abuse and other health and human services 

for the area’s youth. Among these leaders is Mark Amendola, the Director of Perseus 

House who, in less than a decade, increased its budget from $800,000 to $9 million per 

year and forged working collaborations and partnerships with all of the community 

agencies serving youth involved in the juvenile justice or other court related systems. 

The BroadReach project brought organizations interested in workforce preparation for 

youth into the partnerships and created an interest in this area among the existing 

organizations providing services for these youth. The result of the BroadReach 

experience is the new “Earn-N-Learn” program in which five community agencies 

including Perseus House, juvenile justice, mental health, the school district, and the WIB 

are combining staff, facilities, and/or funds to provide academic and workforce 

experiences for these youth. 

The initial conditions in Erie County and the continued efforts through the BroadReach 

project exemplified most of the organizational attributes. Partnerships with juvenile 

justice and mental health care systems were previously established. Resources from a 

number of community organizations were leveraged to create new programs. 

Community support increased. Information and leadership were shared to create new 

collaborative initiatives. 
D-63 

The BroadReach project was based on a well-conceived plan by two organizations with 

clear, focused, and particularly visionary missions for the community’s youth. Both 

organizations had plans for future growth and expansion that strengthened the 

sustainability of the BroadReach project. Both were directly involved in direct services 

to the youth and were therefore continuously involved with and supportive of the project. 

An additional organizational quality that enhanced the project was the quality and 

enthusiasm of the staff that designed the program and provided its services. The Perseus 

House administration reflected considerable experience in community programs for these 

youth. The effectiveness of the Executive Director has already been described. The 

Associate Executive Director was the former head of the local juvenile justice 

organization. The BroadReach Director for the last two years of the project had been the 

vocational director for another of the community’s residential programs for youth. The 

organization had a Director of Development who, in addition to other fund raising 

activities, wrote grants and summary reports. The Route Counselors were the weakest in 

the organization because the persons in the positions changed quite often. However, those 

persons chosen to be route counselors were experienced in working with youth and 

enthusiastic about providing quality services for them. The staff of the Bayfront Center 

had been providing similar programs for youth in the community. They were also 

experienced coaches and seamen. The third new workforce staff member was the former 

head of the area’s One-Stop. The expertise and experience of most of the staff, their 

commitment to youth, and their connections in the community were as important an 

organizational attribute as those specified in the model. 

Workforce Development Services and Reentry Services 

As described in the services section of this report, the BroadReach project provides a full 

array of services directed at and supporting workforce preparedness either directly or 

through referrals to appropriate community agencies. Because the relationships among 

agencies are collaborative, it has been relatively easy to ensure that youth get the 

individualized services they need. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

Route Counselors documented the specific services provided to each of the youth who 

participated in the project. One of the Route Counselors then summarized the information 

needed for required reports and provided the data to the Project Director or Perseus 

House Director of Development as needed. The project did not have a formal system for 

data collection and analysis related to formative and summative evaluation except as the 

data required by DOL for reports. While this was an area that could have been improved, 

the continuous improvement strategies at Perseus House and the small committed team at 

the Bayfront Center kept staff informed of project activities and successes and problems. 
D-64 

Continuous Improvement Loop 

The management and operation of Perseus House is grounded in the principles of Total 

Quality Management (TQM). The organization has Quality Improvement Teams that 

meet every two weeks to discuss progress. They conduct what is called a S.W.O.T. 

analysis to understand the overall program’s organizational STRENGTHS and 

WEAKNESSES (areas needing improvement), the OPPORTUNITIES that exist, and 

what is most THREATENING to accomplishing the opportunities. Twice a year the 

staff participate in strategic planning. 

The project used the TA offered through their participation in the project and found it to 

be exceptional. The staff stated that the TA was something they had not had available to 

them in any of the other programs or projects in which they have or are currently 

participating. 

The project identified a number of needs and addressed them during the three years of its 

operation. Examination of the ages of the youth led to the development of activities such 

as job awareness and job shadowing for the large number of youth in the program who 

were below the age of active employment and a focus of route counseling on keeping 

these youth in school. Finding that there was insufficient assistance for youth in 

becoming prepared for work led to: (a) the inclusion of the Workplace Essential Skills

curriculum in the BroadReach program and all of the Perseus House programs, (b) the 

hiring of an experienced vocational educator as the full-time project director for 

BroadReach and as the new, permanent vocational programs operations administrator for 

Perseus House, and (c) the successful pursuit of a DOL supplemental grant to address the 

academic inadequacies of many of the youth in the program. 

Outcomes 

Individual/Client Level 

At the end of the third year, 114 of the 144 youth were in high school, one was in college, 

five were in a GED preparation program, seven were in other education or job 

preparation programs, one enlisted in the military, and nine were out of school. Fortyseven of the youth were employed with 20 of those in subsidized employment situations. 

Five youth were convicted of a crime and three of those were incarcerated. 

As mentioned previously, most of the youth who participated in the program were ages 

14-17. For these youth, staying in school is the outcome that can best benefit them in the 

world of work in the future. That over 90% of them were in school speaks well for the 

project and it efforts. A third of the youth were employed. While this may appear to be a 

low percentage, it is in fact a good one for a program where most of the youth were in 

school. Of more concern is that these jobs were in entry-level positions in service 

industries, e.g., fast food establishments and grocery stores. None were in manufacturing 

plants or other organizations or businesses where youth could obtain higher wages. This 

is in part due to the age of the youth and their lack of job readiness or skills. It is also 

due to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the area and a rather bleak economic situation. 
D-65 

Project/System Level 

The most dramatic change as a result of this project has been the introduction and 

expansion of workforce preparedness training and experiences to Perseus House. Prior to 

the BroadReach project there were no formal structures addressing workforce 

preparedness other than those found in standard high school curricula. As a result of 

BroadReach, all youth in Perseus House programs including residential programs, 

community programs, an alternative school and a charter school will participate in the 

Workforce Essential Skills program, will use software for academic preparation if they 

need it, and will have actual work experience through the Earn-N-Learn program. 

A second major outcome of the project has been the establishment of a strong 

relationship with the WIB The WIB became a partner in the BroadReach project in its 

second year when it paid stipends for students who completed the eight-week program at 

the Bayfront Center. The WIB is a full participating partner in the new Earn-N-Learn 

program. The project introduced Perseus House and The Bayfront Center staff to the 

resources of the WIB It also introduced the WIB to the resources and programs at the 

project sites. 

The BroadReach project gave a new focus to collaborative efforts for youth associated 

with juvenile justice or those at risk of becoming involved with the system. While 

Perseus House, the juvenile justice department, the local school district, and the local 

mental health organization had been working collaboratively on programs, this project 

brought them together, with the WIB as a new partner, to focus on the job futures of these 

youth. They have collaborated on the creation of the Earn-N-Learn program and the new 

Perseus House charter school. 

Barriers and Challenges

The biggest barrier to the successful employment of these youth will be the economic 

situation in the city, county, state, and nation. While resources have remained relatively 

stable, there have been major cuts in state funding for human services. It is probable that 

the effect of these cuts will reach communities in the near future. Simultaneously, there 

has been a continuing loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector due to cut backs and plant 

closings. Unemployment is high. These contextual factors have the real possibility of 

reducing workforce preparedness services for youth who desperately need these services 

and limiting the number of jobs for which they might be eligible. 

While Perseus House has added three full-time staff with workforce preparedness 

responsibilities with a fourth having workforce preparation responsibilities in the Charter 

School, it is unclear how an increasing number of youth will receive an adequate level of 

individualized assistance and support in preparing for and seeking employment. This 

was given as one of the most important features leading to success for youth in the 

BroadReach project. It remains to be seen if this feature can be maintained at the level at 

which it was provided by the BroadReach project. 
D-66 
D-67 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Process Evaluation 

Final Report Summary for 

Hartford, CT 

Project Description 

Context 

The city of Hartford differs dramatically from its suburbs and surrounding jurisdictions. 

The general perception of those with whom the evaluators met during the first site visit 

was that persons economically able to exercise choice flee the city when their children 

reach adolescence, largely due to the poor reputation of the Hartford school system. (The 

public school drop-out rate is estimated at more than 50%. According to one staff 

member, fewer than 40% of the youth who enroll in 9th grade graduate from high school 

in Hartford Public Schools.) 

The racial and ethnic composition and economic status of Hartford is very different from 

that of the Region. The City, which has about 128,000 residents, has more people of 

color and a less affluent population (38% black; 39% Hispanic, and 22% white). 

According to police, arrest records for 2000 show that males between 14-24 accounted 

for 44% of all arrests that were made (5,393 for younger males compared to 6,729 for 

males 25-65+). Officials estimate there are more than 10,000 gang members in Hartford. 

There is a council of governments, which considers matters of regional interest. There is 

no county government. 

The evaluators also noted several important contextual points: 

• an estimated 5,000 – 6,000 14–18 year olds are out of school; 

• much of the public housing stock of Hartford has been demolished and section 8 

vouchers distributed to former occupants of public housing; 

• Hartford has the third lowest rate of home ownership in the nation—22 %; 

• Hartford historically has had a reputation for being a “warehouse for poor 

people,” according to project staff; 

• there is little or no public transportation in the surrounding jurisdictions. 

One way that the project is addressing the context is by considering eligibility 

requirements of various programs and trying to arrange for youth ineligible for one 

program to be referred to and served by another. Staff members are acutely aware of the 
D-68 

contrasting conditions in Hartford and its suburban communities. They reported that the 

design of the project was based on an assessment of needs and gaps in existing services. 

Project Organization 

From conception of the project, the Capital Region Workforce Development Board 

(CRWDB) as grantee has envisioned a comprehensive system for improving the 

integration of delivery of services to the target population. The central feature of this 

system is Hartford Connects, an internet-based database of route counseling information 

on youths receiving services. 

At the time of the third site visit, the program had Memorandums of Understanding 

(MOU) with more than 20 local agencies that have agreed to provide services to project 

youth, with the full range of needed services encompassed by these agencies (and 

agencies continue to be added). 

The Hartford Connects system enables route counselors to create a record of enrollment 

and make referrals for services as determined by an individual service plan. Route 

counselors can then monitor the progress of each youth and determine if additional 

services and referrals may be needed.

While some youth are referred to the local One-Stop center, the project staff are still 

trying to develop a stronger relationship where the One-Stop would be more responsive 

to this youth population. Up to this point, the staff at the One-Stop have not been able to 

provide the individual attention needed by the youth. However, the Mayor’s Taskforce on 

Hartford’s Future Workforce has specifically recommended the use of the Hartford 

Connects route counseling system by the One-Stop, and a new retention specialist at the 

One-Step attended a training session in September 2003 and indicated that he intends to 

make full use of the system. 

With regard to connections to the Justice system, the grantee CRWDB and the 

Department of Probation began a pilot referral process in February 2003. Since then, the 

Department of Probation has been referring a steadily increasing number of youth to the 

project. Hartford Youth Access Project (HYAP) case managers go to the probation office 

two mornings a week to meet with youth offenders to enroll them in the program. HYAP 

has been working with the probation office to train staff so they can enroll new clients 

directly into Hartford Connects and do route counseling. HYAP also collaborates with 

Community Partners in Action (CPA; formerly Connecticut Prison Association) which 

operates 17 programs for offenders, including Coalition Employment Services (CES). 

CES provides assistance with transportation, documents needed for employment, job 

preparation skills and other work readiness. CES also develops relationships with 

employers to overcome concerns about hiring offenders. In spring 2003, CRWDB funded 

a position of retention specialist at CES to work out of the local One-Stop. 
D-69 

Recruitment and Retention in the Program 

The initial goal of the project was to enroll 75 in-school youth and an equal number of 

out-of-school youth by the end of the 24-month period for planning and implementation. 

HYAP’s recruitment of program participants began with telephone calls to groups that 

had been members of a previous task force. It continued with presentations by the project 

manager and invitations to organizations to join the network. By the time of the third site 

visit, the project was receiving significant numbers of referrals from its major partners: 

Hartford Public Schools, City of Hartford’s Department of Health and Human Services, 

and the Department of Probation. 

As of June 2003, the project had enrolled 138 youth. Of this number, 35 were offenders 

and 103 at-risk youth. Sixty percent were male and 86% were black or Hispanic. The 

project had reached its goal for in-school youth, with 86 as of June 2003, and had 

enrolled 53 out-of-school youth. Seventy percent of the youth were between 14 and 17 

years of age at the time of enrollment. 

Given that enrollment just began in January 2003, and many youth were being enrolled 

during the spring and summer of 2003, it is too early to assess which groups of youth are 

persisting in the program and which are not. Similarly, it is too early to identify 

successful strategies for keeping youth engaged in the program through to the completion 

of their individual service plans. There have been a number of individual success stories, 

but not enough experience to determine patterns of effective strategies. 

Project Planning and Sustainability 

HYAP, with the grantee, CRWDB, continue to see capacity-building, partnerships, and 

collaboration as the common objective and vision for the project. The goal has been to 

get all key stakeholders – especially Hartford Public Schools and the city’s Department 

of Health and Human Services – to work with a range of community-based service 

providers to develop a fully integrated, comprehensive system that would assist every 

youth in the community that needs help. In order for this to work, all the stakeholders and 

partners must buy in to the comprehensive, holistic approach and move away from the 

historical tendency of piecemeal delivery of services to only some segments of the 

population. 

More recently, the mayor of Hartford, with strong involvement from the grantee as well 

as other community “champions,” has formed the Future Workforce Investment System 

(FWIS) Leadership Committee to produce a true system with commitment from the 

stakeholders and a coordinated strategy for collaboration and leveraging of resources. 

The central focus is on “critical age-appropriate services for youth and young adults, 

which includes Route counseling, Alternative Education and Career Readiness and 

Occupational Skills linked to employers’ workforce needs.” At this stage in the process, 

the greatest effort seems to be directed toward keeping youth in school or helping youth 

who have left school to get in a program that will result in educational attainment, 

whether through adult education for a GED or alternative schools. This focus is 
D-70 

complemented by three other strategies: route counseling process using Youth 

Opportunity’s Pathways to Success and the Hartford Connects database system; 

professional development through the project-funded Youth Development Practitioners 

Academy; and the Hartford Leadership Committee, including the mayor, superintendent 

of Hartford Public Schools, and the CEOs of CRWDB, Hartford Metro Alliance, 

Hartford Foundation for Public Giving, and United Way of the Capital Area. 

The leadership committee has specifically asked HYAP to present data on outcomes 

achieved to date through the project grant at a key meeting in October 2003. At the same 

time, CRWDB and HYAP see the capacity-building initiatives under DOL funding as 

vital components to gaining long-term buy-in from both service providers and funders. 

The expectation is that since Hartford Connects results in a highly interconnected system 

of comprehensive service delivery, all participating agencies will have an increasing 

commitment to its continuation. In addition, the Youth Development Practitioners 

Academy has provided a no-cost mechanism for improving the professional skills of 

participating agencies’ staff. 

In addition to continuing commitments to Hartford Connects, a business plan was drafted 

in July 2003 for the creation of the Greater Hartford Youth Development Practitioner 

Academy. This would become a permanent initiative supported by CRWDB, the United 

Way, Hartford College for Women/University of Hartford, Goodwin College, Hartford 

Youth Network, City of Hartford, Boys and Girls Clubs of Hartford, Capitol Region 

Education Council, and the Village for Children and Families. Again, this initiative is an 

outgrowth of the project-supported academy that would strengthen the collaborative 

nature of service delivery to youth in the community by bringing together front-line staff 

who would go back to their agencies with not only more skills to serve the youth, but also 

with greater commitment to a comprehensive, integrated approach to service delivery. 

Given the project’s ambitious goals, it should not be surprising that the project has 

experienced some varying levels of commitment among some of the smaller communitybased agencies over time. HYAP continually works with agencies that have signed 

MOUs to attend training for use of the Hartford Connects database system and then 

provide support for the staff of the agencies to use the system. The Hartford Public 

Schools has needed encouragement from the mayor to make a commitment to the broad 

community initiative and to stick with it, despite discouraging budget cuts that have 

eliminated counselors and staff in the critical Student and Family Assistance Centers. The 

recent receipt of a $9 million, three-year grant will hopefully enable the schools to 

become a fully participating partner so that all school-age youth will be in some form of 

educational program through age 18. 

A related goal is to have community funders such as the United Way and the Hartford 

Foundation focus their own resources on building and supporting the Future Workforce 

Investment System, which may mean shifting away from traditional approaches to 

funding local nonprofit social service organizations. 
D-71 

At the time of the third site visit and looking beyond the period of the project grant, 

CRWDB will continue to provide leadership to develop a community-wide system, 

broadening the target population over time to essentially all at-risk and offender 

populations between 14 and 24 years of age. Eventually, responsibility for route 

counseling will be spread throughout the system, such that an agency that enrolls a youth 

through Hartford Connects becomes the agency responsible for route counseling and for 

monitoring the client’s progress on their Personal Learning and Career Plan over time. 

Current case managers at HYAP are taking on more of a technical assistance role, since 

they clearly cannot manage a caseload of 138 youth (as of June 2003), which is growing 

steadily. 

Services Offered by Project 

From conception of the project, the grantee has envisioned a comprehensive system for 

improving the integration of delivery of services to the target population. The central 

feature of this system is Hartford Connects, an internet-based database of route 

counseling information on youths receiving services. Initially, the database will contain 

records of youths recruited and enrolled by Hartford Youth Access Program. The 

program’s two case managers perform intake and an initial assessment of a youth, create 

a record of enrollment, and then contact appropriate services providers for referrals for 

service delivery. Within a short period thereafter, the case manager meets with the youth 

and his or her parent(s) to develop a Personal Learning and Career Plan (PLCP), which is 

then entered into the youth’s record in Hartford Connects, and updated as actions and 

goals are achieved or added over time. For youth with more difficult situations, the case 

manager together with staff from Health and Human Services and other appropriate 

agencies form a case review team to develop a more comprehensive service strategy. As 

more agencies fully utilize the Hartford Connects system, they will be able to directly 

access a link to the 211 InfoLine for services throughout the region. 

The program currently has Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with more than 20 

local agencies that have agreed to provide services to project youth, with the full range of 

needed services encompassed by these agencies. 

The Hartford Connects system enables case managers to track the actual delivery of 

services to project youth through an activity log; when fully functional, the system will 

enable the agencies to enter their actions and services directly into the youth’s record. 

Case managers can then monitor the progress of each youth and determine if additional 

services and referrals may be needed. 

It should be noted that as a Category III grantee, Hartford’s focus has been more on the 

development of an integrated service delivery system to eventually serve thousands of atrisk youth and youth offenders, than on the short-term delivery of services to project 

youth. Never the less, HYAP has been making referrals and services are being received 

by youth. However, HYAP cannot fully document the receipt of services because only a 

few of the agencies providing services were using Hartford Connects to record service 

delivery as of the date of the third site visit. 
D-72 

As discussed previously, the Hartford Connects database system has the potential to 

substantially change the way in which service providers work together to ensure that atrisk youth and youth offenders receive needed services in an integrated manner and on an 

on-going basis. The route counseling records are comprehensive and should enable frontline staff in any participating agency to immediately access all the information needed to 

work with a youth requesting their services. Currently, the enrollment section of the 

database contains linked webpages with the following types of information on each 

youth: referral source, youth demographics, family, education, training history, 

disabilities, court history, interests, abuse history, assessments, drug history, and other 

information. There are additional sections on the youth’s Personal Learning and Career 

Plan (PLCP), case notes, participation in activities and services received, placement, 

educational achievement, and WIA. 

For participating agencies, there is a great advantage in using the system because they do 

not need to collect and enter basic data for the youths who are already in the database. 

Also, depending on confidentiality agreements, the agency will be able to look at a range 

of characteristics and information about the youth that will be very useful in gaining a 

full understanding of that youth’s situation, history, and needs. Since the system is 

internet-based, information is continuously updated and authorized staff in each agency 

will have access to the most current information on every youth. This also reduces the 

chances that a youth may present a different “story” to different agencies or different 

staff, since the full history of the youth is contained in the same database record. 

The Hartford Connects system has the further advantage of being highly flexible and 

relatively easy to modify and improve. Rather than having to install changes to software 

at each site (e.g., add a field to an Excel file), a single change can be made in the internet 

database used by all agencies. The system has the capability to generate reports for state 

and federal agencies, thus meeting their requirements for reporting, and the flexibility to 

produce a variety of reports for both individual agencies and a group of agencies. Of 

special note is the ability to track and report information on both intensity and duration of 

services received. 

Assessments 

HYAP and the city’s Health and Human Services are responsible for conducting initial 

assessments for education, life skills, and employability as soon as possible after 

enrollment. The assessments are largely based on self-reported information or 

information obtained from the agency making the referral (e.g., school, probation). If 

interventions are needed for substance abuse or mental health, the city’s department of 

Health and Human Services is contacted to help develop a treatment strategy. 

Route Counseling (Case Management) 

Since HYAP has only two case managers for 138 youth as of June 2003, route counseling 

is a major challenge for the program. In-school youth are referred to the Student 
D-73 

Assistance Centers in their school, if the referral was not originally from the school 

system. Out-of-school youth are strongly encouraged to participate in some form of 

educational program, whether an alternative school, regular school, or Adult Education. 

HYAP has been using the YO “pathways” approach for making basic assessments and 

then referrals for work readiness, job training, and placement depending on the individual 

youth. 

At the time of the third site visit, the individual service plan, Personal Learning and 

Career Plan (PLCP), was actually more of an information form for personal and family 

information than a plan for services. Eventually, as enough route counselors are trained 

throughout the participating agencies, the plan could be completed at the agency where a 

youth first made contact. The plan would become the central focus, or pathway, for a 

unique set of services as reflected in the information contained in Hartford Connects for 

each youth. The goal is to have 30 front-line staff in community agencies to act as route 

counselors. For example, eight staff members from Hartford Public Schools were 

scheduled to begin training in Hartford Connects in October 2003; this is a crucial step 

for the vision of the project, since the school system is a central component for 

identifying youth at an early stage. 

Workforce Development Services 

Since the initial recruiting focus for HYAP was on in-school youth, services related to 

workforce development are still in the early stages of creation. The principal activity 

sponsored through CRWDB is the Summer Youth Employment and Learning Program, 

in which 50 project youth participated in 2003, combining summer jobs with 

employability skills training. The WIA contractor, Workforce Training Associates, had 

not provided services to project youth as of the time of the third site visit. As discussed 

earlier, HYAP also collaborates with Community Partners in Action, which operates 17 

programs for offenders, including Coalition Employment Services (CES). CES provides 

assistance with transportation, documents needed for employment, job preparation skills 

and other work readiness. 

As the number of older youth has increased during 2003, the project started to focus more 

on job placement. However, it has been the general belief of project staff that educational 

attainment and work readiness are essential prior to placement in full-time employment, 

and thus there had been relatively few job placements as of the third site visit. Similarly, 

the project has begun initiatives for job retention with the One-Stop Center and CES, 

which has a retention specialist who works out of the One-Stop and helps youth to 

address barriers to persistence in a job, whether family, personal, or job-related. 

HYAP staff noted that obtaining appropriate training for at-risk youth and youth 

offenders has been a continuing challenge. In their experience, WIA-contracted training 

providers have an incentive to fill specific classes, which may not reflect the needs or 

interests of the youths. HYAP is trying to use what they term a “single slot” approach, 

which allows each youth to choose his or her own training rather than be pushed into 

classes with available slots. The larger goal is to better match youths’ preferences with 
D-74 

high-demand occupations, rather than training classes that happen to be offered by WIA 

providers. It appears that community colleges and voc-tech institutions have more 

capability and capacity to meet the needs of the target population than the smaller 

training providers that still have to fill slots to get classes to “make” their minimum 

enrollments. 

Reentry Services 

As more youth offenders are referred to HYAP by the Department of Probation, the 

project has started to look more closely at reentry services. The state of Connecticut has 

recently begun to consider new approaches to alternative sentencing because their high 

rate of recidivism seems to indicate the current approach to corrections is not working. 

One approach would be route counseling at an early stage of a youth’s interaction with 

the justice system, to bring together a broader range of services and interventions in a 

more holistic way, which is the intent of the HYAP design. 

The HYAP case managers make referrals to agencies with MOUs for other services, but 

only some of the agencies such as Health and Human Services actually have sufficient 

staff and resources to provide the needed services for the target population. Initial 

experience indicates a high demand for mental health and substance abuse referrals. 

As of the third site visit, the goal is to provide individual referrals for those youth with 

the most pressing needs. As more agencies are trained in the use of the Hartford Connects 

system and all participating agencies make a commitment to provide services upon 

request, the referrals would become more routine and a part of the integrated service 

delivery approach. The agency getting a referral would access the youth’s records in 

Hartford Connects, provide specific services, and then record the services provided back 

into the database. 

Public Management Model 

Organizational Attributes 

One of the strengths of this project has been its commitment to a vision that has been 

reflected in its original proposal and subsequent implementation plan. The grantee in its 

original proposal identified three components of its approach to the project: 1) create a 

database of all social services programs for youth; 2) provide extensive route counseling 

training to a large cohort of youth workers; and 3) provide follow-up services for youth to 

ensure that services were being received. Up to the time of the third site visit, the grantee 

continues to put its full focus and efforts on these three components. The project has also 

taken care to obtain feedback from partners and stakeholders on these components, 

especially the first two which involve a broad range of agencies, to make sure these are 

responsive to the needs of service providers. 

Through the leadership of the grantee and its executive director, there has been a 

continuing commitment to capacity building, collaboration, and sustainability. The 
D-75 

Capital Region Workforce Development Board sees the target population of at-risk youth 

and youth offenders as central to its mission to build the local workforce. As quoted in a 

May 2003 issue of the Hartford Business Journal, the executive director stated that to 

meet the longer-term workforce needs of the region, “we need to look at all of our 

resources, and that includes people who are coming out of the corrections system.” The 

project-funded Hartford Youth Access Program is just one of the initiatives supported by 

the Workforce Development Board for the targeted youth population. 

The importance of long-term capacity building, in conjunction with community-wide 

collaboration, is evident in two of the components of HYAP, as noted previously. As the 

agencies make more use of the Hartford Connects system, they should have a vested 

interest in its continuation. Further, the more agencies that use the system and add their 

own youth to the database, the greater the advantage for all the agencies, because it 

increases the likelihood that a large amount of case information will already be in the 

database for a youth that is new to them but not new to the system. This could have a 

snowball effect, in that other agencies will then want to become participants to share in 

this advantage. And in turn, this could substantially increase the likelihood the system 

will be sustained. 

Another example of how collaboration can lead to capacity building and sustainability is 

the Hartford Youth Development Practitioner Academy. While the project could have 

concentrated its project resources on training for just project staff, they have instead 

sought to leverage their resources to develop a training program for youth workers 

throughout the community. Partners include the grantee, Hartford Youth Network, United 

Way, City of Hartford, Goodwin College, and Hartford College for Women. By 

involving a broad range of agencies’ staff in professional development, there would seem 

to be an increased likelihood that the agencies would work together in the future on this 

and other activities that would help improve services to the target population that goes 

well beyond project youth. 

Workforce Development Services and Reentry Services 

A principal goal of the project is to build capacity to offer a full array of services to all 

target youth through a broad collaboration of community agencies. Given that service 

delivery has only begun on a large scale relatively late in the grant period, it is too early 

to assess the extent of services actually delivered through HYAP. A strength of the 

Hartford Connects system is that, when fully implemented, the process of route 

counseling will be much more integrated than would be the case if the system had not 

been designed to use as many service providers in the community as are willing to 

participate. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

The Hartford Connects database has the capacity to provide a tremendous amount of 

information about the youth being served in the community. However, until all agencies 

are entering data, data “collection” is incomplete and thus data analysis will have a 
D-76 

number of caveats concerning the extent to which the project is delivering services to the 

degree needed. In addition, while the database has the capability to report outcomes, this 

will not be fully usable until all participating agencies are recording the accomplishments 

of the youth participating in their programs. A key milestone will be the presentation of 

outcomes to the Future Workforce Investment System Leadership Committee in October 

2003, which is a crucial step in making the case for broad support for sustaining the 

system. The project is also developing outcome measures for the Youth Development 

Practitioners Academy. Outcomes will be assessed for how front-line staff are using the 

knowledge and skills learned in the Academy on the job, as well as how this has changed 

the way that their agencies operate and deliver services. Since the first cohort to go 

through the Academy was relatively small, the evaluation will focus on the second cohort 

who will be going through the Academy from October 2003 to January 2004, and then a 

third cohort to follow in the winter-spring of 2004. 

Continuous Improvement Loop 

The project has made substantial use of an advisory committee of partners to get input on 

the design of the Hartford Connects database system and on the training curriculum for 

the Youth Development Practitioners Academy. Both components have undergone 

revision and refinement based on continuing feedback on earlier versions. For example, 

the training curriculum has undergone several revisions to reflect varying needs of 

agencies’ staff, so that it would not be simply a one-time workshop but a more extensive 

program for professional development. The project also wanted to make sure it had local 

partners for delivery of the training and reached an agreement that the coursework in the 

curriculum could count toward an associate’s degree. The goal has been to “get it right” 

from the beginning so that participants will find the training to be worthwhile and also 

encourage other staff members to enroll in future academies. The project also continually 

seeks feedback from users of the Hartford Connects database system so that it will be 

responsive to the varying needs of the agencies and thus increase the likelihood of buy-in 

and commitment to the system over time. As modifications are made to the system, 

whether to meet agency-specific needs or as general enhancements, the changes become 

immediately apparent and usable since the system is internet-based. 

At the community level, HYAP is part of the Future Workforce Investment System 

initiative, which will provide feedback on the needs of the stakeholders from the leaders 

of major community organizations. 

Outcomes 

Individual/Client Level 

As noted previously, youth are just making their way through the process and the two 

project case managers are overwhelmed with just getting youth enrolled and entered into 

Hartford Connects. 
D-77 

Project/System Level 

The goal of the Hartford grantee to impact the larger community has been welldocumented throughout the series of site visit reports on the project. At this point, it may 

be sufficient to say that it has always been the intent of the grantee to use DOL funds to 

literally change the way that service providers meet the needs of youth throughout the 

community, and not just for the youth enrolled in their project. With a goal of this 

magnitude, an assessment of “outcomes” at the system level would be premature after a 

period of only two years. Probably the best evidence of the potential for system-level 

change is the creation of the Future Workforce Investment System (FWIS) Leadership 

Committee, which features a group of organizational “champions” in major stakeholder 

organizations in the Hartford community. In its working document, the leadership 

committee noted that since “a number of workforce initiatives focused on youth are 

currently under development, that without intervention, would create multiple approaches 

to the same issues requiring the same expert resources,” it is the mission of the committee 

to convene and assure “one coherent set of future workforce investment strategies.” A 

review of this document finds numerous references to the central efforts of the grantee: 

the Hartford Connects database system and the Youth Development Practitioners 

Academy. Clearly, the project grant has provided a significant impetus and foundation for 

changing the workforce development system for target youth in this community. 

Barriers and Challenges 

The Hartford Youth Access Program seems to reflect the ideal of a demonstration project 

– it has developed a vision that can truly change the way in which agencies work together 

to serve at-risk youth and youth offenders, well beyond the number of youth that might 

be initially enrolled in the project during the 30-month period of the grant. The program 

design could very well serve literally thousands of youth within the next few years. Such 

an ambitious and complex program has meant that a very substantial amount of time and 

effort has been invested upfront on a scale that would later permit relatively easy 

expansion to the full community. In order to implement such a complex program, it takes 

a lot of planning time and thus the project was well into the grant period before the 

system was operational, because they sought broad input into the system’s design and 

tried to obtain agreements with a large enough number of agencies that they would be 

able to make referrals for youth across the full range of needed services. 

In a way, this is a sort of an “all eggs in one basket” approach. A major issue that has yet 

to be determined is whether the agencies will really buy in to this approach for all the 

youth they serve and not just for the project youth. For example, will agencies forgo their 

own client data systems and use Hartford Connects? If they don’t, it seems highly 

unlikely that they would enter information on youth twice – once in their own system and 

then again in the central system; this is not only time-consuming, but they would 

constantly run the risk of having different sets of client data. Unless the project can reach 

– and retain – a “critical mass” of fully participating agencies, the system may not be 

sustained. 
D-78 

As of the third site visit, an indication of the degree of challenge of implementing such a 

comprehensive system concerned the need for HYAP to continually hold introductorylevel training sessions for front-line staff from a range of agencies expected to participate 

in Hartford Connects. In addition, more advance training will clearly be needed in order 

for agency staff to fully utilize the system, including enrollment of new youth, route 

counseling, and monitoring of client progress. This will probably require more advanced 

training sessions for staff who participated in an introductory session and/or on-site 

training and technical assistance. This is very time-consuming for the two HYAP case 

managers, but it is also essential for Hartford Connects to become a fully functioning 

system. 

At the same time, “buy-in” by community agencies remains a question. Not only do 

agency directors need to fully commit to this approach to route counseling and service 

delivery, but they also have to give front-line staff enough time to both attend training in 

the system and then to use the system. As noted by an executive with Hartford Youth 

Network, an umbrella organization of community-based service providers, front-line staff 

generally feel a high need to work directly with youth and much less of a need to enter 

extensive information on each client they enroll. In addition, every youth who receives 

services or participates in any activities offered by that agency (regardless of whether the 

agency was the one originally enrolling the youth in Hartford Connects) must also have 

each service/activity recorded in the database in order to track not just services received 

by individual youth and monitor their progress toward educational, employability, and 

employment goals, but also to report services and outcomes at the agency and community 

level. This latter purpose is necessary to document the performance of the full service 

system to community leaders and funders. 

Another challenge for this project is to produce results to demonstrate that the initiative is 

worth the support of community organizations as they go forward. Because of the time 

needed to develop the program, the enrollment of project youth did not begin until 18 

months into the grant. Consequently, there is relatively little the project can immediately 

show in terms of the results for youth being served. For example, they won’t know if 

youth are making progress toward completing their education, gaining work-readiness 

skills, or obtaining jobs. In addition, it is probably not reasonable for the project to make 

a major effort in recruiting employers when they do not have youth far enough along in 

the process to place with employers, and thus they won’t know what types of barriers to 

employment they may have to deal with in the future. 

On the other hand, community leaders do seem to recognize the degree of the challenge 

involved in changing a complete system. In its working document on the Future 

Workforce Investment System, CRWDB projects it will take five years to fully 

implement FWIS, with the next two years needed to expand the YO Hartford components 

across the city through the Hartford Youth Access Program. This requires a lot of highlevel negotiation to shift the allocation of resources from public and private funders, and 

within community-based service providers. To produce system-level change, the actual 

process looks like “two steps forward, one step back” – it is slow and constantly 
D-79 

challenging, especially given the history of fragmentation in the community, but it will 

certainly provide a “demonstration” of how one community attempted to change the way 

in which it tries to meet the needs of a group of youth who are traditionally difficult to 

serve in the intensity and duration that is needed to truly provide an opportunity for 

positive change. 
D-80 
D-81 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Process Evaluation 

Final Report Summary for 

New York City, NY 

Project Description 

Context 

Friends of Island Academy (FOIA) is the grantee for the Youth Offender Demonstration 

in New York City. FOIA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 1990 to 

provide mentoring and employment assistance primarily to youth leaving the Rikers 

Island Youth Correctional Facilities, but also to other youth returning to the city from 

correctional facilities. Since its inception, services to these youth evolved as staff came 

to appreciate the multiple handicaps the youth faced when they left the correctional 

facilities: Substance abuse, depression and other mental health issues, learning 

disabilities, history of truancy and low educational achievement, past trauma, and family 

problems. 

Before the DOL grant, FOIA offered delinquency and gang prevention through outreach 

to area middle schools and high schools for peer counseling and presentations. FOIA 

offered post-incarceration intensive services: mental health and educational assessments, 

GED preparation classes, substance abuse and other personal counseling, work readiness 

and employment placement for former residents of Rikers Island and other facilities. 

Youth offenders receiving intensive services were referred to as “members” of FOIA. 

The goals of the Demonstration were to: 

• Expand the prevention outreach to two high schools, 

• Add a formal Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) program for 60 youth, and 

• Increase the presence of transition outreach to youth in both the young men’s and 

the young women’s correctional facilities on Rikers Island. 

FOIA organized its implementation plan around the nine attributes of the public 

management model. FOIA redesigned its educational program with DOL grant funds in 

order to reduce a common barrier to employment—the lack of adequate educational skills 

and certification. FOIA hired certified teachers to offer classes and referred youth to 

other opportunities: 

• Literacy, 

• Basic education, 

• Pre-GED, and 
D-82 

• GED classes. 

• With referrals, some youth received community college, vocational skills training, 

and college classes. 

FOIA also increased its employment retention effort, and implemented its outreach to 

area middle schools and high schools as planned. 

The alternatives to incarceration (ATI) was an innovation, working with small numbers 

of youth referred by the court in lieu of incarceration. FOIA and the judge who 

advocated ATI, Michael Corriero, believed that if the pilot project proved itself, the 

courts would sustain it. 

Project Organization 

Outreach services are in place for youths incarcerated at the four youth facilities on 

Riker’s Island. Youth are encouraged by former youth offenders, who visit youth at their 

classes, to become members of FOIA. These outreach workers are trained for their role 

by FOIA staff and their performance is monitored by the staff and by school personnel at 

each facility. Coming to FOIA is voluntary for all members except those youth sent under 

the ATI component. 

Virtually all services to members are offered under one roof and by staff of FOIA. 

Referrals are made outside of FOIA for serious mental illness, serious substance abuse, 

and health care. FOIA is supported by a variety of foundation funds and in-kind services. 

Youth members are supposed to spend most or all of the working day at FOIA; staff 

checks attendance and follows up, which keeps youth engaged. 

Intensive services to members were organized by function: Employment, education, 

counseling, etc. Early in the project, staff of each department served as route counselors 

for the youth assigned to it. Overall, functions have been reduced from five areas to three 

to provide greater coordination of services. By the end of the project, staff redesigned its 

internal organization and provided a group of case managers who are accountable that all 

aspects of the youth’s “progress plan” is being addressed. 

Staff reports that youth that remain engaged for 6 months or more will succeed in 

realizing the goals of their progress plan; they are less sanguine about the youth who drop 

out sooner. Nevertheless, youth members can always come back to get job search 

assistance or to reengage in other project activities. 

The project provides outreach activities to middle and high schools and to youth living in 

housing projects. Outreach activities are of two kinds: presentations and peer counselors. 

Teams of 4-5 members are trained to give anti-gang and anti-violence presentations at 

middle and high school classes and at public housing projects. 
D-83 

Four former youth offenders have been trained to provide peer counseling, anti-gang and 

anti-violence interventions, and crisis interventions at two high schools. These FOIA 

members are expected to be attending college classes and spending several hours each 

day at their assigned high schools. They receive mentor training from both staff at the 

high school and staff of FOIA. 

Project Planning and Sustainability 

FOIA prepared its plan in relationship to the attributes of the Public Management Model. 

The plan served as a guide, even as the project redesigned key parts of it based on 

experience. Receiving the DOL grant raised the planning stakes because the project 

realized that its current fund-raising efforts were not going to replace the 

$750,000 per year that had allowed it to expand its services and its clientele. 

The staff hired a grants writer, and representatives attended a cross-project site visit to 

West Palm Beach, FL to examine how that project had garnered the funds its program 

needed. A consultant visited FOIA after the cross-site visit to help it rework its 

sustainability plan. 

The major shift for FOIA was moving to a more collaborative strategy for planning and 

sustainability. The program has admirers and advocates, but they had not been convened 

as an advisory group. Staff had resisted any strategy that empowered outsiders to make 

recommendations that might alter its mission and its transformational internal culture. 

Despite these misgivings, an advisory group was convened in December 2002, and has 

met regularly since. It has developed an ownership of the project and several members 

have offered collaborative opportunities that will bring resources to FOIA. Sustainability 

efforts are bearing fruit, and one staff member wished they had only started sooner. The 

connection made for FOIA with the Commissioner of Corrections may offer ongoing 

budget support, something FOIA has not had. With the reorganization, consolidation of 

services, and the new DOL academic skills grant, FOIA knows it can hold its own during 

the coming year as it works to mature its development strategy. 

Recruitment and Retention in the Program 

Youth are recruited in several ways: 

• ATI youth are referred by the New York Supreme Court, 

• Outreach workers recruit during classes at Rikers Island’s four youth facilities, 

and 

• Some youth come from New York State facilities. 

All the youth members are offenders; they are primarily male (85%), and the average age 

is 18. Forty-seven per cent of the males and 38% of the females report current substance 

abuse. FOIA became aware that many youth did not persist in the program through the 
D-84 

enrollment process and they were disproportionately the most troubled youth. FOIA is 

open to youth with mental health or substance abuse disorders, and it works to keep such 

troubled youth engaged. 

Staff assess youth for risk issues early after contact, so the more troubled youth get help 

even before enrollment is complete. Data records show that 64% of the males and 75% 

of the females receive at least some services after enrollment. Persistence is still a major 

concern. Staff believe that a youth who remains engaged for 6 months will realize his or 

her progress plan goals; yet 40-60% of the youth do not make that milestone. 

Services Offered by Project 

Assessments 

These are done at the time of orientation and look for mental health issues as well as 

substance abuse and other risk factors (MAYSI) and education needs (Weschler). The 

employment department of FOIA devised its own employment readiness assessment, and 

the education department has prepared a GED predictor assessment. Through a member 

of FOIA’s advisory group, youth take an on-line health assessment (Project Stay). 

Clients attend a conference on education, work readiness, and almost all receive 

counseling of some sort. 

Route Counseling (Case Management) 

As described earlier, this aspect of the organization changed as the DOL funding was 

ending. Instead of route counseling occurring in every unit, there is now a route 

counseling unit. Existing personnel were reassigned to staff the unit. Thursday night 

meetings are also considered part of route counseling; they are a way to check in with 

youth to learn how they are doing. Staff thinks that mentoring in groups would be better 

since most youths don’t do well with the intensity of a one-to-one mentor. 

Workforce Development Services 

Education, work readiness and job retention are offered. Education now includes efforts 

to improve literacy, basic education, pre-GED, GED, and some community college and 

vocational programs. Vocational education or community colleges are educational 

experiences based on referrals outside FOIA. Only the training through high school 

(GED) is offered in-house. All the FOIA teachers are certified. 

At one point during the grant period, FOIA offered two levels of work readiness, but it no 

longer does so. With the end of the DOL grant finding, FOIA needed to retrench, and 

staff decided to focus on basic work readiness for youth who were unlikely to complete 

the GED. The focus is on offering a class followed by one-on-one job coaching: 

Preparation for the application process and letter, interview, resume, and on-the-job 

behavior. The sessions last from one week to two months, depending on the skills of the 
D-85 

youth. The biggest concern for the work readiness staff is that many youth need to find 

work before they are ready for it. 

Some youth find jobs by themselves. Otherwise, the workforce development staff tries to 

identify the kind of work the youth are interested in. Staff brings groups of three or four 

youth to employers that match their interests. Staff keep repeating the process until the 

youth have jobs. Job coaching continues while the youth is looking for work. 

There are three employers who have been open to youth from FOIA: Hale and Hearty (a 

restaurant chain), Old Navy (a clothing retail chain) and DuaneReed (a drug store chain). Youth are also interested in security jobs, and these jobs often 

work better if a youth is in school. FOIA staff remains in touch with employers who hire 

FOIA youth consistently and gets feedback about the skills the youth have and those that 

they need to be successful with them. These relationships were developed during the 

grant period when FOIA was able to afford a job retention specialist. The job retention 

specialist is now responsible for work readiness, and she reports that the work readiness 

class and tutoring are stronger because of the job retention experience. Other staff 

commented that the job retention specialist’s work made a difference in helping youth 

and their employers work out issues before the youth lost his/her job. When FOIA is able 

to afford a retention specialist again, staff will fill the position again. 

Reentry Services 

FOIA is not responsible for reentry services for its regular members, but probation/parole 

officers are more likely to come to the premises now than before the grant. They have 

found that it is a good place to check in on the youth and appreciate the efforts of the staff 

to assist the youth. The probation office has indicated an interest in having FOIA staff 

participate in training new probation officers. 

Through the technical assistance team, FOIA has made contact with the Commissioner of 

Corrections for the City. He has asked staff to participate in planning for the unit. This 

appears to be a helpful partnership in the making. 

The ATI program was introduced as a pilot with the DOL funding. The youth referred to 

FOIA through ATI were different from other FOIA members in several ways: 

• More likely to be in school, 

• More successful in school, 

• Younger, 

• Fewer other personal problems, and 

• The only members of FOIA who were not volunteers. 
D-86 

These youth remained in school and attended FOIA after school. Staff assisted them with 

homework, meeting other court conditions, and personal counseling. FOIA staff hoped 

that the example of ATI would garner funds from local court budgets to continue the 

program. With New York State and New York City budget concerns, such support was 

not available. The ATI portion of the program was eliminated with the depletion of DOL 

funds. The youth completed their court assignments as scheduled, but no new youth were 

enrolled. As of the last evaluation visit, 6-8 youth remained from the program. 

The outreach to middle schools, high schools, and housing projects is the formal antigang effort by FOIA. Youth members, who have gang affiliations, view the FOIA 

location as neutral space. Staff work to keep youth from coming to the location with 

gang colors or other insignia. Anti-gang messages are part of the staff interaction with 

members, and Thursday night sessions may involve an activity to surface the danger and 

futility of gang membership. The warm and supportive atmosphere of FOIA is considered 

the best antidote to gang membership and a substitute for the sense of belonging that the 

gang provides. 

Community service is primarily through the presentations made to schools and public 

housing youth audiences. Five to six youth at a time are trained to make these, and 

additional members become part of the group as youth leave the program. They have 

made 54 presentations across the City. 

Education Services 

FOIA staff had not initially planned to develop the education program to the extent that it 

has. When the staff reflected on their observation that educational deficits were likely to 

be the major barrier to employment it redeployed its resources to emphasize it. 

Table 1. Educational Services Offered by FOIA

Literacy Reading, Mathematics, 

Writing Skills 9:00 to 1:00 with Tutor Daily for 6 Months on 

average 

Basic 

Mathematics, Social 

Studies, English, Science, 

Writing 

9:00 to 1:00 class sessions 

with Teacher 

Daily; 4th to 6th grade level 

work 

Pre-GED Pre-GED texts and 

supporting materials 

3:30 to 6:30 Monday -

Thursday 

Math teacher M-W; 

Language T-Th; youth at 

grade level. 

GED Same materials as Pre-GED; 

work on testing skills 

Same days and Teachers as 

Pre-GED 

Monthly Predictor Test 

until high enough to try. 

Vocational 

Some had training on Rikers 

Island; If age-eligible for 

school, can be referred for 

barbering or electronics. 

Older youth referred to 

Asbestos or Lead 

Abatement, Building 

Maintenance or Plumbing. 

9:00 to 5:00 five days a 

week. 

FOIA gives funds to take 

tests or apply for certificates 
D-87 

FOIA has received supplemental funding from DOL for additional academic skills 

enhancement. It has hired a doctoral student in mathematics to teach and a coordinator of 

education programs, who will also strengthen computer classes. The mathematics portion 

of the GED test has proved more difficult for students to pass than the earlier version. 

Support Services 

Youth receive mental health and substance abuse support at FOIA. A psychiatrist 

oversees medications, and the project would like to hire a psychiatrist with foundation 

funds. FOIA has no facilities itself for homeless youth, but it refers youth to one of those 

facilities willing to take youth: Covenant House, Street Works, and the Fortune Society. 

Serious mental health and substance abuse are referred out; the substance abuse agency, 

Day Top is three blocks from FOIA’s new quarters. 

The staff plans weekly outings for project participants, such as bowling and skating gettogethers. The staff also organizes college tours and visits to amusement parks. 

Successful Service Delivery Strategies 

FOIA uses several mechanisms to coordinate and deliver services: individual progress 

plans, route counseling, co-location of services, parental involvement, and maintenance 

of a transformational culture. 

Like many projects, FOIA works with the youth to translate assessments into individual 

plans to guide the delivery of services. At FOIA it is called a progress plan. With the 

reorganization, there is now a route counselor for each youth to monitor and track his/her 

pathway through the service delivery plan. 

The services are offered in new, welcoming space. The Robin Hood Foundation helped 

FOIA to locate and refurbish office space on 8th Avenue in Manhattan. Classes, 

counseling, work readiness, and job search efforts are all located here. The Thursday 

night meetings and Parent meetings are held here. Most staff know most youth by name, 

and there is an effort to greet each by name when encountered. 

Parents/family are encouraged to be part of the progress plan development. Meetings are 

held every month for interested parents to know what is available for their children and 

how the project is faring with its fundraising, organization, etc. Parents are contacted 

when a youth is looking for a job to engage them in helping the youth with punctuality 

and consistency. Some parents/family are not involved with their children, but those who 

are, are a part of the plan. 

FOIA has created an atmosphere that is transformational in nature, a kind of holding 

environment where youth can work out their negative behavioral patterns, angers and 

traumas safely. No violence is allowed, but youth who have angry outbursts are helped to 

calm down and learn how to redirect their feelings. There are few rules yet there is a 
D-88 

structure in place to focus youthful energies. Snacks and a place to “hang out” are part of 

the new space. 

Public Management Model 

From the beginning of the grant, FOIA has demonstrated most of the attributes and 

qualities of the Public Management Model (PMM). The project had a plan designed 

around the attributes of good management from the PMM, and it had previous experience 

with the justice system and with providing educational and workforce services. 

FOIA has made exceptional efforts to develop a community face and community support. 

It was featured on the program 20/20, and it currently is the subject of a film. Over the 

years it has developed a devoted following of foundation supporter and advocates. 

FOIA has good connections with the health care system, and it has brought services to its 

youth. The New York City Alternative, Adult and Continuing Education Schools and 

Programs office provides a special education teacher to the program. The WIA One-Stop 

system has been slow to develop in New York City, but two youth have been referred to a 

One-Stop in Brooklyn and another to the One-Stop in Queens. 

While FOIA had strong foundational and state support before the DOL grant, it has now 

begun to forge broader partnerships that leverage resources for it. Part of this shift, means 

that FOIA has made some efforts to share information and leadership. 

While it has been slow in developing its own MIS, FOIA has had an in-kind gift from 

Philliber and Associates for an annual report based on a data collection instrument and 

process designed by FOIA staff. These reports have led to several changes in strategy 

over the years of the grant. 

One change in strategy was reorganizing its internal operations: Staffing, chart of 

accounts, and departments. A tighter, leaner way of providing services is both a mark of 

continuous improvement and a sustainability strategy. From other aspects of the report, 

one can realize how many aspects of FOIA have been considered and changed to meet its 

mission more effectively: Education programs, partnership strategies, employment 

programs, and the ATI component as examples. 

Outcomes 

The DOL funding ended on June 30; yet as described in this report, the work continues. 

The final data report from New York was for June 30, 2003. At that time, FOIA had 

made presentations to 868 youth with its anti-violence, anti-gang message. The project 

enrolled as members 641 youth. Of these, 186 received federally –funded work readiness 

services and 70 received work readiness services from other sources. One hundred, 

sixty-nine received other services from transportation support to health care and 

temporary shelter. Three hundred fifty-four youth received some kind of educational 

services: Tutoring, literacy classes, basic education, Pre-GED, GED, or college. Twenty-
D-89 

nine youth offered community service, and 123 found employment. Twenty-four youth 

were convicted of a crime and 30 were incarcerated. 

The real outcomes will not be known for some time as youth gain more experience in the 

work force. Nevertheless, such low numbers of convictions and incarcerations is an 

indication that youth were not turning or returning to crime while they were engaged with 

FOIA. 

Barriers and Challenges 

The challenges to FOIA’s success are clear from the report. It is difficult to keep 

enrolled youth engaged long enough to change their life patterns and to overcome the 

educational and other deficits with which they enter the program. It remains a challenge 

to prepare youth for employment who do not show the capacity to complete high schoollevel study, and it is a challenge to help youth find work when their need for work occurs 

before their readiness for it. An on-going challenge for the project is working with youth 

who have as many issues to work through before they will be able to live and work 

independently without support. 

The barrier that the project is dealing with primarily is finding effective ways to remain 

sustainable and true to its mission. FOIA leadership has been resourceful and flexible in 

finding resources and in positioning itself for the future. One staff member concluded 

that the next year or two are crucial. If FOIA can garner the support it needs to continue 

its core services through some stable funding streams, all will be well. They are working 

to make that possible, and budget relief at the local and state levels would help. 
D-90 
D-91 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Process Evaluation 

Final Report Summary for 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Project Description 

Context 

Pittsburgh’s Category I Youth Offender Demonstration Project, which is called 

BluePrint, targets adjudicated youth within the city’s Community Development Block 

Grant area. The majority of the youth, ages 14-24, who are involved in the juvenile 

justice system live within the target area. 

The city has faced a growing gang problem since 1991 when the mayor and chief of 

police for the public schools declared the city had no gang problem at all. In 1997, 52 

gang members were prosecuted and convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and 

Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Since many of them have been released from prison, 

beginning in 2002, the community has seen a resurgence of drug- and gang-related 

violence. In the month of August 2003 alone, there were 18 homicides in the city—most 

of them involving youth or young adults in the target area. Youth already participating in 

BluePrint, as well as others the project has tried to recruit, have been directly and 

indirectly affected by the climate of violence: one BluePrint participant was murdered in 

August and others came to the project after their friends were killed. 

Pittsburgh is a city of distinct neighborhoods separated by natural and constructed 

barriers that often isolate the communities from each other. Mixed among and situated 

next to several affluent neighborhoods are other communities that are quite poor and 

populated mainly by members of minority groups. During the past decade, several older 

and generally poorer neighborhoods near the downtown have been gentrified and have 

become trendy places for more affluent residents to live. Frequently, there are gang and 

drug activities less than a block away from restored homes. 

The employment situation in the community, especially within the target area, creates a 

challenge for the project. Area unemployment rates tend to be about the same or below 

the nationwide rate: in August 2003 Pittsburgh had a 5.3 percent unemployment rate, and 

the rate in Allegheny County was 5.1, compared with a nationwide rate of 6.1 percent. 

However, state labor officials warned that jobs continue to be lost, and the unemployment 

rates are pulled down by the large numbers of people who have stopped looking for work. 

The unemployment rates and numbers of discouraged workers who are not counted in the 

unemployment equation are undoubtedly higher among BluePrint’s target population. 

Employment opportunities for BluePrint youth are also limited by the relatively large 

pool of older and more skilled workers--without criminal records--who are available for 

employment. 
D-92 

The geographical isolation of some communities creates related transportation 

challenges, which affect employment opportunities. Many of Pittsburgh’s 

neighborhoods are situated on steep hills and divided by barriers--tunnels and rivers, for 

example--that make the neighborhoods difficult to reach without some form of personal 

transportation. Bus routes are often inadequate to connect inner city youth with 

employment opportunities outside the city. 

The city, like many other metropolitan areas in the Northeast and Midwest, has 

experienced -- and continues to face -- problems associated with growing poverty as 

members of the middle and working classes, both white and black, move to the more 

affluent suburbs. As a result, Pittsburgh’s schools are under pressure because of their 

high failure rates and the poor performance of students on standardized tests, which 

further exacerbates troubles within the inner city. 

The city government similarly faces difficulties providing adequate services. Project 

staff pointed out that officials in the more prosperous county have been more supportive 

of efforts, such as the PROJECT, than have city officials. This, perhaps, is because the 

county has more available funds to support these kinds of programs. 

Organization 

YouthWorks, Inc. is the grantee for BluePrint, the project that was created with the 

Department of Labor project funds. YouthWorks, founded in 1994, is a nonprofit 

organization that plays a key role in the region’s youth workforce development. The 

YouthWorks, Inc. board of directors forms the core of the Youth Policy Council, which 

provides direction to the Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board (TRWIB) on youth 

job training and employment issues. The project’s application was submitted in 

conjunction with TRWIB. 

Although the TRWIB is technically a partner with BluePrint, youth receive few services 

from the one-stop workforce development center, which is called CareerLink. Youth, 

and to some extent the BluePrint staff, perceive the CareerLink sites to be unwelcoming, 

with a focus on retraining middle-aged adults rather than training young adults or youth 

in this population. BluePrint participants register with CareerLink at the BluePrint office 

and use CareerLink’s electronic tools from there. If case managers find specific 

workshops or other activities that CareerLink is offering that would meet their clients’ 

needs, they may refer the client for those services. With those exceptions, workforce 

services are generally provided either by BluePrint or by YouthWorks. 

BluePrint delivers most of the project’s services directly through its own staff at one 

central location, which is also the site of the YouthWorks administration office and 

several other related services. For several months during the life of the project, route 

counseling, project coordination, and many other services were subcontracted to 

Life’sWork of Western Pennsylvania and the project was located in Life’sWork’s 

building. When BluePrint returned organizationally and physically to YouthWorks, all 

the staff transferred as well. Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (WPIC) and 
D-93 

Addison Behavioral Care, Inc. (ABC) have continued to provide mental health and 

substance abuse services, respectively, under contracts with BluePrint. At one time there 

was a community justice liaison, who was funded by the Allegheny County Department 

of Human Services, working full-time with BluePrint to provide a link with the juvenile 

justice system. That position has since been abolished as unnecessary, given the project’s 

close ties directly with probation officers. 

Recruitment and Retention in the Program 

The project targets adjudicated youth within the city’s Community Development Block 

Grant Area (CDBGA) but also accepts some youth who are at risk of court involvement. 

The youth come from an estimated population of 6,000 for whom traditional intervention 

and support services have not functioned well, according to project officials. These are 

youth who generally have grown up living in poverty and are primarily AfricanAmerican. 

Both the number of youth served and their demographic profile are consistent with 

project plans. As of June 2003, BluePrint had enrolled 118 youth out of the 181 

recruited. Of those enrolled, 76 percent were male, 84 percent were African-American, 

49 percent were under age 18, and 90 percent were offenders. BluePrint considers itself 

to be a project for which youth must volunteer, but a small number of those enrolled 

(fewer than 10 percent) have been court-ordered to participate as part of an alternative 

sentencing approach. 

Two key sources of new youth for the project are the justice system and word of mouth. 

Probation officers and judges are increasingly aware of BluePrint as a resource and make 

formal or informal referrals to the project. In addition, a correctional facility in a nearby 

state has several times asked BluePrint to meet with youth before they are released and 

return to Pittsburgh so that the youth can transition directly into the project. BluePrint 

has also found that an increasing number of youth are coming to the project because they 

have a sibling in it or know someone else who is in the project. Some referrals also come 

from the schools or other agencies or neighborhood contacts. 

The project coordinator believes the main factor keeping youth in the project is the time 

and energy of the case managers. The project also encourages retention by fostering 

youths’ sense of identification with the project by bringing them in to a central project 

space for most services and providing t-shirts and other items with the BluePrint logo. 

Weekend trips and in-town events are also used as incentives for active, continued 

participation. 

Until recently, BluePrint did not have a termination policy for youth, which meant that 

they continued to be enrolled regardless of how many of their goals they had reached or 

whether they were actively participating. In the last few months, the project has 

established a mechanism for categorizing some youth as “inactive” and others as 

“retired” (i.e., terminated). As of September 2003, 31 of the 151 youth for which the 

project could provide data were counted as retired and another 39 were inactive; 81 (54 
D-94 

percent) were active. The project did not have data to readily determine which of those 

who were retired had left for positive reasons, such as achieving satisfactory 

employment, and which had left because of refusal to participate or comply with policies. 

The project coordinator thought that more of them had left for negative than for positive 

reasons. 

Project Planning and Sustainability 

BluePrint and its partners had a shared vision to create a model community-based route 

counseling system for youth offenders that would pair YouthWorks, Inc.’s job training 

and readiness expertise with the commitment of the Allegheny County Juvenile Court to 

the concept of Balanced and Restorative Justice in order to have a significant impact on 

youth offender recidivism and youth violence prevention. That vision has not changed. 

Nor has the overall approach of the project fundamentally changed since its creation, 

though it has been “fine-tuned” continuously. For example, youth are now required to 

come to a group orientation session to make sure mutual expectations are clear, and more 

activities are planned for groups of youth in order to strengthen the peer support role. 

What is different in practice from what was proposed in the grant application is the 

relationship with the Three Rivers Investment Board’s CareerLink. Although the grant 

application envisioned BluePrint’s achieving “a higher level of inclusion of youth 

offenders in the TRWIB’s CareerLink,” BluePrint has, as it developed, substituted for 

inclusion of youth offenders within CareerLink rather than facilitated greater inclusion. 

The older youth in BluePrint register with CareerLink so that they can access its 

resources electronically, but otherwise they generally receive few if any services from 

CareerLink. As a result, sustainability of services for this population is expected to 

depend, not on the one-stop workforce development system, but on the continued role of 

YouthWorks in planning for this population and obtaining funding from sources such as 

Allegheny County, foundations, and perhaps other federal funding streams. 

YouthWorks, the grantee, continues to play a vital leadership and visionary role. 

YouthWorks is an organization whose mission is to develop, pilot and implement 

initiatives involving workforce issues for youth. Since it was started in 1994, it has 

effectively leveraged its resources, including millions of dollars it controls, to get other 

organizations and systems to fill gaps in services provided youth. Some of these services, 

for example, include part-time and year-round employment and career exploration 

opportunities. It is well-positioned to take the leadership in providing services for this 

target population after the project funds end. 

The collaboration that was formed for BluePrint is expected to continue working with 

BluePrint during its 1 year no-cost extension under the project and later, if sufficient 

funds can be obtained. Partners include representatives from Allegheny County 

Department of Human Services, Allegheny County Juvenile Court, Pittsburgh Public 

Schools, Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board, Youth Places, Western Psychiatric 

Institute and Clinic, Addison Behavioral Care, and other organizations involved in youth 

workforce development issues. Quarterly meetings with these partners are described as 

important forums for discussing changes to project plans. Groups that appear to be not 
D-95 

involved in project planning in any significant way are youth, parents, employers, and 

front-line BluePrint workers. Planning is generally informed by first-hand, qualitative, 

anecdotal knowledge about youth’s participation in the project rather than by analysis of 

quantitative data. 

Services Offered by Project 

The heart of BluePrint’s integrated service delivery approach is its use of Community 

Based Teams. The individualized service strategy (ISS) for each participant is developed 

jointly by a team that includes the youth; the executive director of YouthWorks; the route 

counselor and supervisory case manager/project coordinator; and representatives from 

WPIC and ABC and the justice system. The strategy identifies specific actions to be 

taken in education, employment, and personal/social areas and the community 

organizations—both ongoing BluePrint partners and others—that need to be involved to 

achieve goals for that youth. The case manager and client are jointly responsible for 

follow up to ensure that appropriate actions are taken, to document progress, and to revise 

goals and planned actions as needed. 

In the early stages of the project, it was considered important for members of the 

Community Based Team to meet jointly to develop the ISS for each youth, but by the 

time of the evaluator’s third visit, that approach had changed in two significant ways. 

First, as part of a shift to put more responsibility on the individual youth, the process 

starts by asking the youth to self-identify personal short-term and long-term goals and 

steps to achieving them. The ISS that emerges builds upon that starting point. Second, 

team members no long meet together to discuss each youth. Instead—to increase the 

efficiency of the process—other team members, such as representatives from WPIC, 

ABC, and the justice system, provide input orally or in writing that is incorporated into 

the ISS by BluePrint staff and the youth. 

BluePrint provides, in one way or another, most of the range of services envisioned for 

the project. As previously mentioned, alternative sentencing is rarely involved because 

the project’s preference is to have youth participate as volunteers. Health needs would be 

addressed by referral to the county. Because of the case managers’ knowledge about 

applicable waivers, they have helped some youth qualify for health care coverage that 

they had been unable to get previously. Housing needs would be addressed by referral to 

the city or county housing authority. Now that they are co-located with YouthWorks, it 

is easier for youth to learn about recreation opportunities at Youth Places (another 

YouthWorks activity), which has its administrative offices in the same building. 

Mentoring largely occurs informally between youth and case managers—either their own 

case manager or others in the project—but there is also a co-located mentoring project 

that might be accessed through referral. Community service is not a specific expectation 

for all youth. Some youth, however, are involved in court-imposed community service 

that is supervised by the court. A new project in collaboration with the University of 

Pittsburgh’s School of Social Work also involves about 10 BluePrint youth in work with 

a community agency for a school semester. Other services are discussed in more detail 

below. 
D-96 

The main gap between services the youth need and services they receive continues to be 

in the areas of substance abuse and, to lesser extent, mental health. According to the 

substance abuse service provider, over 90% of the BluePrint youth they assess need some 

substance abuse education or treatment, yet few actually receive structured education or 

treatment. Of the 110 enrolled youth for whom data were available, a specific 

recommendation for substance abuse services is in the individualized services strategy for 

71 (65 percent) and 20 of those 71 (28 percent) have received services. The only 

education or treatment option the project offers is individual sessions—they have no drug 

and alcohol group programs for this population—and youth are reluctant to accept 

individual counseling sessions offered at the contractor’s office. Regarding mental health 

services, the project believes it is getting more successful in having youth accept 

treatment because of the emphasis placed on its importance in the initial orientation 

sessions. Also, case managers can provide some of this support, and BluePrint has 

started offering small group sessions on mental health topics. 

Assessments 

All youth participating in YouthWorks receive comprehensive assessments for needs that 

cover substance abuse, mental health, education, employment, and personal/social issues. 

Substance abuse and mental health assessments are provided through subcontracts with 

Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (WPIC) and Addison Behavioral Center (ABC); 

assessment in other areas is done by the youth’s case manager in partnership with the 

youth. Youth are not considered enrolled in BluePrint until these assessments are 

completed, which is intended to happen within 30 days of a youth’s coming to the 

project. Information obtained in the case manager’s part of the assessment is updated as 

he/she works with the youth and needs change. 

Route Counseling (Case Management) 

Route counseling is considered the heart of the BluePrint project. Each youth is assigned 

to a case manager, who generally works with the same youth for the duration of his/her 

time in BluePrint. Each case manager has about 15 clients. Case managers typically 

have contact with the client in person or by telephone, or with someone else about the 

youth, 8 to 12 times a month. They will meet with the youth at the BluePrint office, at 

school, or whether they are needed. Clients have their case manager’s mobile phone 

numbers and can call in the evenings or on weekends if they need assistance or support 

outside of office hours. It is the joint responsibility of the case manager and the youth to 

monitor progress toward the goals set in the youth’s Individualized Service Strategy. 

Workforce Development Services 

Workforce development services include work readiness, job placement, job retention 

efforts, academic and vocational/occupational education and supportive services, such as 

substance abuse and mental health education and treatment. In general, the nature of 

these services depends upon the age and status of youth participating in the project. The 
D-97 

focus for younger youth is to keep them in school and working toward a high school 

diploma. The focus for older youth is to help them prepare for and enter employment, 

including getting a GED if they lack a high school degree. 

Basic training in work readiness is provided for all youth by YouthWorks using a 

curriculum developed by YouthWorks; case managers follow up to reinforce the concepts 

covered in those formal sessions. Some youth receive additional job readiness training in 

projects such as the Community Builders Catalyst for Change collaboration with the 

University of Pittsburgh’s School of Social Work, which involves about 10 youth, and 

the new BluePrint-AmeriCorps project, which will involve about 40 youth across a year. 

According to the project coordinator, “for out of school youth, everything we do is 

focused on job placement.” Case managers are responsible to help the youth find 

appropriate jobs in the community on a case-by-case basis. There is no cadre of 

employers ready and willing to offer jobs to BluePrint youth. Once they have jobs, 

BluePrint tries to encourage job retention through the case managers’ follow up with 

youth and with their employers. They also provide services to help them succeed, such 

as a transportation subsidy for the first 2 weeks they are on a job (until they get a 

paycheck). 

For youth without a high school degree, case managers work with youth and the schools 

to keep them in their academic, alternative, or vocational technical school placements, if 

possible. If that is not appropriate (for example, because of their age or other 

circumstances), then youth are referred to one of several locations where they can study 

for the GED test. On-line GED preparation is available at BluePrint, but they have had 

more success with youth preparing in a classroom setting. 

BluePrint attempts to meet youth’s substance abuse and mental health needs that limit 

their employment success largely by referral to the two subcontractors, Addison 

Behavioral Care and Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. More recently, case 

managers have started presenting group sessions at the BluePrint office on mental health 

topics such as self esteem. 

Reentry Services 

BluePrint works with the justice system and the community to facilitate reentry for 

specific youth who have been incarcerated and to develop and maintain a community 

conducive to reductions in crime and violence. As members of the Gang-free Schools 

and Community Partnership’s intervention team, staff of BluePrint and the grantee, 

YouthWorks, are playing an active, direct role in attempting to de-fuse the growing 

violence involving the target population. (See previous discussion about context.) They 

are spending time “on the street” meeting with youth and young adults to try to resolve 

specific disputes peacefully and to help them learn more productive conflict resolution 

techniques. Other BluePrint staff are on the Partnership’s Advisory and Assessment 

Teams. In addition to these anti-gang activities, “the whole program is an anti-gang 

activity,” as the project coordinator put it. Involvement in BluePrint is intended to create 

a sense of “family” that can replace their connection with gangs: they participate with 
D-98 

their peers in BluePrint, have clothing with the BluePrint logo, and have a BluePrint ID 

card with their photo that they have been encouraged to carry at all times in case they are 

stopped by police. 

For specific youth leaving correctional facilities, BluePrint sometimes gets involved 

before they leave the facility in order to move them seamlessly into the project. For 

example, Bowling Brook correctional facility in Frederick, MD, sometimes lets BluePrint 

know when youth are about to return to Pittsburgh so that case managers can meet with 

them before their release. Some other youth are involved in court-mandated aftercare 

programs that are run by the Juvenile Court. The role of BluePrint case managers for 

those youth is to follow up periodically to check on their status. 

Although BluePrint does not encourage it, some judges have mandated BluePrint 

participation as an alternative to incarceration. The BluePrint project treats them the same 

as any other youth, once they are referred to the project. 

Public Management Model 

Organizational Attributes 

The BluePrint project manifests to a large extent the organizational attributes considered 

important in the public management model, which it appears to have done as a natural 

part of its management approach rather than as a conscious articulation of the model 

presented by the Department of Labor. It is especially characterized by active 

involvement of the grantee both in the vision for the project and in its ongoing 

implementation and coordination. The project had a clear and well-conceived plan, and, 

while the overall strategy has been unchanged, tactical changes have been made as there 

has been a perceived need. Community partners from other organizations—but not, to 

any significant extent, employers or family representatives--have been consulted in 

quarterly partners meetings, at which they have been given information about the project. 

Nevertheless, the impetus for and direction of changes appears to come primarily from 

YouthWorks itself. The grantee had previous experience with the juvenile justice and 

behavioral health care systems and developed further partnerships and relationships in 

those sectors as the project developed. BluePrint appears to have strong support from 

community organizations and effectively leverages its resources through collaborations 

and partnerships. 

Workforce Development Services and Reentry Services 

BluePrint has been able to make a full range of services available to youth through a 

combination of 

• direct delivery of core services, such as route counseling; 

• contracts with service providers for services, such as substance abuse and mental 

health assessment and treatment; 
D-99 

• partnerships with other projects offered by the grantee, such as work readiness 

workshops; and 

• partnerships with other organizations in the community, such as the Pittsburgh 

Board of Education and the justice system. 

Services generally available to youth are described in more detail in the previous section. 

The project has actively developed innovative partnerships to deliver workforce services 

to selected youth, such as the collaboration with University of Pittsburgh and the 

supplemental grant from the Department of Labor for a project with AmeriCorps. The 

Knowledge to Empower Youths to Success (KEYS) Service Corps—an AmeriCorps 

program operated by the Allegheny County Department of Human Services/Office of 

Community Services—will partner with BluePrint to provide training for about 40 

BluePrint participants who are 17 to 22 years old. At the end of the 17-week program, 

youth are expected to get a job, further their education, enter AmeriCorps, or enter Job 

Corps. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

BluePrint has collected data on most of the youth in the project, but the project has not 

significantly used quantitative data analysis to monitor project implementation or 

document its achievements. For example, judgments about whether a change in practice 

has had the desired result--such as requiring an orientation session when a youth comes to 

the project in part to increase youth’s willingness to accept recommended services--

would be made on the basis of informal observations and anecdotes rather than analysis 

of data on participation. And in making the case for the project’s success, the approach 

has been to rely on anecdotes about individual youth rather than analysis of employment 

outcomes such as the quality of jobs youth have received. 

BluePrint’s computerized management information system (MIS) provides a way for case 

managers to enter descriptive data about youth, including their individual goals, and 

record notes about their contacts with and about individual youth. As a result, substantial 

information is available in the MIS that could be reviewed by the case manager, 

supervisor, or others. Entries are primarily narrative rather than coded quantitatively. 

For example, by reading all the notes for a youth, it would be possible to know what 

services were needed and which were received, but the data format limits its usefulness 

for analysis purposes. In addition, data in the MIS cannot be used to automatically 

generate the quarterly reports required by DOL. 

In order to meet the DOL requirement for quarterly summary reports and an end-ofproject data base on individual youth, BluePrint manually produced the quarterly reports 

and created a spreadsheet of readily available data for the end-of-project requirement. As 

a result of the limited data available without reading through all the case notes, the final 

data base contains little information about the intensity and duration of services youth 

received and the extent to which youth achieved the goals they set. 
D-100 

Continuous Improvement Loop 

The leadership of BluePrint and YouthWorks clearly shows a commitment to meeting the 

needs of the target population and a desire to improve their project as needed to do so. 

They obviously reflect on what they believe is working well or not so well and make 

changes in response to perceived problems with the project. For example, the process of 

developing youths’ individualized service strategies was changed, personnel changes 

were made, more responsibility was placed on youth to develop goals and carry out 

actions to achieve them, and the office location and organizational placement of staff 

were changed. 

At the same time, the project’s continuous improvement process could be improved by 

better collection and analysis of data. Given the way data are being collected, organized, 

and analyzed, the project does not have information that would be useful to improve the 

project, such as what kinds of youth are being more or less successful, who is dropping 

out and why, and what kinds of jobs youth are getting and staying with. 

Outcomes 

Individual Client Level 

BluePrint describes its youth outcomes in terms of individual “success stories,” of which 

there are many. These narratives describe youth who have overcome significant 

obstacles to finish school or get a GED, improve their attitudes, stay out of trouble, and 

get jobs. Statistically, the project can demonstrate that 19 of the 181 youth who entered 

the project have earned their GED and 7 have graduated from high school, but there is no 

information about how many youth had GED or high school graduation as a need or goal 

when they entered the project. Over 50 youth have entered subsidized or unsubsidized 

employment, but the project can provide no information about whether the work was 

part-time or full-time, how long they stayed in the jobs, or what salaries and benefits they 

earned while employed. According to the project coordinator, the jobs youth have 

entered have been almost entirely in the retail sector—grocery store, fast food, car wash, 

etc.—which are largely low paying jobs with little career potential. 

Project/System Level 

At the project level, it would be fair to say that those involved with BluePrint have gained 

experience in setting up a project such as this. The project is expected to continue 

essentially unchanged—even after PROJECT funds are gone—because of the 

organizational and community support that exists for it. As it continues, they should be 

able to use the experience developed to continue to improve service delivery. 

As previously mentioned, YouthWorks and BluePrint staff are actively involved in trying 

to reduce violence in the community that is caused by and affects this youth population. 

To the extent they are successful in their efforts, the community will clearly benefit, as 
D-101 

will the credibility of the two organizations--which should have a positive effect on 

sustainability of the project. Other than through their direct violence-prevention 

activities, project leadership believes that the presence of BluePrint has led to little or no 

change in the larger community system for serving these youth. 

Barriers and Challenges 

Barriers to the success of BluePrint are both external and internal. One primary external 

factor is the bleak economic and employment environment. Another is the resurgence of 

crime and violence in the community. As the director of YouthWorks put it, “You can’t 

carry out an effective employment and training program with people getting killed in 

broad daylight.” The primary internal barrier to success is project leadership’s lack of 

commitment to using data to monitor project implementation and analyze project success. 

Making better use of data would increase their understanding of ways to improve the 

project and enhance their argument for continuation of the project. 

BluePrint still faces challenges in delivering the service they would like to provide. They 

realize the importance of addressing youths’ substance abuse and mental health needs 

that limit their employability but have not yet found ways to do so effectively. In 

addition, they are still struggling in the area of job development: finding employers and 

jobs for which their youth are qualified that have the potential of adequate wages to keep 

them out of poverty and away from criminal activities. 
D-102 
D-103 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Process Evaluation 

Final Report Summary for 

West Palm Beach, FL 

Project Description 

Context 

The service area for the project encompasses the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise 

Communities of Palm Beach County. The western, rural part of the county includes a 

large migrant population and the eastern, urban part has a diverse population with an 

increasing number of immigrants. The population experiences unemployment rates at 

double-digit levels, low-incomes, and high crime rates. The adult population has an 

illiteracy rate of approximately 35%, almost 50% are below 9th grade in reading and 

writing, and 60% lack a high school diploma. 

The grant application cited rapidly growing juvenile crime and gang problems, noting 

that citizens have identified juvenile crime as their number one concern. Further, 

“schools are struggling with rampant poverty, illiteracy, severe gaps in basic skills, ESOL 

and assimilation problems as well as escalating crime and gang activity.” Police reports 

of school incidents dramatically increased from 1999 to 2000. Schools in the target area 

have a very high proportion of students in the free lunch program, over 90% minority 

composition, over 60% are below the median for reading, math, language, and more than 

40% missed 11 or more days. 

At the time of the first visit in November 2001, tourism (a major component of the local 

economy) was experiencing a significant decline. Other industries were also 

experiencing contraction, while construction and health care were relatively stable. By 

the time of the third site visit in September 2003, employment opportunities had still not 

improved and in fact had become more competitive as adults with work experience were 

increasingly willing to accept lower-wage jobs for which youth might have otherwise 

been hired. 

In the view of the project director, local government recognizes the problems facing the 

community the project seeks to serve and community leaders have shown a level of 

commitment to improving conditions in the economically depressed areas. 

The grantee noted in its application that existing systems lacked a number of features that 

need to be addressed through a more integrated network. Existing systems, such as 

Workforce Investment Board (WIB) youth programs, did not target youth offenders or atrisk youth for special assistance. Further, existing programs did not provide long-term 

follow-up services nor did they address strategies for preventing recidivism. The existing 

WIB system did not have a strong employer linkage for ex-offenders, gang members, or 

at-risk youth. Existing case management lacked coordination to uniformly assess needs 
D-104 

and link services. In addition, programs for truancy, gang prevention, and alternative 

sentencing needed expansion and coordination. At the first site visit, WIB staff noted 

that while the county school system has three career academies for occupational and 

vocational training, individual schools offer little in the way of vocational training. Plans 

were currently underway to create “vocational schools within schools” in high schools 

throughout the district, but implementation would take a considerable period of time. 

Project Organization 

The grantee, the Academy for Practical Nursing and Health Occupations (APNHO), 

works with its primary partners, Probationer’s Educational Growth and Palm Beach 

County Workforce Development Board, to identify youth for the program and then to 

coordinate service delivery. APNHO has a coordinator for case management, 

instructor/case managers at the four area high schools where the program is operated, and 

at APNHO itself, where a case manager works with students from training through 

placement and the initial stage of employment. 

The focal point of the case management process is the Youth Goals and Individual 

Service Strategy form, which is completed by the case manager with the youth as they 

enter the program and then updated as services are received and as other needs are 

identified. 

Though all clients go through the process of setting goals and the service strategy, older 

youth who are enrolled in APNHO occupational programs receive more intensive 

services because they are getting prepared to directly enter the workforce. 

The project has all youth qualify with the One-Stop system, which enables the project to 

obtain funding for not only tuition but a range of other WIA-supported services such as 

child care and bus passes. In effect, PROJECT youth are getting the same services as 

youth and adults as specified under WIA regulations. APNHO, as an approved contractor 

for the local One-Stops, is expected to do its own recruitment, work readiness, placement, 

and follow-up. 

Recruitment and Retention in the Program 

Recruitment for the health occupations program began in July 2001. Methods of 

recruitment of the out-of-school population included: distribution of advertisements and 

flyers; health professionals from the target area who also have a connection to APNHO 

went directly to the target neighborhoods (e.g., churches, housing facilities); and APNHO 

participated in community events, as well as gained clients through word-of-mouth (e.g., 

bring a “buddy”). In the four target high schools, students were recruited by teachers and 

mentors from the community. Clients for the PEG program were mostly referred by 

probation officers, and PEG also works with two work release facilities in Palm Beach 

County to identify potential clients. 
D-105 

By November 2001, the goal of 80 clients had already been exceeded, as the project 

reached an enrollment of 103 youth. Of the 103 youth, 55 are classified as at-risk and 48 

are offenders. Fifty-two of the youth were between the ages of 14 and 17 at the time of 

enrollment, with 51 in the 18-24 age range. Sixty-one were in-school youth and 42 were 

out-of-school at the time of enrollment. Ninety-two percent of the youth are female. 

The project’s approach to keeping youth engaged in the program is a reflection of the 

central focus on training for specific jobs in the health care field. The project director 

believes that many youth in this target population do not want to be in a traditional 

academic program where there is no proven connection to a job. This is especially true 

for older youth who did not graduate from high school; in her experience, these youth are 

not interested in GED programs where it is not clear that completion will lead to a job or 

a career. In fact, typically many of these youth did not succeed in a traditional 

educational setting to begin with and don’t want more of the same. She has found that the 

youth significantly improve their math and reading competencies by virtue of having to 

learn and use these skills in practice-oriented classes. This also builds their personal sense 

of success in education, thus making it more likely they will later go on to a GED and 

further education once they enter a career. APNHO staff found that the length of time 

youth had to spend in a GED program (due to relatively low grade levels in math and 

reading) was too discouraging. Of the health occupations for which APNHO offers 

training, only the LPN requires a GED or high school diploma. Project staff have also 

found that youth in both high schools and at APNHO really need jobs, which in turn 

helps to keep them engaged in the occupational program because of the high likelihood of 

getting a job in the health care field. 

As of July 2003, the project had been able to achieve a very high rate of completion of 

education and training goals for in-school and out-of-school youth, approaching 95%. 

Virtually all of the in-school youth stayed in high school through the length of the 

program until receipt of a high school diploma or equivalent. Of the 103 enrolled youth, 

94 had obtained employment, primarily unsubsidized. One area that the project has 

recognized needs further improvement is retention. Of the 77 youth who had at least one 

unsubsidized employment record, 65% were still employed as of July 2003. Interestingly, 

while only 50% of younger youth offenders were still employed, 78% of older youth 

offenders were in jobs. The proportions for younger at-risk youth were 63% and older atrisk youth was 58%. In order to address the challenges of retention for this target 

population, the project obtained separate grant funds to begin a program called “Linking 

People with Careers” (LPC). This initiative is led by a project coordinator who provides 

assistance and guidance throughout the stages of training, placement, and employment. 

The first cohort consisted of approximately 25 participants; as of September 2003, all but 

two of the participants were still employed. The project also received a supplemental 

grant from DOL in July 2003 to further enhance employment retention through monetary 

incentives and additional employment support services. 
D-106 

Project Planning and Sustainability 

The grantee, APNHO, together with its principal partners, Probationers Educational 

Growth and the Workforce Investment Board, have jointly planned for continuation of 

the program for the target population. These three partners have been involved in 

planning for sustainability from the inception of the project, and West Palm Beach has 

become a model for planning among the projects in Round Two of the Demonstration, 

featured in a Fact Sheet on sustainability prepared by Research and Evaluation Associates 

for DOL. 

From the beginning of the grant process, APNHO pursued a collaborative approach to 

service delivery through partnerships and alliances. The PROJECT grant funds were used 

for capacity-building that was intended to develop a strong community infrastructure 

capable of being self-sustained after grant termination. As a means to that end, APNHO 

incorporated careful planning, measurable performance goals and outcomes, ongoing 

program evaluations and improvements, and careful collaborations with a consortium of 

local representatives from various service fields. The consortium has already committed 

to continue its efforts for at least two years beyond the federal funding period. 

APNHO and the consortium recognized that they shared interests in preventing crime and 

delinquency and in filling the gaps in service areas for youth offenders and at-risk youth. 

The consortium sought to identify funding opportunities that assist new or existing 

initiatives in the target area and assisted in writing grant proposals to procure those funds. 

The consortium also identified the best partner to meet grant requirements and be a strong 

fiscal agent. The consortium identified any additional stakeholders who are essential for 

the project’s success and determined how grant funds should be dispersed. In the case of 

the project grant, funds are shared with APNHO, the local WIB, the school district, 

probation department, and community-based organizations, all of which were deemed 

necessary for community capacity-enhancement efforts to succeed. As of the time of the 

second site visit in December 2002, the project had largely stopped applying for further 

grant funds in order to most effectively make use of the funds awarded to date. As of 

September 2003, 17 separate projects had been funded, often because one project was 

able to build on the success of another. 

This leads to another factor in sustainability – the documentation of the project’s 

experience and success through the presentation of data and case studies. The project has 

included an evaluation coordinator since the beginning of the project, assisting in the 

design of the database and identification of additional data needs as the staff gained more 

experience with the youth being served. A coordinated staff effort enabled the project to 

collect and analyze a substantial amount of data on youth characteristics and outcomes, 

which in turn provided the information that could be presented to community 

stakeholders and potential funders. 

As for the continuation of services to the target population, Probationers Educational 

Growth will become the central point. While the PEG case manager position was 

originally funded in part by the project, it is now supported by the WIB, the school 
D-107 

district, and the justice system; additional PEG staff are supported by these and other 

grant sources. PEG is already serving a youth population well beyond that of the original 

103 project-funded clients and thus has built the capacity to serve larger numbers and 

over a period beyond the grant. It has been noted by PEG staff that even more of the 

targeted youth could be served, with a greater degree of support toward the goal of 

employment, if a larger portion of funds awarded by the local Youth Council were 

directed to work readiness, life skills, and basic skills. 

Services Offered by Project 

As discussed earlier, the focal point of the case management process is the Youth Goals 

and Individual Service Strategy form, which is completed by the case manager with the 

youth as they enter the program and then updated as services are received and as other 

needs are identified. The form reflects a comprehensive assessment of such factors as 

education level, risk, and mental health as well as other factors that project staff have 

found to be especially relevant for their vocation-based program. The process also 

enables the youth to identify personal and professional goals, and revise their goals as 

they progress through the program. While the services are not “integrated in a single 

provider,” case managers have small case loads and they can take the time to match 

clients to providers and then monitor the services received. 

Assessments 

The project conducts comprehensive assessments of project participants. These 

determine each youth’s need for education, risk/family interventions, substance abuse, 

and mental health services. Project participants also are assessed for physical health and 

career suitability. Assessments are done by using testing instruments, such as those that 

evaluate reading and math skills and learning styles. There is also an on-going assessment 

of “barriers and challenges” including physical and mental health and personal situations, 

any of which may have an effect on individual success in the program. 

Route Counseling (Case Management) 

At the beginning of the demonstration, the decision was made to incorporate those 

services into the program that directly relate to occupational training and obtain other 

services through community agencies. APNHO is responsible for case management, 

work readiness, occupational education, mentoring, job placement, and job retention. The 

case manager contacts community agencies for other services as indicated by the 

individual service strategy, including: health, housing, mental health, and substance abuse 

treatment. Probationer’s Educational Growth works with youth offenders in the areas of 

alternative sentencing and aftercare. 

Though all clients go through the process of setting goals and establishing an individual 

service strategy, older youth who are enrolled in APNHO occupational programs receive 

more intensive services because they are getting prepared to directly enter the workforce. 
D-108 

In general, however, services provided to youth offenders and those youth who are at risk 

of court involvement are the same services. 

West Palm Beach benefits from having a full range of service providers in the county. 

Case managers use a large resource tool “Where to Turn 2002-2003” that lists virtually 

all services available in the community. The county also recently added the “211” central 

phone resource service. They have not experienced problems where local agencies do not 

have the capacity to meet requests for service. 

Workforce Development Services 

Preparation for the workforce actually begins with education, for both younger and older 

youth. The project partners with the Palm Beach school system to offer special health 

occupation classes at two high schools and two alternative schools, for two hours daily 

for academic credit. Generally students begin the program in their junior year, participate 

in summer internships in the health care field, and then continue through to graduation. 

Students receive additional academic support as determined by their assessments. Older 

youth are enrolled in the APNHO occupational training programs, and also receive 

additional academic support such as remedial work and tutoring as needed. Students 

receive substantial on-the-job training through the required clinical experience. 

Overall, APNHO offers services related to work readiness, occupational education job 

placement, and job retention. In effect, “work readiness” is incorporated throughout the 

regular occupational training program at APNHO. Not only does the clinical experience 

provide a high intensity to prepare students for the workplace, but a 90-hour work 

readiness curriculum has become part of the overall coursework. 

The domain of services the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) covers includes 

workforce, employer development and project MIS. The WIB has undertaken an 

initiative to recruit more employers outside the health care industry that would provide 

employment to youth offenders. The staff has developed informational materials on 

employer tax credits and the Federal Bonding Program. 

The WIB provides monetary funding for the demonstration and for a new nondemonstration cohort, as well as in-kind support such as office space, computers, grant 

writing, supplies and work readiness curriculum. Employers in the health care field 

provide the in-kind support in terms of providing the supervision for students to gain 

clinical experience through education. The Palm Beach School District provides in-kind 

support for education that includes class space, use of buses, and grant writing. 

PEG’s offices are in a local One-Stop center. The One-Stop qualifies youth for WIA, 

specifically for funding for enrollment in APHNO’s nursing and health occupations 

programs. Because APNHO has its own placement office for graduates of its programs, it 

does not generally need further assistance from the One-Stop. As the program expands 

beyond youth enrolled in the health occupations, however, the One-Stops will be directly 

involved in further job training and placement for these youth. 
D-109 

Reentry Services 

Generally the project is not designed to work with the justice system at the time of 

sentencing, but after the youth are already in a correctional facility. PEG has begun 

offering services to youth prior to release, using non-project funds. Aftercare services are 

determined in coordination with PEG staff. APNHO instructors and the Dean at APNHO 

monitor the completion of requirements of probation and parole (which must be satisfied 

in order to be licensed by the state for health care jobs) and request additional support 

services as needed. Youth may be placed on academic leave until any problems are 

corrected, but this has not been needed for any project youth to date. 

All students in the APNHO occupational programs, not just project youth, are required to 

participate in community service projects. Students see this as a group activity and thus 

have a positive attitude toward the concept of community service, rather than a punitive 

activity. Project staff believe that the community service projects, along with the health 

occupations club, serve to provide an opportunity to develop a sense of belonging to a 

positive group, as an alternative to gang association. This positive association is 

reinforced as both high school and APNHO students wear their health uniforms while in 

school and when they return to the community, increasing their sense of attachment to a 

profession and a career. 

With regard to services for substance abuse, APNHO first requires any youth identified 

with a substance abuse problem to complete a rehabilitation program prior to enrollment. 

If problems are identified after enrollment, the actions taken depend on the nature of the 

problem. Instructors are the first to notice signs of problems; they discuss the situation 

with the Dean, who obtains information from the appropriate service agency to ensure the 

youth is following any agreed-upon treatment program. Similarly for mental health, 

instructors are very experienced in detecting signs of problems and in fact, some project 

youth have had some problems such as attempted suicide, so the staff are very aware of 

the potential for problems and then work with the Dean to make appropriate referrals for 

treatment services. 

While the areas of health and housing may not strictly fall under the category of “reentry” 

services, the project makes a special effort to conduct comprehensive health assessments 

of each youth and also obtain information on family health histories. Instructors also 

incorporate health information into the classes, especially on reproductive health. 

Instructors watch for signs of health problems, and due to the familiarity of staff and the 

Dean with local, state, and federal programs, they are able to assist youth in obtaining 

health coverage and services, making sure the youth (and in some cases their families) 

qualify and get the needed care. 

Housing has posed more of a challenge for the project. While the project does work with 

community agencies that are able to provide emergency funds, there are not enough 

housing facilities in the community for women with children nor for female offenders. 
D-110 

The project is able to access WIA support services for housing to the extent permitted 

under WIA regulations. 

Public Management Model 

Organizational Attributes 

The project made a concerted effort from the beginning to incorporate the organizational 

attributes presented at the Post-Award Conference in September 2001 into its planning 

and implementation. The project rates very highly against all seven attributes, with 

notable success, as discussed previously, in building partnerships and collaboration 

among a range of community organizations. By focusing on the DOL goal of capacitybuilding from receipt of the grant, the project has had great success in leveraging 

resources, being especially effective in identifying potential funders for a range of 

initiatives. As to planning and managing the project, the grantee is the lead agency and 

has not only actively provided direction and coordination for the project, but has also 

make a conscious effort to approach the project as a “team effort” where the grantee is as 

much a partner as it is the lead agency. It should also be recognized that for this project, 

“grantee involvement” may only begin to describe the nature of the approach to 

managing the project. Though “leadership” is a difficult concept to measure, it is clearly 

evident, starting with the project director and other senior managers, at both APNHO and 

at the primary partners. There seems to be a strong sense of a common vision and a 

commitment to working with youth who face the greatest challenges in the workplace. 

Workforce Development Services and Reentry Services 

West Palm Beach has been able to provide a full range of workforce development 

services through its close partnership with the local WIB, as discussed in the previous 

section. A full array of services has been made available to youth through service 

providers in the community, which have been very supportive of the project’s efforts. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

This component of the Public Management Model was originally one of the 

organizational attributes, and as such, the project made a concerted effort to develop a 

system for collecting program information that could be used to not only monitor youths’ 

progress but also document their success. The evaluation coordinator began with a plan 

for using data to strengthen the program through careful analysis, and then the project 

subsequently added more data elements as it recognized the need for other information 

beyond that required by DOL. 

The project maintains an extensive database on youth, including: math and reading skills, 

health and substance abuse status of youth and family, mental health, victim of domestic 

violence or sexual abuse, completion of GED/high school diploma/certification while 

enrolled in the program, completion of work readiness and basic skills program, 

completion of work experience, and wage at first, second, and third jobs. APNHO 
D-111 

routinely produces individual, client-level data to monitor progress and to catch potential 

problems with academic performance as early as possible. 

Data obtained from these sources is also used to present their “case” to community 

agencies and funders to build support for their approach to helping the youth population. 

The profile information on clients enables the project to present summary information on 

characteristics of the population being served (e.g., percent who are youthful offenders, 

percent who have been victims of abuse, family situation, etc.) The project can clearly 

demonstrate successful outcomes for both in-school and out-of-school youth across a 

number of dimensions, including retention in school, improvement in reading and math 

(based on pre- and post-tests), and placement. 

Through an agreement with the local One-Stop system, APNHO enters basic data directly 

into the WIA data system, which produces timely processing of WIA eligibility. 

Continuous Improvement Loop 

By virtue of using its implementation plan to monitor progress toward objectives, the 

project made a commitment to continuous improvement from the beginning. They 

devised a comprehensive database system for developing a thorough profile of clients and 

then track individual progress through all components of the program, from basic skills to 

occupational training to placement. 

The project included a position for an evaluation coordinator at the beginning of the 

grant, which has provided a continual focus on objectives and outcomes. The project in 

essence has its own evaluation plan apart from the DOL evaluation process, which 

includes not only record keeping, but also information obtained from focus groups of 

clients and parents, formal and informal reports from APNHO faculty, instructors and 

guidance counselors at the high schools, and case managers, as well as employers during 

the clinical work experiences of the clients. They also get regular reports and hold 

meetings with staff from juvenile justice, the corrections department, gang unit, and 

probation officers. 

Probably the best example of organizational learning is reflected in the experience with 

employers outside the health care industry. Originally, the youth offenders with whom 

PEG was working were expected to go through a work readiness and training process that 

would enable them to be placed in a range of jobs. When the project recognized that 

many employers were reluctant to hire youth offenders, project staff began to work with 

youth coming out of the justice system whom they felt could be encouraged to consider 

occupational training in health care. This approach has proved to be very successful as 

these youth have made substantial progress in completing the APNHO programs and 

gaining jobs in the health care industry. 
D-112 

Outcomes 

Individual/Client level 

As discussed previously, a very high percentage (approaching 100%) of in-school youth 

stayed in school for the duration of their participation in the program and received a high 

school diploma. Approximately 38 of 42 older youth have completed their training 

program at APHNO in the following occupations: 

• Patient Care Assistant – 11; 

• Patient Care Technician – 5; 

• Medical Assistant – 9; 

• Medical Assistant/Nurse Assistant – 4; 

• Pharmacy Technician – 6; 

• Nurse Assistant – 2; and 

• Home Health Aide – 2. 

One area of concern for the project is the wage levels and retention rates for students 

completing the program. Many health occupations have relatively low starting wages, 

which in itself can have an adverse effect on retention. On the other hand, the project 

already has evidence of a significant proportion of graduates who have experienced gains 

in wages over time. Further, a number of graduates have gone from initial wages of $6-$7 

per hour to wages of $9, $10, and $11 an hour or more. 

While retention rates are not as high as project staff would like, the experience with the 

“Linking People with Careers” initiative indicates that retention can be substantially 

improved if there is sufficient support available to a population that faces numerous 

challenges in the workplace, including the high cost of child care, the cost and 

availability of transportation from home to work, and a lack of experience in meeting 

employer’s and supervisor’s expectations in a full-time job. 

Project/System Level 

In many ways, West Palm Beach has been a “model” demonstration. While it is difficult 

to generalize from a single project, there is substantial evidence that the project has had a 

major impact on the way in which the community responds to the needs of youth 

offenders and youth at-risk. A number of accomplishments have been identified by the 

project, as follows, which are consistent with the findings of the evaluator: 
D-113 

• Development of an infrastructure that builds new and enhances the existing 

community services and capacity of the Workforce Investment Board, Youth 

Council, and One-Stop Centers so as to prepare youth for high quality 

employment with career ladder opportunities. 

• Prevention of recidivism and promotion of recovery by building strong 

partnerships that promote and enhance year-round youth training for employment, 

school-to-work programs and academic enrichment. 

• Development of strong linkages with employers, criminal justice and law 

enforcement agencies, Workforce Investment Board services, and grass roots 

community-based services. 

• Maximization of cost sharing, leveraging of funds and investments of public and 

private educational agencies, employment organizations, businesses, Workforce 

Investment Board, and other community partners committed to community 

improvement and investment in youth beyond the period of the project grant. 

• Continuation of services to project youth and new youth as a means for 

measuring the ongoing effectiveness of the infrastructure, and making 

adjustments as needed over time. 

Barriers and Challenges 

Though this project has reached a relatively mature stage, there remain barriers and 

challenges that may affect the ability of the project to sustain the integrated delivery of 

services to the target population over time. 

One challenge identified during the second visit that project staff agreed might merit 

further attention is the fact that a very high percent of clients is female. This issue raises 

some question as to the extent to which the project might be replicable in other 

communities, since the project clearly focuses on helping youth with an interest in health 

occupations. While the project had originally hoped to serve a broad population of youth, 

difficulties experienced in obtaining buy-in from employers outside the health care 

industry caused the project to focus on what it did best – occupational training for health 

care – which happens to be predominantly female. 

The project also remains concerned about how to better identify employers who will 

actually hire the target youth, especially outside of the health care industry. The target 

population is essentially competing for jobs against adults who have more work 

experience and no record of problems with the justice system. This has made it very 

difficult for project staff to identify employers that not only have job openings, but are 

also willing to hire from this population when they have a large pool of applicants from 

which to choose. 
D-114 

The project staff suggest that there may need to be more of a focus on a few employers 

who are expected to have regular job openings over time, rather than trying to match 

individual clients to current job openings. In their experience, employers who have had 

success with several graduates of APNHO are more likely to hire more graduates in the 

future. These employers have learned what to expect of the youth and also what they 

need to do to help the youth be successful employees. Otherwise, if you are placing one 

client at one employer at a time, each employer has a steep learning curve, and in fact, 

many employers recognize the extent of the challenge and decide it is simply easier not to 

hire such youth. In addition, training organizations such as APNHO will be better able to 

work with a smaller number of employers to provide the necessary support – it is 

certainly easier to provide support to five clients at one employer than five clients at five 

different employers. 

Another challenge that APNHO has experienced concerns problems getting some of their 

health occupations on the locally approved WIA list of Targeted Occupations. This is 

required for receiving WIA funding for training for these jobs. Some of the health 

occupations have either too low a starting wage or too low an average paid rate to make 

the list, despite having a large number of vacancies for those jobs in the community. This 

seems to reflect a lack of understanding of the importance of getting youth in training 

programs that will lead to actual jobs. For this target population, just getting a job is 

extremely important; once they get a job, even at a low wage, they can build a resume 

and a positive job history. Even if the specific occupation does not appear to have a good 

average paid rate, individual jobs vary and you would also expect that there will be 

upward movement by going on to other jobs within the health care field that do pay 

higher wages, assuming the individual can get the training for the first job. Thus, the 

restrictive nature of the Targeted Occupations list has the perverse consequence of 

preventing opportunities for the population having the most challenges to get training and 

employment. As an example, the job of Nursing Aide was dropped from the list after 

March 2003 because the average paid wage was too low – despite some 3,000 openings 

for this job in the region. 

One suggestion from West Palm Beach staff is for communities that are trying to serve 

the youth offender and at-risk populations to start with the Targeted Occupations list in 

their community and identify the jobs that have the largest number of openings. Then 

identify local training and education providers that are willing to work with this 

population; in their experience, there are always training providers willing to come 

forward if they know there will be WIA training funds available. Clearly, if there are a 

large number of openings, employers will be more receptive to hiring graduates of these 

training programs regardless of their troubled personal histories. Another advantage of 

focusing on training providers is that they already have linkages with employers in the 

community who are trying to fill openings. Such providers have placement services and 

an incentive to make connections with employers to place graduates of their programs. 

This might be more efficient than trying to target a range of employers in a community, 

since the training providers already have a system in place to provide both training and 

placement into high-demand jobs. 
APPENDIX E 

Description of Services Offered by Each Project 

Assessments – Provided by Round Two Projects

Domains Organization Timing Instruments Repeated? 

Upon initial entry into project 

In-person interviews by trained CMs; (Test of Adult Basic Education and other Youth Assessment Tests) 

CMs determine whethadditional assessment needed: psychiatric, psychological, educat

Chicago vocational 

Education; counseling needs (drug, individual, group, family);health; criminal history; and financial 

Screening is done by CMs at Latino Youth and Scholarship & Guidance based upon youth’s Zip code; referrals are made to partner agencies for services 

Some services are mandated by courts, such as substance abuse treatment. 

CMs visit families with POs 

Cincinnati 

Basic skills, job readiness, occupational skills training, living situation ,mental/physical health. supportive services, e.g., transportation 

Service Navigator Unit; service providers also may do additional assessments before they refer youth; WIA eligibility determined ("reverse referral") after SNU refers youth them for services 

Goal is to assess and determine eligibility in two meetings within two weeks; but determining eligibility so youth can be enrolled frequently takes longer than two weeks, sometimes it takes months 

WRAT3 (Wide Range Achievement Test), TABE (Test of Adult Basic Education), interviews; no substance abuse/mental health screening instruments, but referral may provide some info in these areas 

Revisited in 90-day reviews with Service Navigator Unit 

Health, substance abuse, mental health, education, and risk 

Division of Youth Corrections 

Orientation 

Education Metro College Academy; 

school 

While in orientation Woodcock-Johnson for 

both pre and post test 

ISS Tri-county, IEP Days Each workforce center While at LMSYC - at 

intake (90 days) before release 

Colorado 

IEP Vocational rehabilitation At first meeting Tri-county start and e

Des Moines 

Health, substance abuse, mental health 

Polk County Primary Health Care 

Case managers make a referral for assessment based on the ISP and information gained through interaction with youth 

 
E-2 

Assessments – Provided by Round Two Projects

Domains Organization Timing Instruments Repeated? 

Medical, drug and alcohol, education, employment history, criminal history, family background, workforce preparation, mental health 

Perseus House At enrollment BroadReach assessment No, but monitored for 

months 

Erie 

WIA core elements Perseus House At enrollment Core elements & needs 

assessment 

No, but monitored for months 

Hartford 

 Hartford Youth Access 

Program (Grantee) and City of Hartford's Health and Human Services Department 

As soon as possible after enrollment 

Mostly self-reported or through the school system or from HHS 

New York City 

Education WIT/WAT. TABE, employment, mental health and risk, health 

Education Dept. Beryl David and Dr. Perry 

Given at beginning; periodically to move up; GED standard 

Self-designed TABE; Part screening 

Employment history Addison Behavioral Lab 

(ABC) 

Goal is to assess all youth within 30 days of coming to program; takes about 11⁄2 hours 

ABC-designed questionnaire; psychosocial eval; medical log; registration form; family med history; no urinalysis 

Usually assess only onbut would occasionallagain 

Criminal history Western Psychiatric 

Institute and Clinic (WPIC)

Goal to assess within 30 days; takes about 11⁄4 hours 

Drug Use Seriousness Inventory; Beck Depression Inventory; SCARED; Connor's (for ADHD) 

Usually assess only on

Pittsburgh 

Family background BluePrint At Intake Intake interview & 

assessment forms used by YouthWorks; selfadministered screening instrument for AOD abuse

Information updated acase manager works wclient and needs chang

West Palm Beach 

Workforce preparation; mental health 

APNHO At enrollment; assessments 

of "barriers and challenge" is ongoing, including physical and mental health and personal situations 

 Reading and math to a

improvements 
Individual Service Plan – Provided by Round Two Projects

Which Domains? Which Organization Prepares? Do Youth Participate? Does Family Participate? Do P

Chicago 

Part of route counseling services provided by Latino Youth and Scholarship and Guidance 

Youth in North Lawndale and Austin are handled by S&GA; youth in South Lawndale are handled by Latino Youth 

Youth goals are considered when ISP is developed 

Yes POs; 

durinwhen servi

Cincinnati 

Identify needs in the areas of: tutoring, alternative secondary education, paid/unpaid work, leadership development, mentoring, comprehensive guidance and counseling, summer employment, occupational skills training 

Service Navigator Unit, which operates under a subcontract 

Answering questions; youth discuss goals and preferences with CMs 

Sometimes; families must give permission for enrollment of youth under age 18 

If refagenUsuaNavi

Health, mental health, substance abuse, education, employment and housing 

Division of Youth Corrections after adjudication 

 Meet

vocatwork

Colorado 

Employment Workforce centers Yes Ideal; not always 

Des Moines 

Employment, education, training, barriers (requirements ref. probation/parole), driver's license, health care 

ICHS and Spectrum Completes the "Career 

Awareness and Navigation" ISP with case manager 

 Othe

partic

Erie 

WIA core elements Primarily Perseus House and 

Bayfront Center; other services are provided by public schools or appropriate community-based organizations 

Jointly developed by CMs and youth 

Developed with CMS and youth None 

Hartford 

Education (PLCP is actually more personal and family information than a plan for services at the current time) 

Hartford Youth Access With case manager HHS

New York City 

Employment, education, counseling, youth leadership, health insurance, child health plus leadership, mentoring 

Team puts together Part of team If to be had 
E-4 

Individual Service Plan – Provided by Round Two Projects

Which Domains? Which Organization Prepares? Do Youth Participate? Does Family Participate? Do P

Pittsburgh 

Education, employment, 

personal/social assets and deficits 

BluePrint Youth provides information and 

helps decide on goals and plans 

Families usually do not participate, although they may 

ABC input past, involreprestaff concknow recomin ISseparcoord

West Palm Beach 

Full range of services covered in ISP; also includes youth’s goals, which can change over time 

APNHO With case manager Sometimes Gene

PEG with 
Route Counseling – Provided by Round Two Projects

Which agency provides? Ratio of CMs to youth Frequency Of Contact Service Team Location 

Latino Youth Two case managers handle 

15 active youth, plus inactive youth 

Goal is weekly; often every two weeks 

CMs are required to maintain contact with services providers who are assigned youth 

Both in the office and at home visits 

Chicago Scholarship and Guidance Three case managers 

(includes one case manager supervisor) handle 16 active youth, plus inactive youth 

Goal is at least every two weeks 

CMs are required to maintain contact with services providers who are assigned youth. CM’s are trained counselors 

Both in the office and at home visits 

Cincinnati 

Service Navigator Unit provides "comprehensive guidance and counseling" for all youth 

Average of 80 youth per Navigator CM; project aims for 40-50 youth per CM in future 

Once every 90 days unless special issues come up; CMs attempt to have contact in person. One counselor has contact with youth at least once a month 

 Varies 

Division of Youth Corrections 

25:1 On grounds 

Colorado 

Tri-county, ArapahoeDoug, Adams, Denver One time per month minimum On grounds - Client Managers and case team 

meet; after release Client manager calls if not doing well 

Depending upon youth needs 

Des Moines 

ICHS and Spectrum Approx. 25 clients per case 

manager though not all youth are "active" to same degree. 

Older youth: Daily Two CMs as a team 

During Bayfront experience: every week. 

Aftercare counselor Bayfront Center for 

Maritime Studies serves as meeting place for some youth 

Erie 

Perseus House 1:60 maximum for each 

CM 

After Bayfront experience: once per month or more often if needed 

Aftercare counselor Location depends on youth 

and needs. May be at Perseus House, school attending, home, work site, etc. 
E-6 

Route Counseling – Provided by Round Two Projects

Which agency provides? Ratio of CMs to youth Frequency Of Contact Service Team Location 

Hartford 

Hartford Youth Access Two case managers have 

138 youth - HYA is trying to get more agencies' staff trained as case managers 

Mostly at enrollment Eventually, at each 

participating agency. 

New York City 

Just forming a formal route counseling system within FOIA. Youth in GED are supposed to be there everyday. There are 4 case managers - each with 50 youth. Youth are always welcome to come back for personal or employment help. Families are invited for evening events about FOIA for their youth. 

Pittsburgh 

BluePrint Each CM is responsible for 

about 15 youth 

8-12 times a month: either in-person with youth or with others involved with the youth 

Route counseling supervisor and route counselor; executive director of YouthWorks sometimes becomes directly involved with youth 

As needed - at the BluePrint office or at locations within the community 

West Palm Beach 

APNHO Small case loads; about 15 

per CM/instructor 

 Case managers At the local agency 

providing the service 
Work Readiness – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Curriculum Activities Duration Intensity 

Latino Youth, a subcontractor of Goodwill that primarily provides route counseling services 

Agency holds workshops for youth, including mock interviews; resume completion for younger youth 

Career development, career exploration, job shadowing and subsidized work experience 

These are held as a one-session workshop 

Offered periodically (Project focuyounger youthis is not a priority) 

Chicago 

Youth Employment Services, a subcontractor of Goodwill 

Y.E.S. has formal program for older youth, which includes job interviewing skills, mock interviews, and resume completion 

Career development, career exploration, internships, job placement, job retention, follow-up services and referrals to help youth further their educations 

While youth is assigned to the agency; Y.E.S. offers a 2-week job search enhancement class 

Offered to ywho are assito Y.E.S. 

Six providers with WIA contracts: ICS (14-20, in school); JCG (14-20, in school); LCW (19-21 males, out of school); YEDI (14-21, in or out of school); YMCA (14-19, in school); YWCA (16-21, females, out of school; parent/parenting only) 

Cincinnati 

Project can also use providers without WIA contracts if necessary 

Depends on provider Varies Varies ICS has stip

Metro Core Services All youth –part of school curriculum Employers speak about what 

employers look for - occasional relationships 

Two times per month for 1/2 hour each time 

LMYSC YEARS-STEPS, Interactive Be 

Real Games 

STEPS: Career assessment, dress, interviews, job search, resume, practice games 

STEPS: 6-8 weeks STEPS: 5.5 

per day; 1 hodays a week 

Tricounty Workforce Refresher-through the center or with 

workforce specialist. One on one 

 

Colorado 

Arapahoe-Douglas, Adams, Denver 

 YEARS only redesigned after 

experience by workforce specialists 

 STEPS: 5.5 

for 5 days 
E-8 

Work Readiness – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Curriculum Activities Duration Intensity 

ICHS and Spectrum Life skills class One hour Daily YouthBuild Work experience with learning 

component 

Afternoons Daily 

Des Moines 

Other Work Experience Emphasis on work expectations 

(e.g., on time, dressed appropriately) 

Afternoons Daily 

Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies 

Basic employee skills; boat building as a work experience 

Prescribed hands-on experience; includes video tapes, and workbooks 

Eight weeks Saturdays fo

hours each 

Workplace essential skills Level 1: works within the eyesight 

of the supervisor. Level 2: works inside out of sight of supervisor 

Perseus House 

Supervised structured work experience 

Level 3: Works outside out of sight of supervisor. 

Eight weeks; varies depending on the progress of the youth and their needs and responsibilities 

Saturdays fohours; varies depending oprogress of tyouth and thneeds and responsibilit

Erie 

French Creek Council of the Boy Scouts of America 

Learning for life Curriculum activities plus seminars 

about particular professions by local community members 

School year Monthly me

Capital Region Workforce Development Board 

This is just being developed; the main activity is the summer youth Employment and Learning Program (50 project youth in 2003) which combines summer jobs and employability skills training. 

Workforce Training Associates – WIA Contractor 

 So far has not provided any 

services to project youth 

Hartford 

Coaltion Employment Services (CES) 

 Provides assistance with 

transportation, documents needed for employment, job preparation skills and other work readiness 

FOIA Art of War: Way to solve problems. 

Kemenec leads 

Six- hour. job readiness. 1 hour computer classs 

1 week to 4 weeks class + tutoring can extend for 2 months 

In Sept. 10-1-3 

New York City Workforce 1 Changed focus on applications. Lots 

of 1:1 with less developed elements; seems better; those more ready, complete class 

Job coach. Preparation for jobs - what to expect; intro. Prep. Takes to interviews where staff’s had previous contact; waits with them. 

Job coach. Usually two days/week 
Work Readiness – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Curriculum Activities Duration Intensity 

Pittsburgh 

YouthWorks (grantee) provides classes, with follow up by BluePrint case manager 

Basic training for all youth: YouthWorks curriculum - commitment to succeed, workplace etiquette, communication skills, interviewing, resumes, letters, applications, employment forms, money matters, job searching tips, who's in your corner. Also, some additional training such as U. of Pittsburgh project and pre-Job Corps project with supplemental grant. 

Instruction, role playing, discussion, workbook exercises, practice, etc. 

Varies: multiple sessions: one 7-hour workshop; one-onone; follow up with case managers 

As needed 

West Palm Beach 

APNHO, local WIB Work readiness curriculum is 

comprehensive; focus on health related occupational program 

Major component. Work readiness is integrated into regular occupational training program at APNHO. Staff were trained in a program sponsored by the WDB whereby if APNHO instructors conduct 90 hours of the required work readiness curriculum and client passes the test, then client receives a Work Readiness Certificate. 

90 hours; ongoing Built in to cl

experience, has high levintensity 
E-10 

Job Placement – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Job Types 

Chicago 

Both Latino Youth and Scholarship and Guidance refer older youth to Y.E.S., which provides soft skills training and job placement services 

 CMs at Y.E.S. act as 

coaches, assisting youth with developing and implementing their job search plan. Plan is reviewed every 30 days. 

Entry level positions in groceries, Deutsche Post; Youth placed mainly in unskilled positions 

Cincinnati 

Same providers that handle work readiness; Can refer to the One-Stop if youth is age 22-24 

Depends on the provider selected; the agencies are not tSNU, and CMs have limited information about their natagencies.) 

LMYSC Some workforce specialists 

help youth to have job at release 

Colorado 

Tri County, Adams, Denver counties; Arapahoe-Douglas, Vocational rehabilitation; Vocational rehabilitation has network of employers 

Workforce specialists aid at One-Stops; each agency tries to locate where the 

jobs are and tries to connect the youth 

As long as it takes; vocational rehabilitation has a 90-day clock but if youth loses a job it starts again 

1 contact per week for 90 days is workforce specialists norm; after that once a week in case of crisis 

Vocational rehabilitation. aims at jobs at $10 per hour; mostly public works; warehousing 

Des Moines 

ICHS and Spectrum Uses contacts in the 

construction industry; also gives assistance in getting short-term entry-level jobs of any type (fast-food etc.)

 

Erie 

BroadReach aftercare coordinator 

Aftercare coordinator takes youth to potential employers based on youth interests and needs 

12 months As appropriate Entry-level positions, e.g., 

fast food, food service, grocery stores, etc. 

Hartford 

 Coalition Employment Services (CES) 

Just getting started; a few placements to- date 

 

New York City 

FOIA Takes youth to industry of 

interest; job coach sets up a time at place in industry of interest; takes 3-4 at a time; usually fewer; some find 

jobs on their own 

Two days per week Until job placement - 

apply, feedback, try again 
Job Placement – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Job Types 

Pittsburgh 

BluePrint For out-of-school youth, 

project focuses on job placement. Project coordinator believes BluePrint needs a job developer, as DOL has recommended. YouthWorks executive director believes there are other organizations that can do this and that BluePrint needs to link better with them. One Stop (CareerLink) intends to open additional minicenters. YouthWorks hopes to put some staff there, which would make the centers a better resources for job development and placement of youth. 

Almost exclusively retailgrocery stores, car wash, fast food. Youth do not have skills even for construction jobs. 

West Palm Beach APNHO Uses its own placement process for all graduates Health occupations 
E-12 

Job Retention – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Frequency of Follow Up 

Chicago 

Y.E.S. provides for older youth who get 

jobs 

 CMs maintain contact 

with youth who are working 

CMs help youth transition to new job; on the job meetings held with youth 

Cob coaching continues 90 days after placement; gradually phased out as youth progresses 

Cincinnati 

Service Navigator Unit and providers 

Depends on organization 12 months. Which 

organization follows up depends on which one was working with the youth when he/she got a job 

 

Colorado 

Tri-county, Arapahoe-Douglas, Adams, Denver Counties regular contacts; 

Workforce specialist at each agency tries to connect the youth through regular contacts 

On-going through grant One time per week at first; 

One time per month after unless a problem 

Minimum: one time per month 

Des Moines 

ICHS and Spectrum Case managers do periodic followup (there is not a structured system 

for retention). There has also been experience that youth will contact their case manager if they need help with transportation, child care, etc. 

 Periodic 

Erie 

BroadReach aftercare coordinator 

Follow-up with employers, schools, and parents 

12 months Once a month or more if 

needed 

 

One-Stop center recently hired a (youth) job retention specialist 

Retention specialist works out of the One-Stop for months after placement, working through barriers to persistence on a job - whether 

Hartford family, personal or job-related 

Community Partners in Action (CES) 
Job Retention – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Frequency of Follow Up 

New York City 

FOIA Start date - call home to get family 

support; talk to family; ask to come to FOIA. P-T job incentives get metro tickets. F-T - movie tickets once a week. First week is crucial; if problem, job coach works with youth and employer 

Talk to supervisor. Employer has phone number; first two weeks check often; once a week after 

90 days 

Pittsburgh 

BluePrint CMs query youth about how things 

are going on the job and whether they are still there; some services 

provided to help youth succeed, such as transportation subsidy for first two weeks on a new job 

As needed As needed CMs follows up weekly 

with all youth 

"Linking People with Careers;” using nonDOL funds 

Assistance and guidance for approx. 30 clients 

Starting while in training program at APNHO through placement 

As needed Regular meetings with 

project coordinator, throughout training and early employment period 

West Palm Beach 

APNHO Some follow-up after placement APNHO provides some 

retention effort for youth after placement as for its other graduates; project did not have enough funds for staff to provide any regular follow-up support for DOL youth
E-14 

Alternative Sentencing – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Cour

Chicago 

The project is not an alternative sentencing program, although the goal is to make it one; youth volunteer for the project after adjudication 

 POs 

efforan alprogr

No formal program; sometimes a judge will assign a youth to the 

project as a condition of parole 

Cincinnati 

This is not tracked in the SNU's MIS; informal arrangement 

Nothing different from usual services 

Varies Court involved in designating 

project as alternative 

No rethere by pa

Colorado NA Des Moines 

ICHS and Spectrum Get referrals from the juvenile 

court; go with youth to court to demonstrate the youth is meeting conditions of probation 

 Juven

Erie 

Not part of the program per se; 

happens with judges and district magistrates before involvement in the program 

Hartford 

 Just getting started; state is 

starting to look at approaches to alternative sentencing because the high rate of recidivism seems to indicate that current approach to corrections is not working. One approach would be route counseling at an early stage of interaction of a youth with the 

justice system, to bring together a broader range of services and interventions in a more holistic way - e.g. get every youth into an education and/or employability program. 

New York City 

Six to eight cases remain; folded into route counseling; all from Judge Corriero 

 Most were in school. Youth come to FOIA afterward for educational activities; discontinued 

 Depended upon the court assignment 

Daily Yes; 
Alternative Sentencing – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Cour

Pittsburgh 

BluePrint and judge Participation in BluePrint as an 

alternative to incarceration. (About 10 youth have come to BluePrint this way, although it's not project’s preference.) Judge contacts BP, including some 

judges from neighboring towns; if youth have a connection to the city, project will take them. 

Varies Same experience as others in 

BluePrint 

Yes 

West Palm Beach 

PEG Generally project is not 

designed to work with the justice system at the time of sentencing, but after the youth already are in correctional facility. PEG has been offering services to youth prior to release, using non-DOL funds. 
E-16 

Aftercare – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Follow-Up Partners Contact? 

Chicago 

Project does not have IAC program, although its original design had Project C.I.T.Y. doing this 

Cincinnati 

Not being tracked by SNU; youth may or may not be in aftercare program, but they wouldn't know 

Colorado 

Division of Youth Corrections (not part of DOL grant) 

Coordinated CBOs, YouthBiz, Arts Street, do follow up, Job coaching etc. 

 Six months; formerly nine months 

 Workforce specialis

and client managers ( parole officers) contacted each otheregularly 

Des Moines 

ICHS and Spectrum Information is 

collected on requirements of probation or parole during intake. As part of the daily LifeSkills class, youth indicate goals they need to meet to satisfy conditions of probation or parole - e.g. , get a job to pay restitution. Then this becomes a part of regular goal-setting and weekly review process. 

Erie 

Not part of the program per se; 

happens with probation officers or case worker when youth is in Children's Services 
Aftercare – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Follow-Up Partners Contact? 

Hartford 

 Just getting started - 

only some of the agencies with MOUs, such as Health and Human Services, are actually in a position to provide services. 

New York City 

Sent by Probation Deartment office a few blocks away; Department is grateful; wants FOIA to train its Probation officers 

 NA NA NA NA Parole officers now 

visit youth at FOIA 

Juvenile Court Court-mandated 

programs usually at The Academy (run by Juvenile Court). After school programs, anger management, curfews, etc. 

As mandated As mandated BluePrint case 

manager follows up to check on status 

 

Pittsburgh Project also has 

relationship with Bowling Brook correctional facility for youth in Frederick, MD 

Facility has called them to come meet with youth before they are released to get them transitioned to BluePrint immediately 

NA NA NA Yes 

West Palm Beach 

PEG and APNHO Monitor youth to 

ensure they are meeting requirements of parole and probation

Instructors at APNHO monitor behavior of youth and request support services as needed. If a youth does not meet requirements, this will be found at time of application for license for health care 

jobs in Florida. 

 
E-18 

Community Service – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? Paid/Restitution 

Chicago 

Latino Youth can provide this, but no project youth are participating at this time 

Cincinnati 

Not a project service. Some of the providers may have this as part of their programs; SNU doesn't know 

Colorado 

 Restitution usually 

completed while at LMYSC; not part of YEARS plan 

Des Moines 

ICHS and Spectrum Occasional; examples: 

Built and installed benches at a home; painted GED classroom 

 

Not a formal part of the program. For some youth with required community service hours, the Bayfront experience meets the obligation. Erie 

For others, the supervised work experience may count toward their required community service hours. 

Supervised work experience: janitorial, grounds maintenance, painting, etc. 

Varies Varies If owed, part of the 

$3.25 paid for participation may apply 

Hartford 
Community Service – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? Paid/Restitution 

FOIA 

New York City 

GIIFT PAK makes presentations in schools and public housing projects; grouphas offered 54 workshops; core group of 5-6 each year do all presentations 

 One hour By invitation Connected to schools 

and public housing 

 

No specific community service expectation for youth However, some youth participate with Project with University of Pittsburgh School of Social Work (about 10 youth: Community Builders Catalyst for Change) 

Youth work with a community agency on a project. At weekly meetings, they report on the work. They also prepare to apply for college, financial aid, etc. 

Meets at University of Pittsburgh as a group 1-4:30 p.m. once a week for a semester 

Time spent as a group and also on individual project with their community agency 

Yes Stipend for work do

at community agenc

Pittsburgh 

Some youth in courtimposed community service; that would be supervised by court 

West Palm Beach 

 Each cohort at 

APNHO participates in community service 

projects, so youth see it as a group activity, not a court ordered requirement 
E-20 

Anti-Gang Activity – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partne

Conta

CMs identify gang members; street intervention unit staff meets with them, gradually gaining their confidence. If youth indicates an interest in extracting himself from gang, staff helps with the process. Chicago 

YMCA street intervention unit works out of Latino Youth offices (also covers youth managed through Scholarship and Guidance). According to unit manager, his team of seven deals with about 70 youth in target neighborhoods. Staff maintains contact with family; will meet with gang leaders to 

effect the process 

Extracting youth from gang can take a year or more. Staff members help with the process. 

Staff interacts weekly, sometimes daily, with young gang members 

Case mand YMwork ctogethe

SNU has no specific activities labeled as anti-gang. They feel that anything that rechannels youth's identification and improves their manners and behavior would be related to this. They are careful not to mix youth from different neighborhoods or schools in services they provide. 

Cincinnati 

At systems level, the project helped develop a Youth Offender and Gang Prevention Advisory Board to discuss innovative diversion and gang prevention strategies. 

Meet and discuss Yes 

Colorado YEARS Counseling; some assigned to GRASP 20 weeks at LMYSC Every Friday 3-5 p.m. CBO Des Moines 

ICHS and Spectrum Especially for out-of-school youth, 

the full day of activities (life skills, GED class, afternoon work experience) seems to be the best "anti-gang" strategy; youth have less time to interact with neighborhood friends in gangs 

Erie 

Not formally part of BroadReach but integral part of Perseus House. All youth participate in Aggression Replacement Training (ART). Youth not part of Perseus House programs may not receive this training. 

Hartford 
Anti-Gang Activity – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partne

Conta

New York City 

FOIA 

Outreach GIFT PAK is gang and violence prevention; members all in gangs; rules - no flags, colors at FOIA; in same classroom - O.K. with each other; try to replace what gang offers - move away; sense of belonging is main anti-gang effort 

Pittsburgh 

 BluePrint Staff considers the project an antigang activity. Project strives to 

create a sense of "family" to replace lure of gangs. BluePrint and YouthWorks are represented on Gang-free Schools and Community Partnership's Advisory and Assessment Teams. One CM and YouthWorks executive director are on intervention team. Executive director works within the community to try to reduce tension and resolve conflicts in nonviolent way. Project offers youth BluePrint Clothing for new identity. 

West Palm Beach 

 All students join a health 

occupation club, which is active for the duration of their training program. This provides a strong sense of belonging to a positive group, as an alternative to gang association. This positive association is reinforced as both high school and APNHO students wear their health uniforms while in school, increasing their sense of attachment to a profession. 
E-22 

Academic Education – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Levels Partners Contact? 

Screening and assessments by CMs at intake.

Chicago 

Latino Youth and other alternative schools in the community.

Most youth in the YouthLink program attend alternative schools, rather than the public schools. Graduates of the alternative schools receive a Chicago Public Schools diploma. Out of school youth often enroll in GED program. 

Varies. Youth assigned to Latino Youth alternative school can be in program for years. 

Varies, depending upon skill levels and needs of youth

Youth who cannot perform at the fifth grade level are assigned to a selfpaced computer course. Once they attain this level they can be assigned to Latino Youth's alternative school.

Instituto del Progresmakes available its cschool for Latino yofamily literacy progESL classes; also prhand-on office skills 

Cincinnati 

If youth is deficient in basic skills, Service Navigator Unit identifies a provider to support youth in improving basic skills by one grade level in 6-12 months. 

Agency can provide ESL courses, if youth needs them 

Division of Youth Corrections On grounds, Metro 

Academy 

Some still working on GED. Few return to high school or community college 

Colorado 

Workforce centers YEARS - YEARS usually 

school and job; few want more schooling 

 

YMCA GED class Daily until 

completed 

Two hours daily 

Des Moines ICHS Summer program One-on-one tutoring 

(no longer funded) 
Academic Education – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Levels Partners Contact? 

Erie 

Academic component will be added through a DOL supplemental grant to Perseus House 

Use of three software packages: A+nywhere Learning Systems, Academy of Reading, and UltraKey 

Varies; depends on placement in type of program 

Depends on the educational needs of the student as determined by the teacher 

6th-12th grades 

Hartford 

Hartford Public Schools There are not enough staff 

or service providers to meet needs of youth - school system received a $9 million grant over three years to strengthen support programs. 

Literacy Read, Math, Writing Mon-Thurs. All 

year. Sept. - Dec. Advance tests, report cards, monthly progress report, English for sixs months 

9-1 p.m. 1-3 grade level in 

reading, writing and math 

Certified teacher 

Basic Ed Math, social studies, 

science, English, writing 

Mon-Fri. All year. Sept. - Dec. Advance tests, report cards, monthly progress report; English for six months 

9-1 p.m. 4-6 grade level Certified teacher 

New York City 

Pre GED Pre-GED texts; additional 

support material 

Mon-Thurs. All year. Sept. - Dec. Advance tests, report cards, monthly progress report, English for 6 months 

3:30 to 6:30 p.m. 

7 grade - post-high school 

Certified teacher 

GED Focus on GED test taking Until youth can pass 

predictor test 

3:30-6:30 p.m. Ready for test Certified teacher 
E-24 

Academic Education – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Levels Partners Contact? 

Pittsburgh Board of Public Education 

Serves youth at "regular" public schools, alternative schools, vocational schools

 Represented at part

meetings 

Pittsburgh 

Allegheny Intermediate Unit Operates facility-based 

education programs 

 Interacts with the pr

specific facilities, nopartners' meetings 

West Palm Beach 

APNHO and Palm Beach School System 

Special health occupations class conducted at the school 

Two hours daily for academic credit 

 
Vocational Education – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity OJT Partners Contact? 

Chicago 

Latino Youth has a graphic arts component, which is an elective for those enrolled in the school 

Screening by CMs. School offers: Web design 1 and graphic arts 1, 2, and 3. 

This is an elective for those enrolled in Latino Youth alternative school 

 Free Spirit Media, a 

subcontractor, expoyouth to film/video making and produc

Cincinnati 

No standing contracts to provide these services. Staff says this is a difficult need to meet because there is limited vocational education in school system. Cost of services would have to be covered under "supportive services." Hard to get funds released to purchase these services for youth. With the county, they would have to get competitive bids from providers. More flexibility with city but still difficult. 

Colorado 

Division of Youth Corrections 

Silk screen printing, furniture construction, computer construction, culinary arts, horse trailer refurbishing 

Des Moines 

Spectrum and YouthBuild and ICHS 

Mostly subsidized work experience; some WIA supported training but not much. Some youth are now going on to Des Moines Community College. 

 Daily until GED completed 

 YouthBuild and 

Spectrum for experience in construction - though not actual training as such. 

Erie Bayfront Boat building Eight weeks 6-7 hours on Saturday No 
E-26 

Vocational Education – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity OJT Partners Contact? 

Hartford 

 Just beginning to 

develop a plan to permit youth to have larger selection of WIA - funded training opportunities 

New York City 

Vocational education available from the NYC Board of Education; not part of DOL grant 

1) HVAC; 2) electronics; 3) computers certification; 4) asbestos and lead abatement 5); building material; 5) plumbing 

Board of Education Voc. Tech School As needed As needed No Yes Connelley Vocational Letsche Alternative School 

Used especially as referral for GED prep 

Pittsburgh 

Manufacturers 2000 and others 

Pre-employment training for nonstipend apprenticeship 

West Palm Beach 

APNHO Postsecondary training 

programs in health occupations; substantial OJT through required clinical experience 

Duration depends on the specific occupational program 
Substance Abuse – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? 

Chicago 

Case managers provide some counseling services, but often refer to Roseboro and Associates during intake 

Roseborough and Associates provides youth assistance in substance abuse, domestic violence: some individual counseling; reduction of risk factors; family involvement; group sessions; motivation support; assessments; prevention and education interventions; peer mentoring 

Varies, depending upon needs of youth 

Varies, depending upon needs of youth 

Talbert House provides if needed; funding is not an issue; no formal assessment for these needs; informally, perhaps five to ten of project youth have needed some help 

Cincinnati 

Staff was not sure how many, if any, of youth have been referred for service or have gone 

Colorado 

Division of Youth Corrections at LMYSC 

Well-organized groups at LMYSC. Tracked by client managers. Funded partially now by YEARS 

Parole – five to six months Depends on youth Arranged through DYC; 

paid for by DOL grant 

Des Moines 

Polk County Primary Health Care (PCPHC) 

On-going assessment of out-of-school youth during the daily life skills class; then contact PCPHC for assessments; PCPHC works out a referral to a service provider for actual treatment as needed in each case 
E-28 

Substance Abuse – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? 

Erie 

Referred to Greater Erie Community Action Committee counselor at Perseus House or to school counselor as appropriate; youth is referred to community agency if not in a Perseus House program 

Hartford 

Health and Human Services 

Each youth gets an individualized treatment plan 

New York City 

Refer out services to Day Top - 3 blocks away or to Educational Alliance for residential care 

 Medicaid or SSI, Child 

Health. Project Stay - will help get funds - Medicaid (Dr. Cohall) 

Pittsburgh 

Addison Behavioral Care (ABC) 

Assessment of all youth; treatment sessions at ABC 

Treatment sessions: One hour per week 

ABC does not offer individual sessions 

West Palm Beach 

APNHO Youth is required to 

complete rehabilitation prior to enrollment if there is a record of a problem 

Depends on the nature of the problem - instructors are the first to notice signs of problem; they discuss the situation with the dean, who obtains information from the service agency to ensure the youth is following the treatment program 
Mental Health – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? 

Chicago 

Youth enrolled at Latino Youth are referred to Scholarship & Guidance, which has trained mental health counselors 

Individual, family and group counseling is available. Services on social skills building, anger management, conflict resolution and violence prevention. 

As needed 

Cincinnati Same situation as with substance abuse. 

Division of Youth Corrections 

Counseling/medications 

Colorado Vocational rehabilitation Work readiness and job placement Some caps but rare; many youth don't complete plans 

after parole; stop using medications 

 

Des Moines 

ICHS and Spectrum and Polk County Primary Health Care (PCPHC) 

On-going assessment of out-of-school youth during the daily life skills class; Contact PCPHC for assessments and PCPHC works out a referral to a service provider for actual treatment as needed in each case 

Erie 

Referred to Office of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; if youth is assigned to Perseus House, referred to an in-house mental health professional 

Hartford 

Health and Human Services 

Each youth gets an individualized treatment plan 

New York City 

Informal help in-house, formal referral out for serious illness; has psychiatrist to monitor medications 

Services at FOIA As needed: psychologist 

at FOIA four days a week 

As needed Referral out for more 

serious situations 
E-30 

Mental Health – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? 

Pittsburgh 

Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic 

WPIC assesses all youth--youth can receive mental health treatment sessions that are paid for by BluePrint. So far, ten youth have received treatment. 

10-12 individual sessions Started with one-hour 

sessions but change made to handle caseload to 30-minute sessions 

West Palm Beach 

APNHO Similar to substance abuse; 

health instructors are experienced in detecting signs of mental health problem; students have had some problems such as attempts suicide, so the staff are really watching for signs of problems, and then work with the Dean to get treatment services 
Health – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? 

Chicago 

Sinai Community Institute provides health and dental services to project youth 

Youth are assessed for immediate health needs by CMs; referrals if needed 

In the eligibility process, CMs may determine a youth has needs. Would be handled through informal 

Cincinnati referrals to other agencies 

Biggest obstacles is getting 

the parents to apply for help and/or to cooperate 

Colorado 

Division of Youth Corrections and YEARS 

Actively involved in getting Insurance connection for youth whose families lack insurance; not many health issues 

 

Des Moines Polk County Primary Health Care (PCPHC) Provides direct services for health care As needed As needed Erie 

Perseus House has nurses at all facilities; other youth referred based on insurance (family doctor or free clinic) 

Hartford 

Health and Human Services 

Assists youth and families to obtain access to public health care system as needed 

Real Men Assessment, education and 

referrals 

Project Stay Hard to connect; case 

managers needed to go with them 

New York City 

 Women more in need and 

care more about health 
E-32 

Health – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? 

Pittsburgh 

 Referrals by BluePrint staff 

Not a direct service; staff has helped some youth qualify for health care coverage that they had been unable to get (e.g. CMs are aware that youth can get a waiver to be eligible for health care if they have a mental health diagnosis that qualifies them) 

West Palm Beach 

 1) Assessment; 2) teaching 

about health, especially reproductive health; 3) instructors watch for signs of health problems; 4) instructors and Deans are familiar with local/state/federal requirements for obtaining health coverage and care, and ensure youth qualify and get the needed health care 
Housing – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? 

Latino Youth can provide short-term housing to youth 

Latino Youth can provide housing for up to 21 days 

YMCA offers single youth housing 

Varies 

Chicago 

This is a component of the project that MOWD and Goodwill hope to more fully develop to meet needs of youth 

Cincinnati Lighthouse can provide for homeless young people As needed Colorado YEARS Arranged if needed Des Moines 

None available in the community 

YMCA no longer accepts youth offenders. Youth under age 18 cannot obtain housing on their own under Iowa law, but CMs believe many should not be living at home because family environment is not protective/supportive 

Erie 

Referred to H.A.N.D.S. as needed 

Hartford 

Street Works Very few beds Fortune Society Very few beds; mainly 

adult offenders 

Couch hopping - months 

New York City 

Covenant House Emergency shelters - 

supported housing 

Pittsburgh 

 County Housing Authority 

Not a direct service; housing is not readily available; project can refer youth to city or county housing authority 
E-34 

Housing – Provided by Round Two Projects

Organization Activities Duration Intensity Partners Contact? 

West Palm Beach 

APNHO Works with community 

agencies that are able to provide emergency funds, but there are not enough housing facilities in the community, especially for women with children and even more of a problem for offenders. Youth can also access WIA services as appropriate. 


APPENDIX F 

Fact Sheet on Job Retention



F-1

 

Building an Effective Employer Network for 

Youth Offenders and Youth at Risk of Gang 

or Court Involvement December 2003

Introduction 

In an effort to break the cycle of crime 

and dependency that often affect youth 

between the ages of 14 and 24 who are 

offenders, gang members, or at-risk of 

court involvement, the U.S. Department 

of Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration funded 14 communities 

as part of the Youth Offender 

Demonstration Project in June 1999. 

These projects were funded for a period 

of 24 months to provide services to assist 

youth to gain employment at livable 

wage levels. In June 2001, an additional 

nine communities received awards, this 

time for 30 months. 

As the Demonstration projects got 

underway, it became clear that it was 

difficult to connect the youth with 

employment. In many instances, 

employers were reluctant to hire youth 

with criminal and juvenile justice 

histories. To address this issue, some 

projects developed an Employer 

Network, a strategy that identified and 

engaged employers willing to hire at-risk 

or adjudicated youth. This fact sheet 

provides a combination of actions and 

recommendations that may be useful for 

organizations interested in developing an 

Employer Network, including a step-bystep guide to developing an Employer 

Network. Although some of the 

recommendations may appear routine or 

easily executed, dedication and 

persistence are essential. Engaging 

employers, preparing youth for 

employment, and generating 

employment opportunities for the youth 

served can be daunting tasks; however, 

the benefits for the employer and your 

organization make the effort well 

worthwhile. Potential benefits for 

employers include: 

1. Gaining access to a pool of potential 

employees who have been prescreened and whose qualifications 

conform to the hiring criteria for the 

position(s) available; 

3. Participating in a network with other 

employers for the purpose of sharing 

ideas and strategies to address 

employment needs; and 

4. Establishing a direct connection to 

the community and consumers while 

providing the company an 

opportunity to have a presence and 

play a role in community and civic 

affairs. 

Potential benefits for your organization to 

establish an Employer Network include: 

1. Establishing a group of potential 

employers who possess an 

understanding of how they can assist 

with the development of at-risk 

youth; and 

2. Preparing youth to transition 

properly to the world of work 

What is an Employer Network? 

Employer Networks are comprised of 

employers and business partners who share 

common interests and goals in the area of 

workforce development and come together 

to meet the employment demands of their 

respective companies or organizations 

while working to solve challenges 

associated with connecting youth to 

employment. 
F-2 

Employers participating in an Employer Network are 

primarily seeking to recruit potential employees. On the 

other hand, a business partner may be involved with the 

Employer Network to participate in the development of 

skills training and/or job readiness training. One 

example of a project’s business partner was with the 

Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank’s 

participation in the Demonstration project’s Employer 

Network was in an educational capacity. It was not in a 

position to extend employment opportunities. However, 

it provided assistance in the leadership development and 

job readiness process by identifying volunteers who 

worked with youth on mock interviews and other job 

search activities. In addition, it made presentations to 

the youth on how the banking and financial system 

works. It also provided youth with guided tours of the 

Federal Reserve Bank. 

Employer Networks play a significant role in the 

successful employment of youth offenders or youth at 

risk of court or gang involvement. The extent of the 

Network and the types of employers and business 

partners that participate will shape a youth’s current and 

future access to jobs and career opportunities. 

Establishing direct links with employers is a key 

component of any effort to assist youth to transition to 

employment. 

Why is an Employer Network Important? 

An Employer Network provides an opportunity to 

directly involve and connect employers and business 

partners to potential employees. A participant’s legal 

history, spotty work record, or limited training often 

serve as barriers to employment. However, several 

demonstration projects provided support and training 

that, in effect, overcame these barriers so that youth 

obtain and retain employment. An Employer Network is 

a way to build relationships that may open doors for 

internships and other career opportunities for youth with 

workplace barriers. 

As part of the networking process, employers should be 

invited to play a role in the development of your 

organization’s plan to help the youth obtain and 

retain employment. The employer’s perspective can 

prove valuable to ensure that your organization’s job 

preparation, job placement, and job retention approach 

is compatible with local labor market demands. By 

participating in the planning process, the Employer 

Network members will have buy-in and support for your 

organization’s employment goals. Your organization 

may ultimately benefit from employer participation in 

planning by receiving information regarding job 

openings that result in opportunities for the youth to 

pursue. 

Employers Concerns Regarding Youth Offenders 

and Youth at Risk of Gang or Court Involvement in 

the Workplace 

Employers often have a number of concerns regarding 

hiring youth offenders or youth at risk of gang or court 

involvement and these fears may include: 

 Violence; 

 Theft; 

 Inappropriate behavior in the workplace; and 

 A lack of work ethic. 

Contrary to these fears, the majority of youth 

participants want to work and try very hard to be good 

employees. It’s important to address employer concerns 

by demonstrating that this commonly un-tapped pool of 

workers is capable of being productive and contributing 

to the employers’ bottom line. 

Responsibility for building an Employer Network 

should be assigned to staff (sometimes called 

employment specialist or employment solutions 

specialist) that has the ability to work and communicate 

effectively within the employer community. Staff also 

need to be empowered to make decisions and 

commitments on behalf of your organization while 

understanding the business culture and the needs of 

employers. Once members for the Network have been 

selected, staff should engage in an open and frank 

discussion regarding some of the challenges employers 

might encounter. 
F-3

As a result of these discussions, many employers will 

learn that their fears are exaggerated or unsupported. 

To establish a positive working relationship with 

employers, two key strategies include: 

1. Know how to market the youth participant 

– Focus on the youth’s skills and abilities. 

Share any efforts to assist youth with job 

preparation, such as the use of an established 

curriculum on job search enhancement or preemployment training, to help employers 

understand the level of preparation the young 

person has completed. 

2. Connect the youth population with the 

employer – Often, employers have 

misconceptions about youth and even more 

misconceptions about at-risk youth. It is 

incumbent upon your organization to show the 

employer that your program is designed to 

address the potential pitfalls related to hiring 

youth. For instance, a Demonstration project 

emphasized some of the following specific 

areas in its effort to prepare youth for the 

world-of-work: a.) Developed timemanagement skills so youth had a clear 

understanding of how and why it is important 

to be punctual; and b.) Provided money 

management training that included promoting 

the importance of purchasing bus-passes with 

each paycheck so the youngster had 

transportation each month. Your organization 

can emphasize the positive assets that youth 

with limited experience can bring to an 

organization, such as the opportunity for 

employers to train the young worker to execute 

tasks according to the company’s guidelines. 

Share specific examples with the employer on how 

participants are motivated and how they have 

demonstrated responsibility. Also stress with the 

employer that your organization will serve as an 

ongoing support system for both the youth and 

employer. 

To support your organization’s efforts to connect 

youth with the employer, there are a variety of training 

tools that can be used to work with both the young 

person and the employer. An example is the Piton 

Foundation’s Workin’ It Out series. The Piton 

Foundation, of Denver, Colorado, collaborated with 

experts in workforce development training to create a 

series of materials for both the new worker and the 

employer. “Workin’ It Out” is an interactive training 

designed to help entry-level job seekers succeed in 

today’s workplace. The companion program, 

“Managing to Work It Out” is designed to help 

supervisors better understand and manage entry-level 

workers. For more information on these products and to 

receive a sample copy, please contact Patricia Veasley 

at pveasley@piton.org or phone at (303) 825-6246. 

How to Build an Effective Employer Network 

Now that you’ve considered the value of developing an 

Employer Network, you’re ready to develop the 

network. The following seven steps include strategies 

and recommendations that can be used by a variety of 

organizations dedicated to helping at-risk youth find 

gainful employment. 

Step 1 – Recruitment Strategies 

A comprehensive Employer Network often includes a 

diverse membership. Various levels of management are 

involved, ranging from company executives to front line 

supervisors. The key to establishing a strong Employer 

Network is to include members who are the “decision 

makers” for their organization. When identifying 

potential members for the Employer Network, consider 

the question, “Who decides when and what employment 

opportunities will become available?” In some 

instances, this will be a corporate decision that is 

delegated to the Human Resource (HR) manager or it 

may be a request submitted to the employment office by 

a front line supervisor for additional employees. In 

either case, the focus should be to develop and build a 

connection with selected members of the local business 

community. 
F-4 

Consider the following when assembling an Employer 

Network: 

 It would be beneficial if the composition of the 

Employer Network includes at least some 

employers and partners that reflect the racial and 

ethnic make-up of the youth who are served; 

 Ensure that the membership includes a variety 

of industries and both 

large and small 

businesses; 

 Think creatively and 

recruit those employers 

that may be a good 

match for program participants; and 

 Set boundaries based on the location of the 

employer’s jobs and the youth’s ability to travel to 

and from that location. Often a good match can be 

found within the community where the youth 

reside. 

In addition to employers and business 

representatives, the Employer Network partnership 

may also extend to other 

partners that include but are 

not limited to: 

 Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) – The 

network will be stronger if it engages the local 

Workforce Investment Board (WIB). The WIB is 

often a clearinghouse of contacts and employment 

information and includes the Youth Council. It 

may even have a “youth development” component 

that focuses on training, education and employment 

targeted to youth. Projects may access the National 

Association of Workforce Board’s (NAWB’s) 

website at www.nawb.org for information about 

local WIBs. 

 Local One-Stop Centers – One-Stop Centers are 

another source that may be included when 

developing an Employer Network. The local 

One-Stop Center can offer youth employment 

assistance, training and job placement services. OneStop Centers often provide a full array of services 

including computerized job listings, information on 

employment insurance, and workshops on topics 

ranging from resume writing to job search and 

interview skills. Some One-Stop Centers offer 

access to resource rooms that have state-of-theart technology for jobseekers. In addition these OneStop Centers may offer 

direct access to employers 

through Job Fairs, Career 

Exploration, Education and 

Health seminars. Some 

youth may be interested in 

exploring employment and career opportunities 

through the specialized services offered exclusively 

by the One-Stop Center such as Job Corps. Contact 

information for the local One-Stop Center may be 

found in the telephone or community directory. 

Step 2 – Develop a Plan 

An Employer Network can begin with as few as two 

Employers. Employer Networks should start with 

Establishing goals and 

timelines. For example, an 

initial goal for Employer 

Network members may be 

to develop a working list 

of all potential job openings to which your 

organization’s youth may be able to apply. Start the list 

by getting job opening information from Network 

members and analyze the job description, 

qualifications, and hiring criteria to determine if there 

are potential matches among your organization’s youth. 

The Network members may also want to participate in 

the design of a resume and interviewing clinic to assist 

youth with the application and interviewing process. 

Other initial goals might be: 1.) Hosting a career 

fair; 2.) Identifying hiring trends and 3.) Establishing 

customized training for jobs in a demand occupational 

field; and 4.) Researching summer youth 

employment opportunities for the youth 

Be Prepared: 

“It is better to be prepared and not have the 

opportunity than to have the opportunity and 

not be prepared.” 

“Never visit an employer unannounced or 

without an appointment.” 
F-5

offender population and begin to work on connecting 

your organization’s youth to those jobs. Whenever goals 

are established and agreed upon by the Network 

members, timelines should also be established. Perhaps 

the Network decides it wants to offer the first 

resume and interviewing clinic by a specific date. It 

should be determined 

who will be responsible 

to ensure that the goal is 

met within the agreed 

upon timeframe. 

Once the Network 

members have determined 

the goal(s) and timeline(s), start developing strategies to 

build membership: 

1. Membership Drive – Send out informational mailings, 

flyers, e-mails and call local businesses. Let 

businesses know about the work of your 

organization. Mention the current Network members 

and use them as references. Remember: word of 

mouth is the best advertisement. 

2. Seasonal or Quarterly “Open House” Activities – 

Invite employers to 

your organization to 

meet with staff and 

participants. Offer a brief 

and polished presentation 

that has been developed 

and prepared by the youth participants. Use this 

opportunity to show-case the youth and their abilities. 

3. Develop a Website for Network Members and Youth 

Participants – An on-line service is a great medium 

to communicate job openings and review resumes. 

Consider developing a Frequently Asked Questions 

(FAQ) page for both the employers and the youth 

participants. 

4. Local Cable Access Network – Use the local 

network to advertise the Employer Network and 

the services and benefits it offers to local 

employers. 

5. Develop a Video or Brochure – Videos 

and brochures can be 

used to describe the 

Employer Network 

and highlight its 

members. These are 

particularly useful 

when staff is in the 

field conducting cold 

calls and knocking on employers’ doors. 

Step 3 - Engage the Employer 

Prepare for any opportunity to recruit a new network 

member. Keep business cards handy and develop a 30-

second pitch that is interesting and inviting but above 

all is informative and describes the benefits of being a 

Network member. Recruitment opportunities may 

present themselves during an elevator ride to the next 

floor or while attending a lunch meeting. Once 

the initial contact is made and the employer has 

shown interest, it is 

time to move to 

the next step. Keep 

in mind, engaging an 

employer may require 

repeated outreach attempts 

before the employer shows interest. Be prepared 

for employers to reject or ignore the opportunity to 

join the Employer Network. Do not be discouraged. As 

with marketing and sales, persistence is an essential 

quality to engage employers. 

Step 4 - Schedule a Meeting 

Schedule an appointment to visit an employer when it 

is convenient for him or her. A brief meeting should 

not exceed 30 minutes. The meeting is an opportunity 

to discuss in detail the Network’s goals and the 

Seize the Opportunity: 

“When recruiting employers for the network 

you may find yourself communicating with 

many levels of management in several 

different industries. It’s imperative that you 

consider each occasion an opportunity and 

each person a potential Network member.” 

When discussing the employer’s needs, be careful 

not to over exaggerate your participant’s skills and/ 

or experience. Promise only what you can deliver! 

If an employer needs 5 workers tomorrow and you 

only have 3 who qualify for the job, say so. 
F-6 

benefits to its members. Prepare an oral presentation 

that outlines monthly meetings, the website, and a list of 

other Employer Network members as references. 

Pre-Meeting Activities 

 Research the Employer – Research the employer or 

the industry and find out as much as possible. Learn 

basic statistics about the company and use its 

website to learn about the product(s) they 

manufacture or the services they offer. Establish a 

connection between the employer and the youth 

being served. For example, if your organization 

offers training in the food service area, work with 

your Network members that hire food service 

workers. Consider developing a customized 

training component for that employer(s) for the 

purpose of enhancing the skill proficiency and job 

readiness of the youth. This may ultimately result 

in youth being trained specifically for particular 

employers and increase job placement 

opportunities. 

 Learn the language – As youth serving 

professionals, social service workers sometimes 

communicate using terms like “case manager”, 

“client”, “participant”, or “intake” that are foreign 

to employers instead of terms like “supervisor”, 

“employee”, “orientation”, or “interview”. Avoid 

using terms unfamiliar to employers. Learn to 

speak the language of the employer and use 

terminology that is “businesslike”. One project had 

an experience where a participant was extremely 

interested in mortuary science. The organization 

did considerable research on what was required to 

work in a funeral home. Not only did the 

organization become familiar with the qualification 

and certification requirements for various mortuary 

related positions, they also became knowledgeable 

about the terminology germane to the industry. In 

addition, they were able to help the participant meet 

other requirements such as obtaining a TB test prior 

to working in a funeral home. As a result, the 

organization was able to develop an internship at 

the participant’s neighborhood funeral home. While 

 the funeral home agreed to offer the internship, there 

were a number of stipulations that included 

encouraging the participant to complete her GED 

and enroll in the city college mortuary science 

program. The organization was able to work handin-hand with both the participant and employer 

throughout the internship to help the participant 

achieve the goals recommended by the employer. 

 Create an Employer Data Sheet (EDS) – Develop 

an employer data sheet (EDS) that is a one-page 

description of the employer. Include pertinent 

information such as the employer contact’s name, 

address, phone number, fax and e-mail address. If 

the information is available for this initial meeting 

or subsequent meetings, include a brief description 

of any job openings along with the qualifications 

required, salary and benefits. If there are youth who 

meet the qualifications, bring those resumes to the 

meeting. Make a note on the EDS of any project 

youth that have previously interviewed with the 

employer and specify the position and the outcome 

of the interview. The EDS can be updated as 

needed and referred to when meeting with the 

employer. 

 Seize an Opportunity - Remember, the primary goal 

of an initial meeting is to recruit the employer to 

become a member of the Network. However, if the 

opportunity presents itself, be prepared to offer 

immediate assistance to help fill available positions 

by taking a few resumes of participants that are 

suitable matches for that particular employer. 

Step 5 - The Initial Meeting 

When meeting an employer for the first time it is 

important that you listen and take mental notes. Did the 

employer mention that the firm was having difficulty 

getting workers for the late shift? Did the employer 

suggest it was difficult to find adequate help for the 

holidays? Here is an opportunity - grab it! These can be 

opportunities to fill the immediate needs of the 

employer. 
F-7

This meeting affords an opportunity to discuss the 

advantages of being a member of the Network. In 

addition, the meeting can lend itself to discussing 

project participants that may be potential job matches 

for the employer. Always describe any employer-related 

services your organization provides such as prescreening or training for specific positions. 

If an employer mentions there will not be any hiring 

until the spring, seize the opportunity. Let the employer 

know that a Network benefit includes assistance with 

coordinating pre-screening and interviewing sessions 

tailored to the employer’s specifications and needs. 

These events may be planned collaboratively with the 

employer in advance of the anticipated hiring period. 

This offer may include the use of your organization’s 

staff and space. 

Step 6 - Maintain the Employer Network 

Maintaining the Network is less difficult if goals are 

established and a foundation for growth has been 

developed. However, there are areas that require 

consistent attention and your organization must take the 

initiative to maintain communications with Employer 

Network members. These include: 

 Follow-Through and Follow-up - The Employer 

Network requires on-going follow-up and 

communication. Once established, your 

organization and the Network may consider 

organizing members by industry so that follow-up 

and communication may be targeted and members 

receive more relevant information and less nonrelevant information. Regardless of the types of 

groups or committees, it is necessary to develop 

methods to communicate and update each other on 

a regular basis. Consider developing a monthly 

newsletter designed to inform members of the 

Employer Network. The newsletter can be in an 

electronic or paper format and should list updates 

such as a monthly calendar of meeting dates, job 

fairs and regular application and interviewing hours 

of Network members. A nice feature to include is a 

monthly spotlight on an Employer Network 

Member and/or a project participant. Another 

strategy to keep Network members active is to ask 

Network members to host the monthly meetings at their 

worksites. 

 Maintain the Relationships - This can prove to be 

a challenge at times, but maintaining contact with 

Network members is essential. This may be done 

via e-mails, hand written notes or a visit if 

appropriate. Encourage all new members and help 

share information on member’s activities among the 

Network. For instance, if a member is hosting a 

special event, let the other members know. Be 

supportive and assist whenever possible with 

community drives or other activities initiated by 

Network members. Use these opportunities to 

increase membership while maintaining 

relationships. Your organization can assume 

responsibility for initiating and maintaining these 

communications in an effort to ensure that the 

communication system among Employer Network 

members is informative and consistent. 

Step 7 - How to Troubleshoot When Things Go 

Wrong 

As with most groups, difficult situations may arise. In 

order to sustain effective partnerships, you will want to 

initiate strategies to smooth the waters. Whether the 

problem is an error in communication, a poor job match, 

or bad timing, you will need to assess the damage, 

determine what caused the problem and try to resolve 

the situation. An employer may become dissatisfied 

with a situation and working to resolve the issue can be 

challenging. For instance, there may be problem with an 

employee referred through the Employer Network and 

the employee doesn’t work out, you might offer to 

mediate the situation or replace the person. Whatever 

happens, do not ignore the problem. Remember to face 

it, resolve it and move on. Here are 5-simple steps to 

follow when handling tough situations: 

1. Acknowledge the Problem; 

2. Apologize for the Inconvenience; 

3. Offer a Solution; 

4. Follow-Through; and 

5. Follow-up. 
F-8 

Conclusion 

Developing an effective Employer Network for the youth offender or youth at risk of court or 

gang involvement will offer an array of challenges and opportunities. A professional approach 

and well planned strategy will support this effort. Many youth want to work and are seeking 

opportunities to demonstrate this. The Employer Network can identify areas of the strategy that 

need to be improved to facilitate a stronger connection between your organization’s youth and the 

labor market. Members of the Employer Network can meet their employment needs while 

assisting youth by offering employment opportunities. At the same time, the employer may 

benefit by having access to an organization that can provide ongoing support and encouragement 

to both the youth and the employer. This may include but is not limited to: 1.) Providing conflict 

mediation; 2.) Ensuring the youth receives necessary support services such as mental health and 

substance abuse counseling; 3.) Averting transportation and housing crises; and 4.) Working with 

the youth’s family or other individuals who have significant influence on the youth. Investing in 

the youth’s future through an Employer Network insures a better quality of life for not only the 

youth, but also the community at large. 

This document was prepared by Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc., 

under contract to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration. We also wish to acknowledge Wayde Smith of WC 

Management, Inc. and Maureen Pagliaro for their contributions to this 

document. 

 Further questions or comments can be directed to Research and Evaluation 

Associates at (919) 493-1661. Visit us at www.rea-inc.com. 

For information on how to obtain copies of reports and 

evaluations on the Youth Offender Demonstration Project, contact 

the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration at: 

www.doleta.gov/youth_services/Reports_Publications.asp or 

www.wdr.doleta.gov/opr

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc. 
APPENDIX G 

 Fact Sheet On Sustainability 
 
G-1 
G-2 
G-3 
G-4 
Appendix H 

Linkages For Coordination of Services Within the Workforce System: 

The Case of West Palm Beach

H-1 

Linkages for Coordination of Services within the Workforce System: 

The Case of West Palm Beach 

In its internal review of project accomplishments and outcomes at the end of the grant 

period, the West Palm Beach project prepared a summary of the linkages developed for 

the coordination of services within the local workforce system. This summary is 

presented here: 

• Employers – Employers met regularly with project staff to advise on current requirements, occupational

and skill shortages and training needs. Employers also had representation on the Youth Advisory Board

and WIB, linking youth and careers. They were committed to participating in education, work

experiences and providing jobs with a career path for youth. 

• WIB Survey 2001, 2002, & 2003 – This is an extensive survey of all employers in the region which

provided a computerized source of job requirements, specifications, and skill sets. It is updated annually

and was available in One-Stops for youth, counselors, case managers, and educators. Reports were

available for the project team and Youth Council’s use and guidance as they proceeded with initiatives.

All WIB funded education was for jobs shown to be in demand. 

• One-Stop Centers – Intake, assessment, and route counseling was linked directly to this project, as this

was the entry point for all youth services. It was also the link with the Probationers Educational Growth

(PEG) project which was housed at the One-Stop. MIS was shared and was instrumental in recording

route counseling, risk assessments, interventions, and outcomes. 

• Youth Council - The Advisory Board for the project was the entire Youth Council of community leaders

and the Youth Council provided funds for year-round occupational and academic enrichment education. 

• Workforce Investment Board Staff Liaison – A knowledgeable Workforce Investment staff member

was appointed as Youth Manager who served as staff support for both this project and the Youth

Council. In August 2003 he was appointed to the post of Director of the Probationer’s Educational

Growth Program. 

• Year-round Youth Training Services – The WIB funded the training programs of participants which

was useful in testing the infrastructure and linkages of this project. All services provided and programs

funded included mentoring, academic enrichment, life skills, work experience, and were linked to both

district schools and grass roots community-based youth programs. 

• Pregnancy and Addiction, Boys and Girls Club – HIV Prevention and Teen Pregnancy Prevention –

These community-based programs and services worked with this project’s youth throughout the duration

of the project. 

• Children’s Services Council and Quantum Foundation – These community organizations were

committed to crime and gang prevention and provided funding for services, programs, and needs not

otherwise covered. They were active members of the Youth Council and WIB. 

• Law Enforcement and Judicial System – These agencies worked closely with the school district, to

offer programs aimed at preventing truancy, educating against violence and chemical abuse. In addition,

they linked closely with this project for alternate sentencing programs, creative probation conditions,

community service options and monitoring, progressive sanctions and served as Youth Council/Advisory

Board members, thereby linking to the WIB for coordination of services, programs, route counseling,

mentoring and measuring outcomes. 
H-2 
APPENDIX I 

DOL Common Data Elements 

ROUND TWO 

YOUTH OFFENDER DEMONSTRATION - DATA ELEMENTS AND THEIR DEFINITI

US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training Administration 

Youth Offender Demonstration Grants

No. Name Description Operational Definition 

Youth Offenders (See operational definition) 

Youth who have been adjudicated acts, such as crimes against personand crimes related to substance abusis determined upon entry into the prduring the program. 

At-risk Youth (See operational definition) 

Youth who have not been adjudicacts but who have risk factors assocdelinquent behaviors. Note: Particiupon entry into the program and dprogram. 

1 Recruited Number recruited 

Number of youth for which project information. 

2a Enrolled (Total) Number enrolled 

Number of participants who ha

application process for the demorequired documents, 2) parent/guarassessments. 

2b Enrolled (Gender: Male) Number of male participants 2c Enrolled (Gender: Female) Number of female participants 2d Enrolled (Race: White) Number of White participants 

Number of participants having ori

peoples of Europe, the Middle East, 

2e Enrolled (Race: Black) Number of Black participants 

Number of participants having origi

groups of Africa or the West Indies. 

2f Enrolled (Race: Hispanic) Number of Hispanic/Latino participants 

Number of participants of CubanSouth or Central American, or otheregardless of race. 

2g Enrolled (Race: Native American) Number of Native American participants 

Number of participants having ori

people of North America and S

Central America), and who mainthrough tribal affiliation or commun
I-2 

No. Name Description Operational Definition 2h Enrolled (Race: Asian) Number of Asian participants 

Number of participants having ori

peoples of the Far East, South

Subcontinent (e.g., India, Pakistan

Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan). This 

Cambodia, China, Japan, Korea, Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

2i Enrolled (Race: Multiracial) Number of Multiracial participants 

Number of participants who self-repthan one of the aforementioned cate

2j Enrolled (Race: Other race) Number of participants not in aforementioned categories 

The number who do list their rsomething other than provided in th

3 In Federally-Funded Job Training Number who entered federally-funded training 

Number in Federally Funded worwork preparation programs, fcertification programs, leadership deshadowing. 

4 In Other Job Training 

Number who entered other job training programs (i.e., 

not Federally Funded) 

Number entered into private i

community-based employment trai

supported by any Federal funds. 

5 Entered Apprenticeship Number actually in apprenticeship programs 

The number of participants who registered apprenticeship occupa

Apprenticeship and Training (BATCouncil (SAC). 

6a Total In-school Number of in-school youth served Sum of categories 6b, 6c, 6d, and 6e 6b In High School Number who entered or reentered secondary school 

Number of participants who have 

school diploma or its recognized eqhigh school institution (traditionbetween school terms and intend to 

6c In College Number who entered or reentered post-secondary school 

Number of participants who are a

accredited degree-granting institutiodegree (e.g., AA, AS, BA, BS). 

6d GED preparation Number who are preparing for the GED 

Number of participants preparing 

self-directed or in groups. 

6e Other 

Number of participants enrolled in basic skills, 

elementary, middle school, literacy, pre-GED or Internet classes 

Number of participants enrolled i

middle school, literacy, pre-GED or 
No. Name Description Operational Definition 7 Total Out-of-School Number of out-of-school youth served 

1) The number of participants who school and have not received a secorecognized equivalent. 2) The numnot attending any school, but have school or hold a GED. 

8 Entered Subsidized Employment Number who entered subsidized employment 

The number of participants working 

by demonstration, WIA, other pub

foundations). 

9a 

Entered Unsubsidized Employment Number who entered unsubsidized employment 

The number of participants worsubsidized by demonstration, WIAsubsidies. 

9b No. that had Subsidized Job Before 

Participants who were working full time or part time with a wage provided partially or entirely by demonstration funds before receiving employment provided entirely by 

an employer. 

The number of participants who subsidized by demonstration, WIAsubsidies before they received unsub

10 Enlisted in Military Number who entered the military The number of participants who hav11 In Aftercare Programs Number served by aftercare programs 

The number of participants undtreatment designed to reintegrate for

12 Entered in Community Service Number who entered national and community services 

The number of participants who are defined assignment or made a volunfor a stipend rather than a market w

13 Receiving Other Services 

Number receiving other services such as drug 

rehabilitation, mental health and substance abuse treatment 

Number of participants in treatment 

and anger management or other mother miscellaneous, job-searcservices (e.g., transportation, tattoobtain driver's license, and work clo

14 Convicted of a Crime 

Number of participants who are convicted of a crime 

during program 

The number of participants who are 

a crime during the program. 

15 Incarcerated 

Number of participants who are incarcerated for 

committing a crime during the program 

The number of participants who aincarcerated for a crime commit

program. 
I-4