U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies the

pathways to delinquency and the best methods to

prevent, intervene in, and treat it; and analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides

juvenile justice training and technical assistance to

Federal, State, and local governments; law enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel; and private

agencies, educational institutions, and community

organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to develop and support programs and

replicate tested approaches to delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in such pertinent areas as 

mentoring, gangs, chronic juvenile offending, and

community-based sanctions.

State and Tribal Assistance Division provides funds

for State, local, and tribal governments to help them

achieve the system improvement goals of the JJDP

Act, address underage drinking, conduct State challenge activities, implement prevention programs, and

support initiatives to hold juvenile offenders accountable. This Division also provides training and technical assistance, including support to jurisdictions that

are implementing OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy

for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Information Dissemination and Planning Unit

produces and distributes information resources on

juvenile justice research, statistics, and programs and

coordinates the Office’s program planning and competitive award activities. Information that meets the

needs of juvenile justice professionals and policymakers is provided through print and online publications,

videotapes, CD–ROMs, electronic listservs, and the

Office’s Web site. As part of the program planning

and award process, IDPU identifies program priorities,

publishes solicitations and application kits, and facilitates peer reviews for discretionary funding awards.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes

interagency cooperation and coordination among 

Federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of

juvenile justice. The Program primarily carries out

this responsibility through the Coordinating Council

on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an

independent body within the executive branch that

was established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

Child Protection Division administers programs related to crimes against children and children’s exposure

to violence. The Division provides leadership and

funding to promote effective policies and procedures to

address the problems of missing and exploited children,

abused or neglected children, and children exposed to

domestic or community violence. CPD program activities include supporting research; providing information,

training, and technical assistance on programs to prevent and respond to child victims, witnesses, and their

families; developing and demonstrating effective child

protection initiatives; and supporting the National

Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and 

Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415,

as amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is

to provide national leadership in addressing the issues of preventing and controlling juvenile delinquency and

improving the juvenile justice system.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, demonstration, and training initiatives to improve State and local

juvenile programs and to benefit private youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by seven

components within OJJDP, described below.

The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to

juvenile offending and child victimization. OJJDP accomplishes its mission by supporting States, local communities, and tribal jurisdictions in their efforts to develop and implement effective, multidisciplinary prevention

and intervention programs and improve the capacity of the juvenile justice system to protect public safety, hold

offenders accountable, and provide treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of individual juveniles and their families.
2000 Report to Congress

Title V Community Prevention

Grants Program

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

REPORT
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

Terrence S. Donahue

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention

This document was prepared by Caliber Associates, Fairfax, VA, under contract number OJP–99–C–007 from

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice.
Foreword i

Foreword

In 1992, Congress amended the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to establish Title V—

Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. Referred to as the Community Prevention Grants

Program, Title V provides States and communities with the framework, funding, and tools to establish communitybased strategies that deter youth from delinquent behavior. By focusing on efforts that prevent delinquency in today’s youth, the Community Prevention Grants Program seeks to reduce the level of delinquency in the future.

This seventh annual Report to Congress describes how States and communities across the Nation implemented 

the Community Prevention Grants Program in 2000 and examines their experiences and accomplishments. 

In recent years, attempts to thwart juvenile delinquency have been successful on a number of fronts. The Community

Prevention Grants Program, with its focus on prevention, is a key component in the Nation’s efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency. Since 1994, nearly 1,100 communities have implemented Title V delinquency prevention initiatives.

The latest results from the national evaluation of the Community Prevention Grants Program and other research

validate the efficacy of comprehensive, community-based methods, particularly those based on risk and protective

factors, implemented within a planned framework, and grounded in research-based approaches to delinquency 

prevention. At the State and community levels, the Community Prevention Grants Program has enriched planning

strategies to make them more comprehensive and effective, cultivated efficient prevention programming, and shown

positive outcomes for at-risk children. To supplement these accomplishments, the national evaluation of the Community Prevention Grants Program continues to provide evidence about which approaches are most effective in creating

positive and sustained change in communities and the lives of children and families nationwide. 

As the Community Prevention Grants Program moves into its eighth year, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) will strive to lead the Nation forward in its efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency.

OJJDP appreciates the many contributions that State governments and local communities have made to the Community Prevention Grants Program and salutes their exemplary work and indefatigable commitment. Working in

concert with Federal, State, and local partners, OJJDP will continue to influence juvenile crime and delinquency

trends to build a Nation in which children, families, and communities are healthy and safe.
iii

Table of Contents

Foreword....................................................................................................................................................i

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

I. A Call for Prevention.....................................................................................................................3

1. Why Address Juvenile Delinquency With Prevention Strategies? .....................................4

2. What Role Do Risk Factors Play?......................................................................................5

3. What Role Do Protective Factors Play? .............................................................................7

4. What Other Characteristics Are Important to Prevention Programs? ................................8

II. Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation............................9

1. Community Prevention Grants Program Structure.............................................................9

2. Community Prevention Grants Program Funding............................................................15

3. Federal Support for Training and Technical Assistance...................................................21

III. Risk-Focused Prevention in Action ............................................................................................25

1. Title V Impact at the State Level......................................................................................25

2. Title V Impact at the Local Level.....................................................................................28

3. Factors That Hinder and Facilitate Community Success .................................................32

4. Community Prevention After Title V ...............................................................................33

IV. National Evaluation of the Community Prevention Grants Program....................................35

1. National Evaluation Design and Activities.......................................................................35

2. Preliminary Findings: “What Seems To Matter”..............................................................37

V. Concentration of Federal Efforts in Delinquency Prevention.................................................39

1. Improving School Safety ..................................................................................................39

2. Preventing Youth Drug and Alcohol Use..........................................................................40

3. Linking the Educational, Workforce Training, and Juvenile Justice Systems .................41

4. Improving the Physical and Mental Well-Being of Youth................................................41
iv

5. Gender Issues....................................................................................................................42

6. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

and Concentration of Federal Efforts Program ................................................................43

VI. Next Steps in Delinquency Prevention.......................................................................................45

For Further Information about the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program

and Other OJJDP Programs................................................................................................................47

References...............................................................................................................................................49
Introduction 1

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Justice is committed to investing in this Nation’s future by providing infants, children, and

teens with developmentally appropriate opportunities and interventions that foster their growth into healthy and lawabiding adults. In 1992, Title V of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended

(PL 93-415; 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), established the Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention

Programs—referred to as the Community Prevention Grants Program—to assist and encourage communities to

focus on preventing, rather than reacting to, juvenile delinquency and youth problem behavior. This is the seventh

annual report prepared to fulfill the requirement of Section 504(4) of Title V, which directs the Administrator of the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to submit a report to the Committee on Education

and the Workforce in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary in the U.S. Senate:

d Describing activities and accomplishments of grant activities funded under this title.

d Describing procedures for disseminating grant products and research findings.

d Describing activities conducted to develop policy and to coordinate Federal agency and interagency efforts

related to delinquency prevention.

d Identifying successful approaches and making recommendations for future activities conducted under the title.

The 2000 Report to Congress begins with a review of the latest research on delinquency prevention based on riskand protective-factor analysis. The second chapter provides an overview of the allocation of Federal resources

under Title V, including program structure, funding, and training and technical assistance. The third chapter

examines the impact the Community Prevention Grants Program has had at the State and local levels and factors

that have hindered and facilitated its success. This chapter also explores the future of delinquency prevention in

Title V communities. The fourth chapter presents preliminary findings from the six States participating in the

national Title V evaluation. The fifth chapter updates Federal collaboration, leadership, and support for local

delinquency prevention initiatives. Finally, the last chapter reviews OJJDP’s commitment to delinquency

prevention and the promise it holds for a healthier, safer future for our Nation’s children, youth, and families.
A Call for Prevention 3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Violent Crime Index

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

d The growth in the juvenile violent crime arrest rate from 1988 to 1994 was virtually erased

by 1999, with the 1999 rate just 4% more than the 1988 level.

Data Source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

I. A Call for Prevention 

The latest statistics on juvenile crime and 

delinquency in the United States provide encouraging

evidence that prevention and intervention strategies

are working. In 1999, the juvenile arrest rate for

violent crimes1

 dropped to its lowest level in more

than a decade, 36 percent below its peak in 1994 (see

exhibit 1). In particular, the juvenile arrest rate for

murder declined a remarkable 68 percent from 1993

to 1999, reaching its lowest level since the 1960’s. 

Juvenile arrests for property crime offenses2

 also 

declined, dropping nearly 30 percent between 1994

and 1999 (Snyder, 2000). Not only are youth

committing fewer crimes, they also are less

frequently the victims of crime. Since 1993, the rate

of juvenile victimization for serious violent crimes

has decreased from 44 victims per 1,000 juveniles

ages 12 to 17 to 25 per 1,000 (Federal Interagency

Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2000).

To strengthen existing trends toward reducing

juvenile crime and delinquency, OJJDP is committed

to continuing its support of research-based

prevention and early intervention initiatives. 

However, prevention alone is not the complete

answer. OJJDP supports the Comprehensive 

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders, which combines prevention, early

intervention, and graduated sanctions in a juvenile

justice system that holds offenders accountable for

their actions (Wilson and Howell, 1993). The

Comprehensive Strategy provides States and local

1 These data reflect analyses by Snyder (2000) of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation’s 1999 Uniform Crime Reports. The

juvenile arrest rate is defined by the number of arrests per

100,000 juveniles ages 10 through 17. Offenses included in the

Violent Crime Index are murder, forcible rape, robbery, and

aggravated assault.

2 Property crime offenses include burglary, larceny-theft, motor

vehicle theft, and arson.

Exhibit 1

Juvenile Violent Crime Index Arrest Rates, 1981–1999

The Juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 1999 was at its lowest level since 1988:

36% below the peak year of 1994.
4 A Call for Prevention

Prevention Early

Intervention

Immediate

Sanctions

Community

Confinement

Training

Schools

Aftercare

Comprehensive Strategy

Title V Community Prevention

Grants Program

Prevention efforts that reduce risk

factors and enhance protective

factors.

communities with a research-based strategic

approach to prevent at-risk youth from becoming

serious, violent, and chronic offenders and to

appropriately respond to those that do. 

The Title V Community Prevention Grants Program3

supports the front-end of OJJDP’s Comprehensive

Strategy (see exhibit 2). This Program embodies

known effective prevention elements: a

comprehensive, community-based approach that

focuses on strategically addressing the early warning

signs—or risk factors—in children that contribute to

the development of future delinquent behavior, while

also strengthening the protective factors that can

promote healthy development and insulate youth

from problems. 

This chapter begins with an overview of the role and

impact of prevention as an essential approach to

addressing juvenile crime and delinquency. It

continues with a discussion of the current research on

risk factors, followed by a discussion of protective

factors. The final section highlights other important

components found in effective prevention efforts. 

Chapter 2 will demonstrate how this research base

has been integrated into the Community Prevention

Grants Program.

1. Why Address Juvenile Delinquency With

Prevention Strategies?

In the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 (the

Act), Congress affirmed that it is more effective in

human and fiscal terms to prevent delinquency than

to attempt to control it after the fact. While treatment

and rehabilitation programs are necessary to respond

to youth already engaged in delinquent acts,

treatment programs face an uphill battle. “By the

time most serious delinquents are identified by and

receive treatment from the juvenile justice system,

they are well into their delinquent careers”

(Thornberry, Huizinga, and Loeber, 1995). In

addition, many chronic offenders, according to selfreport data, are never arrested and treated. A sole

focus on treatment overlooks a large number of

delinquent youth (Thornberry, Huizinga, and Loeber,

1995). To effectively reduce the number of youth

engaging in delinquent behavior, these behaviors

must be prevented in the first place. 

3 In this Report, the Title V Community Prevention Grants

Program is referred to, interchangeably, as Title V, the

Community Prevention Grants Program, and the Program.

Exhibit 2

Relationship Between the Community Prevention Grants Program and Comprehensive Strategy
A Call for Prevention 5

A growing base of evidence indicates that prevention

programs can reduce the number of youth engaging

in juvenile crime and problem behaviors. In a

congressionally mandated, rigorous review of more

than 500 crime prevention programs, researchers

found a number of successful and promising program

models (Sherman et al., 1998). Among the effective

programs identified were long-term, frequent home

visitation programs combined with preschool;

school-based programs that clarify and communicate

norms about behaviors; and instructional programs

that address social competency skills. 

Three notable examples of specific programs that

have been proven effective in reducing juvenile

delinquency and other adolescent problem behaviors

are highlighted below. 

d David Olds’ Early Childhood Nurse Home

Visitation Program, one of the OJJDP funded

Blueprints Programs,4

 provides services to firsttime, low-income parents, prenatally through their

child’s second birthday, to reduce health and

parenting problems that have been linked to

antisocial behavior in children (Olds et al., 1998). 

A 15-year follow up of one program implementing

this model showed that adolescents whose mothers

participated in the program over a decade earlier

were 55 percent less likely to have been arrested

than adolescents whose mothers did not

participate (Olds et al., 1998).

d The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, a wellestablished childhood intervention that has

operated for almost 40 years, provides preschool

activities and home visits for 2 years for at-risk

children ages 3 to 4 and their families. In a

longitudinal, experimental study that followed

participants (the experimental group) and a

control group from program entry through age 27,

participants had significantly lower rates of

juvenile delinquency and teenage pregnancy and

significantly higher rates of prosocial behavior,

academic achievement, employment, income, and

family stability than did control group members

(Parks, 2000).

d Big Brothers Big Sisters, another OJJDP funded

Blueprints Program, matches youth ages 10 to 16

from single-parent homes with adult mentors. In

an 18-month followup study, Big Brothers Big

Sisters participants were 46 percent less likely to

have started using illegal drugs and 27 percent

less likely to have started drinking alcoholic

beverages than were control group members

(Grossman and Tierney, 1998).

These are but a few examples of prevention and early

intervention program models being implemented

throughout the country to promote strong families and

healthy youth.

Over the long term, prevention programs also save

money. A recent RAND Corporation report (Karoly

et al., 1998) estimates that the Nurse Home Visitation

program saves four times the original investment by

the time high-risk youth are 15 years old, 20 percent

of which is savings in justice system expenses (i.e.,

arrest and jail costs for mother and/or youth). Other

savings include reductions in health services and

welfare benefits and increased tax revenue. In other

words, for every $1,000 spent now on this prevention

program, $4,000 is saved later. The RAND report

estimates that the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project

saves twice the original investment for participants

(measured up to age 27), 40 percent of which is

accounted for in savings of criminal justice costs

(Karoly et al., 1998).

Research has shown that a key component in effective

prevention programs is addressing risk

factors—conditions, attitudes, or behaviors that

frequently precede later engagement in delinquent

behaviors. By assessing these risk factors, prevention

efforts can be targeted before a young person has

progressed too deeply into a pattern of problem

behaviors.

2. What Role Do Risk Factors Play?

In 1992, Hawkins and Catalano, two of the leading

researchers in the field of delinquency prevention,

made a simple but profound statement:

“In order to prevent a problem, we must find

 out what factors increase the chance of that

 problem’s occurrence and then find ways to

 reduce these ‘risk factors’” (p. 8). 

By identifying the factors that place youth at risk of

engaging in future delinquent behavior, youth who 4 Blueprints for Violence Prevention is an OJJDP-supported

initiative to identify violence prevention models that meet very

high scientific standards of program effectiveness.
6 A Call for Prevention

have, or are affected by, those risk factors, can be

identified and targeted for prevention efforts. 

Based on more than three decades of research on

juvenile delinquency and other adolescent problem

behaviors (e.g., substance use, teen pregnancy, school

dropout), risk factors have been identified in five

domains: the community, school, family, peer group,

and within individuals. Examples of risk factors,

grouped by domains, include:

d In the community—availability of firearms,

disorganized neighborhoods with high rates of

crime and violence, and impoverished

neighborhoods.

d In the school—lack of commitment to school and

early academic failure.

d In the family—family conflict and family

management problems, such as parents failing to

set clear expectations for children or failing to

supervise children properly.

d In the peer group—associating with peers who

engage in delinquent behavior.

d Within the individual—alienation and

rebelliousness among youth who do not feel they

are a part of society or bound by its rules

(Brewer, Hawkins, Catalano, and Neckerman,

1995, citing numerous studies).

The effectiveness of risk-focused prevention

approaches has been increasingly recognized over the

past 10 years, and today, new research provides even

greater insights. For example, risk factors are not

static. Their predictive value changes depending on

when they occur in a young person’s development, in

what social context, and under what circumstances

(United States Office of the Surgeon General, 2001). 

As a result, much of the current research on risk

factors examines their links to problem behaviors

across different groups of youth, under a variety of

circumstances. For example, OJJDP’s Study Group

on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders examined

significant factors in predicting future violence or

delinquency among groups of 6- to 11- and 12- to 14-

year-old youth (Hawkins et al., 2000). Interestingly,

the researchers found that risk factors differed

between the two age groups. For example, substance

abuse was one of the highest ranking predictors of

violence or serious delinquency for the 6- to 11-yearold group, but one of the lowest ranking predictors

for the 12- to 14-year-old group. Conversely, having

antisocial peers was one of the highest ranking

predictors for the 12- to 14-year-old group, but one of

the lowest for the 6- to 11-year-old group (Hawkins et

al., 2000). This analysis indicates there may be a

developmental component to risk factors and suggests

that communities need to consider the age of youth

when assessing local risk factors. 

OJJDP’s Program of Research on the Causes and

Correlates of Delinquency (Thornberry, Huizinga,

and Loeber, 1995) has been examining risk factors

that may be predictive for violent, chronic juvenile

offenders, a small but particularly problematic group

to address. Researchers found that the prevalence of

certain risk factors is much higher for this group than

for nonviolent offenders, including low attachment to

parents, low commitment to school, high delinquent

peer associations, and residence in a high-crime

neighborhood. In addition, this research suggests that

individual risk factors add to and interact with each

other, placing youth with multiple risk factors at very

high risk for delinquency (Thornberry, Huizinga, and

Loeber, 1995).

Another recent study analyzed risk factors by racial

and gender groups. The National Longitudinal Study

of Adolescent Health (Add Health) looked at the

effect of demographic characteristics (including race,

gender, family income, and family structure) and risk

factors on various problem behaviors (Blum,

Beuhring, and Rinehart, 2000). The study found that

while some risk factors are more prevalent among

certain demographic groups (such as minority males),

demographic characteristics in and of themselves are

not useful predictors of adolescents’ future risky

behavior. The study also showed that risk factors for

delinquency and violence varied among demographic

groups. For example, frequency of parental drinking

was a risk factor for future alcohol use for white and

black females but not for Hispanic females or for

males of any race. The most consistent risk factors

for alcohol use across all race and gender groups

were the number of best friends who drink and

frequent problems with schoolwork. These were also

the most consistent risk factors for weapon-related

violence. These findings underscore the fact that risk

factors are not the same for every demographic group,

and it is therefore important to know which 
A Call for Prevention 7

risk factors exist in a community for which groups

(Blum, Beuhring, and Rinehart, 2000).

Clearly, targeting known risk factors is an important

component in a delinquency prevention strategy. But

is this enough? In recent years, policymakers,

researchers, youth advocates, and local community

members alike have expressed concern that a riskfocused approach is not comprehensive and, in

addition, may amount to an overly negative, deficitbased emphasis. In response to this concern, there

has been an increased emphasis on addressing both

risk and protective factors.

3. What Role Do Protective Factors Play?

Along with risk factors associated with an increased

likelihood of future problem behaviors, there are

protective factors that can help promote healthy

development. These protective factors can counteract

the negative impact of risk factors and help build

resilience in at-risk youth. Protective factors help us

understand why children can grow up side-by-side in

apparently similar environments and some display

problems while others don’t. Current literature

suggests that some children are exposed to and

develop beliefs, standards, and behaviors that protect

them from the apparent risks.

Some protective factors appear as the mirror images

of risk factors. For example:

d While a lack of commitment to school is a risk

factor, a strong commitment to school is a

protective factor.

d While a lack of parental supervision is a risk

factor, an appropriate level of parental

supervision is a protective factor.

d While associating with delinquent peers is a risk

factor, associating with prosocial peers is a

protective factor. 

Protective factors also can be viewed through another

lens. Hawkins and Catalano (1992) state that

“healthy bonding is a significant factor in children’s

resistence to crime and drugs” (p. 14). Children can

bond positively with their parents, peers, and

community. “When people feel bonded to society, or

to a social unit like the family or school, they want to

live according to its standards or norms” (Hawkins

and Catalano, 1992, p. 15). According to Hawkins

and Catalano, three conditions are needed to create

positive bonds. Youth need:

d Opportunities to contribute to social groups.

d Skills to be successful in their contributions.

d Recognition for their contributions.

Identifying which protective factors are present—and

which can be enhanced—can help guide development

of prevention strategies. 

Protective factors can be quite powerful in their

ability to offset risk factors. Thornberry, Huizinga,

and Loeber (1995) found that certain protective

factors have some effect even on the most high-risk

youth (defined as having five or more family-based

risk factors). These protective factors include:

d Doing well in school.

d Intending to continue one’s education.

d Having high levels of attachment to one’s

parents.

d Associating with prosocial peers.

Although each protective factor alone had little effect,

they found that 82 percent of the high risk youth who

had nine or more protective factors did not engage in

serious delinquent behavior (Thornberry, Huizinga,

and Loeber, 1995). 

Protective factors, like risk factors, also appear to

vary among subgroups. The recent Add Health study

found that there was no single protective factor that

was effective across all demographic groups (Blum,

Beuhring, and Rinehart, 2000). The protective factor

that appeared most frequently across groups,

however, was having positive parent/family

relationships. This factor appeared to reduce the

likelihood of alcohol use among black males and

females but not among white or Hispanic males or

females. It also was proven effective against weaponrelated violence for all groups except white females

(Blum, Beuhring, and Rinehart, 2000). 

Based on these findings, it is clear that effective

prevention efforts need to address both risk and

protective factors. It is important to curtail the

accumulation of risk factors that lead youth down the

road to delinquent behavior. It is also important to

build protective factors, so that youth can progress

toward healthy development. Prevention efforts need
8 A Call for Prevention

to begin early and must be sustained to ensure that

youth stay on the path of healthy development. 

4. What Other Characteristics Are

Important to Prevention Programs?

As described above, the research literature indicates

that programs that reduce risk factors and promote

protective factors are the most likely to prevent

delinquency. Extensive reviews of prevention

programs and their evaluations also identify other

characteristics common among effective programs,

including (Center for Substance Abuse Prevention,

1999; Elliott, 1997; National Institute on Drug

Abuse, 1997):

d Early initiation of prevention activities.

d Evidence-based practices. 

d Comprehensive approaches that address multiple

domains (e.g., family, school, community, peer

group, and individual).

d Age-specific and developmentally appropriate

interventions.

d Interagency partnerships and community

linkages.

d Long-term orientations.

In sum, research is providing valuable information

about risk factors that may signal the “early warning

signs” of future delinquent behavior, and protective

factors that can build resiliency in youth. Evaluation

results also are showing that effective prevention

strategies, like the Community Prevention Grants

Program, are often characterized by comprehensive,

coordinated approaches; a targeted focus on at-risk

youth; and a long-term orientation. The following

chapter will describe how these research findings

have been integrated into the Title V Community

Prevention Grants Program.
Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation 9

II. Federal Resources for Effective Prevention

Planning and Implementation

Risk- and protective-factor focused prevention works. 

As presented in chapter 1, the research-based

literature reports that risk- and protective-factor

focused prevention programs are successfully 

reducing risk factors and enhancing protective

factors. The reduction in juvenile crime statistics

confirms the theory. It is clear, however, that this

type of approach was, and still is, for many States and

communities, a new way of thinking and approaching

social problems. Since 1994, the first year of funding

for the Community Prevention Grants Program,

communities nationwide have become more familiar

with comprehensive community-based planning. For

many communities, however, translating the theory

into action remains uncharted and challenging

territory. 

To facilitate successful dissemination of the Title V

model and to support States and communities in

effectively implementing it, OJJDP has, since the

program’s inception, provided guidance in the form

of program structure, funding, training, and technical

assistance. Over the years, OJJDP has provided

States and communities with the foundation to build a

national delinquency prevention initiative to address

the precursors of delinquency. This chapter outlines

in detail the Community Prevention Grants Program

structure, including the key principles and

implementation stages on which the program is built;

funding guidelines, including this year’s Title V

allocations and State subgrant awards; and Federal

training and technical assistance resources. In

combination, the support and guidance OJJDP offers

ensures that States and communities are in the best

position possible to implement the Community

Prevention Grants Program. 

1. Community Prevention Grants Program

Structure 

Since 1994, Federal resources provided through the

Community Prevention Grants Program have assisted

States and communities to implement prevention

strategies and reduce risk factors for youth. Due to

the increasing awareness of the need for researchbased, comprehensive community-based strategies to

prevent juvenile delinquency, it is important to note

how the Community Prevention Grants Program

incorporates the key components of such an approach

into its structure and funding mechanism. The

remainder of this section discusses the structure of the

Community Prevention Grants Program and the way

in which this structure assists communities to

successfully plan and implement risk- and protectivefactor focused delinquency prevention. 

Key Principles of the Community Prevention

Grants Program

The Community Prevention Grants Program provides

States and communities with both funding and the

guiding framework for reducing risk factors,

increasing protective factors, and decreasing the

occurrence of juvenile problem behaviors. The

structure and funding guidelines, as set forth in the

final Program Guideline in the Federal Register,

August 1, 1994 (Volume 59, Number 146), includes

the key principles and grant award process of the

Community Prevention Grants Program. Specifically,

the structure authorizes the State Advisory Groups

(SAGs)5

 to approve the award of grant funds to units

of local government and allows broad local discretion

in applying funds toward community-based

prevention activities. In addition to providing grants,

OJJDP provides training and technical assistance to

States to help them adapt the Program Guidelines to

their local context and to communities to build their

capacity in prevention planning and implementation.

5 As provided by Section 223 (a) of the JJDP Act, the SAG is an

advisory board appointed by the Governor with 15 to 33

members who have training, experience, or special knowledge

concerning the prevention and treatment of juvenile

delinquency or the administration of juvenile justice. SAG

responsibilities include overseeing the preparation and

administration of the State’s juvenile justice plan, advising

policymakers on juvenile justice issues, and reviewing grant

applications related to juvenile justice and delinquency

prevention, including the Community Prevention Grants

Program.
10 Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation

The framework provided by OJJDP for the

Community Prevention Grants Program is based on

seven key principles that research has shown are

effective in preventing delinquency. As illustrated in

exhibit 3, taken together, these principles form a

strategic approach that provides a firm foundation for

a community’s prevention planning process. The

Program integrates the following principles:

d Address risk and protective factors.

d Exercise community control and decisionmaking.

d Implement comprehensive and multidisciplinary

approaches.

d Utilize a research foundation for planning.

d Leverage resources and systems.

d Evaluate strategies to monitor success. 

d Maintain a long-term perspective.

OJJDP helps communities to integrate these

principles into their delinquency prevention strategies

by:

d Helping communities to address risk and

protective factors for delinquency

prevention—The Community Prevention Grants

Program structure and the OJJDP-sponsored

training and technical assistance support

community efforts to identify specific risk and

protective factors and develop a prevention

strategy tailored to local needs. Through this

process, a community is better prepared to

strategically address its unique set of risk and

protective factors. 

Exhibit 3

Principles of Community-Based Prevention—Strategic Approach
Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation 11

“The Title V process was exhausting, but it

really revealed what the problems were. The

reason I know what the problems are is

because I had to study them. I’m not just

saying, ‘I know what the problems are. I know

what the problems are.’ The assessment was

the first important thing. And from there, the

next important step was taking the information

and doing something about it.”

— Mary Jane Gaudet, Program Director,

Youth Court,

Adams County, Mississippi

d Supporting local efforts to exercise community

control and decisionmaking for delinquency

prevention—OJJDP program guidelines allow

States considerable flexibility in implementing

the Community Prevention Grants Program. The

funding guidelines allow each State to establish

its own process for determining the number and

amount of subgrant awards to individual

communities. In addition, each unit of local

government that receives Title V funds is

responsible for planning, developing, and

implementing delinquency prevention strategies

that best suit its unique risk- and protectionfocused profile. Through the Community

Prevention Grants Program, OJJDP effectively

places control and decisionmaking for

delinquency prevention in the hands of the States

and local community members.

“The risk and resource assessment has helped

us use our resources wisely; we’re not just

spinning our wheels...We’re making good

decisions about how to utilize our resources.”

— Robin Mackey, Title V Program Director,

Office of the Sheriff,

Calhoun County, Alabama

d Supporting communities to implement

comprehensive and multidisciplinary 

approaches to delinquency prevention—The

Community Prevention Grants Program

guidelines require communities that receive

grants to either designate or form a

multidisciplinary Prevention Policy Board (PPB)

that includes representatives from across the

community (e.g., human services, education,

justice, law enforcement, public and mental 

health, religious institutions, local government,

housing, recreation, and private industry). To 

ensure support at the highest levels, the Program 

also encourages early involvement and ongoing

commitment from the communities’ key leaders 

(e.g., county executives, chiefs of police, school

superintendents, business leaders, juvenile 

justice officials). The Program also promotes

coordinated implementation of multiple 

prevention programs and the use of existing 

programs and services. The risk- and protectionfocused model emphasizes comprehensive

interventions that address multiple risk and 

protective factors with the expectation that these

components will have synergistic, communitywide effects to prevent juvenile delinquency 

over the long term.

“The Prevention Policy Board has evolved into

the Children’s Service Coordinating Committee

and has made an impact on collaboration

among agencies. Agencies who otherwise

would not have worked together, or worked

well together, have formed relationships by

being on this board and have begun new

collaborative ventures.”

— Janell Regimbal, Vice President for Youth

Services, Lutheran Social Services,

Grand Forks, North Dakota

d Requiring communities to utilize a research

foundation for planning—The Community

Prevention Grants Program requires that each

funded community conduct a thorough datadriven local assessment to identify risks,

protective factors, resources, and gaps in services

for youth and families. Communities then use

these findings to select proven or promising

prevention approaches and strategies that address

the identified local profile. The selected

approaches must have demonstrated

effectiveness, or at least show promise through

evaluation to reduce risks, enhance protective

factors, and reduce delinquent behavior. The

findings from the community assessment and the

prevention strategies selected form the researchbase for each community’s 3-year delinquency

prevention plan.
12 Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation

“Having the data compiled helped the

collaborative design and drive the plan. This

provided the Board and the community a

common language on which to build process

and programs. The data also provided the

board and community with leverage to seek

additional funds and procure the support of

other groups in the community because they

were able to see the commonality in the goals

as they were in line with their own agencies.”

— Margaret Pearson, Project Coordinator,

Build-A-Generation,

Mesa County, Colorado

d Requiring communities to leverage resources

and systems for delinquency prevention—As

“seed” money, the Community Prevention Grants

Program provides a financial base and the

needed incentives for local jurisdictions to secure

additional prevention resources while also

requiring the unit of local government to secure a

50 percent match of resources, either in cash or

in kind, if not provided by the State.6

 Armed

with empirical data from their local risk and

resource assessment and program evaluation,

communities are better positioned to more

effectively target their existing delinquency

prevention funds and, in the future, to request

additional Federal, State, and local funding to

continue their prevention efforts.

“Title V has helped establish a foundation to

support a research-based process which

empowers communities to conduct their own

risk and resource assessments, identify new

programs and enhance existing programming

to fill service gaps to address priority risk

factors. Through this foundation, participating

communities have been successful in not only

addressing their risk but in identifying and

leveraging multiple sources of programmatic

support.”

— Dan Romage, Title V Delinquency

Prevention Planner, Pennsylvania 

Council on Crime and Delinquency

d Encouraging communities to evaluate strategies

to monitor success—Requisite program

evaluation activities enable local stakeholders to

assess progress, refine their programs, and

optimize effectiveness over time. Also in today’s

world of scarce resources, sound evaluation is

increasingly important, and sometimes required,

to secure continued program funding. Through

OJJDP-sponsored training and technical

assistance, community members develop local

capacity to conduct both a process and impact

evaluation of their initiative and monitor

long-term changes in the prevalence of their

community’s risk and protective factors and

adolescent problems. 

“The one thing I would have done differently

was to get training in evaluation earlier. It

really makes a difference when you know what

you want to see in the long run. We’ve really

become more effective since we had the

evaluation training and established an

evaluation plan.”

— Paige Farmer, Project Director,

Community Wellness Center,

York, Maine

d Supporting communities to maintain a long-term

perspective to reducing juvenile

delinquency—The Community Prevention Grants

Program does not propose quick-fix solutions to

long-standing juvenile problems. Instead, OJJDP

has provided a framework that supports

communities to think long term. The 3-year

plan—a trademark of the Community Prevention

Grants Program—is intended to shift

communities away from historical “hit-and-miss”

approaches to problem-solving and toward longterm strategic community planning. In essence,

the requirement of a 3-year plan forces

communities to evolve—to change the way they

think about prevention, planning, and bringing

about community change. Despite the level of

effort needed to complete the plan, in the end,

communities discover that the plan provides an

empirically based, concrete foundation that

guides not only their Title V activities but also

future community planning and action.

Beyond these basic principles, OJJDP provides

further support for comprehensive planning by

offering communities step-by-step guidance on how

6 All Title V funds must be matched by recipients of units of

local government or by the State with 50 percent of the amount

of the grant. This match can be provided in cash or the value of

in kind contributions or services. 
Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation 13

Community Mobilization

Conduct Assessment

Implement Prevention

Strategies

Introduce community

prevention to key officials

and leaders; form

Prevention Policy Board

Identify risk factors,

protective factors, gaps in

services, existing resources,

and promising strategies;

develop 3-year plan

Initiate prevention

strategies and activities;

identify and leverage other

resources for prevention

Institutionalization and

Monitoring

Monitor and evaluate ongoing program activities

and indicators of risk and

protective factors

to implement a successful delinquency prevention

strategy through four key implementation steps. 

Steps Toward Implementation 

To help communities translate the principles of

community-based prevention into action, the

Community Prevention Grants Program model

incorporates the key principles discussed above into

four key implementation steps, as presented in exhibit

4. At each point on the implementation continuum,

certain activities and goals are designed to strengthen

communities’ capacities to plan, implement, and

sustain comprehensive locally-based prevention

strategies. This model is one more way OJJDP

assists communities to implement risk- and

protection-focused prevention.

The next section presents the implementation

continuum, outlining each of the four steps and

explaining how each builds on the preceding step to

provide communities with the structure to

successfully implement a delinquency prevention

initiative. The four steps in the implementation

continuum include:

Step 1: Community Mobilization 

Step 2: Assessment and Planning

Step 3: Implementation of Prevention Efforts

Step 4: Institutionalization and Monitoring 

Step 1: Community Mobilization—A

comprehensive delinquency prevention plan is best

accomplished with input from a diverse group of

community members. In this stage, key community

leaders, both formal and informal, are brought

together to form a Prevention Policy Board (PPB). 

The members’ varying perspectives on the

community are explored and merged so that local

needs can be identified, strengths can be recognized,

and strategies can be planned. OJJDP provides

training to assist PPB members in understanding the

principles of community mobilization.

During this stage, board members are introduced to

the rationale and benefits of risk- and protectionfocused delinquency prevention and long-term

prevention planning. Engaging community members

from the beginning and training them to understand

and apply the principles of effective delinquency

prevention encourages their support and commitment

to the process.

Exhibit 4

Implementation Steps of the Community Prevention Grants Program
14 Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation

“The Task Force plan educated people about

the problem and built consensus on what to

do. The people on this task force were the

same ones who later committed their staff to

the project.”

— Stephen Blaire, Director, Office on Youth,

Norfolk, Virginia

Step 2: Assessment and Planning—Once board

members have signed on, the work begins on a

thorough community assessment, the findings of

which are integrated into a 3-year comprehensive

delinquency prevention plan. Members of the PPB

may participate in training to learn how to identify

risk and protective factors, how to gather data, and

how to construct a plan. The members then conduct

their own assessment of the risk and protective factors

that exist in their community. They also take an

inventory of existing resources already addressing

community needs. Using this information, PPB

members jointly develop a comprehensive 3-year

delinquency prevention plan that prioritizes their

needs and proposes strategies to meet those needs. 

This plan serves as their application to the State for a

Community Prevention subgrant.

“I think the more agencies start to use the

information from the risk and resource

assessment, the more chances we have that

this process is going to be institutionalized in

the community because agencies and

community organizations can really target their

programs to the actual needs and not just what

they perceive to be the needs.”

— Lisa Malago, Title V Coordinator,

Fayette County, Pennsylvania

Step 3: Implementation of Prevention

Strategies—After receiving a Community Prevention

subgrant, communities are ready to implement their

delinquency prevention strategies. In line with its

guiding principles, the Community Prevention Grants

Program encourages communities to first strengthen

and coordinate existing programs, and then, as

necessary, implement proven effective strategies to

reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors. 

To assist in selecting effective strategies, OJJDP

offers training focused on promising approaches to

delinquency prevention. It is important, however, for

communities to select promising approaches designed

for their designated target population in their selected

setting. For example, a specific after-school program

may be effective for 9- to 11-year-old boys in a

school setting, but this effectiveness may not

generalize to 12- to 14-year-old girls in a community

agency setting. Whether the selected strategy is

improved coordination of existing resources,

implementation of new programs, or a combination,

the overall goal of prevention strategies is to reduce

the incidence of juvenile delinquency and problem

behaviors.

“One of the most important changes for us has

been our ability to expand our arts program to

serve more youth, many who come from lowincome or single-family homes. With the [Title

V] money, we can provide more classes, at

more locations, which allows us to reach more

individuals.” 

— Roger Meredith, Education Director, 

John Walden Arts Center,

Monroe County, Indiana

Step 4: Institutionalization and Monitoring—

Once the community has successfully negotiated steps

1 through 3, it is important that it begin to monitor

and evaluate its efforts to determine effectiveness. 

An evaluation plan that examines the processes and

the outcomes can be used to track progress, make

modifications as needed, and report on goal

achievement. Periodic evaluation of risk and

protective factors and juvenile problem behaviors can

inform a community about the effectiveness of its

delinquency prevention strategy.

This step also emphasizes the need for

institutionalizing the community’s efforts. In this

context, institutionalization involves both acquiring

the resources needed to keep prevention efforts going

and maintaining local commitment to the overall

prevention initiative after the Community Prevention

Grants award has ended. The Community Prevention

Grants Program is structured to foster

institutionalization in a number of ways. First, local

grantees must provide a 50 percent match of the

Federal grant amount, if not provided by the State;

this encourages local investment from the beginning. 

Second, the support and commitment of key

community leaders (e.g., local government

representatives, agency directors) are sought in the
Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation 15

early planning stages; these key leaders are frequently

positioned to secure local funds to sustain effective

programs. Third, the model is based on the use of

empirical data and research-based strategies; solid

evidence of need and success lends validity to a

community’s requests for additional funding. Finally,

the model is based on research that guides effective,

comprehensive prevention planning; as agencies and

community members experience early successes, they

should continue to use the principles of the

Community Prevention Grants Program in ongoing

delinquency prevention efforts.

“Attitudes Matter [our county-wide substance

abuse awareness campaign] may become a $1

million campaign next year. Because the key

leaders were committed to and passionate

about the campaign, the collaborative was able

to convince the City to provide funding for 3

years. When the proposal was made, the City

Council recognized that... other strategies... to

address the issue of underage drinking were

unsuccessful. They saw the Attitudes Matter

campaign as an innovative, locally driven

strategy that made sense to the community’s

needs.”

— Roxanna Hartline, Title V Coordinator,

Holland, Michigan

2. Community Prevention Grants Program

Funding

The growing body of literature on effective strategies

to address delinquency prevention influences not just

the Community Prevention Grants Program structure

but also its funding guidelines. In keeping with its

commitment to local control for delinquency

prevention planning and implementation, OJJDP

allows broad State and community discretion to

utilize the funding to support locally defined

programs and initiatives. This section begins with

answers to some of the most frequently asked

questions regarding how to obtain and utilize funds to

support community-based delinquency prevention

efforts. The sections that follow provide descriptions

of Federal Title V allocations to date and State and

local subgrant awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. 

How are the Community Prevention

Grants Program funds allocated from

OJJDP to States and territories? 

All States, U.S. territories, and the District of

Columbia may apply for Title V funds provided they

have a State agency designated by the chief executive

under Section 299(c) of the JJDP Act and a State

Advisory Group or SAG (as described above). Title

V grant awards are based on a formula derived from

the State’s population of juveniles younger than the

maximum age allowed for original juvenile court

delinquency jurisdiction, with a minimum award level

of $100,000 for States and $33,000 for territories,

with the exception of Puerto Rico, which receives an

amount based on its juvenile population. 

How are Community Grants Program

funds allocated from the States to local

communities? 

After OJJDP awards grants to the States (State

agency), the SAG, in consultation with the State

agency, awards subgrants to units of local

government through a competitive process.7

 Because

States have broad discretion in applying Title V funds

to prevention activities, the competitive process may

differ from State to State. Eligibility requirements,

however, must be consistent across all States as

outlined in the Federal Register, August 1, 1994

(Volume 59, Number 146). 

7 A unit of local government is defined as any city, county, town,

borough, parish, village, or other general purpose political

subdivision of a State and any Indian tribe that performs law

enforcement functions and any law enforcement district or

judicial enforcement district that (i) is established under

applicable State law; and (ii) has the authority to, in a manner

independent of other State entities, establish a budget and raise

revenues. Parish sheriffs’ departments and offices of district

attorneys in Louisiana are therefore considered units of local

government at the parish level and are eligible to apply to their 

State agency for Title V funds.
16 Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation

What are the eligibility requirements for

communities to receive Community

Prevention Grants? 

To be eligible to apply for a subgrant from the State,

an applicant must: 

d Meet the definition of a unit of local

government.

d Receive SAG certification of compliance with

the JJDP core requirements, which requires

deinstitutionalization of status offenders from

secure detention, sight and sound separation of

juveniles from adults held in secure facilities,

removal of juveniles from secure custody in adult

jails and lockups, and efforts to address the

disproportionate confinement of minority

juveniles in secure facilities.

d Convene or designate a local Prevention Policy

Board comprising 15 to 21 representatives from

various community sectors that provide services

for children, youth, and families.

d Submit a 3-year, comprehensive, risk- and

protection-focused delinquency prevention

plan to the State, as outlined in exhibit 5. 

d Secure a 50-cents-on-the-dollar match, either

cash or in kind, of the subgrant award amount, if

not provided by the State.

SAGs are authorized to establish additional eligibility

criteria for subgrant awards based on need (e.g.,

jurisdictions with above average juvenile crime rates)

or other related criteria.

Exhibit 5

Requirements for the Comprehensive Delinquency Prevention Plan

7 The designation of a Prevention Policy Board, consisting of 15 to 21 members representing a balance of public

agencies, nonprofit organizations, private business and industry, at-risk youth, and parents.

7 Evidence of key community leaders’ support for the delinquency prevention effort.

7 Definition of the boundaries of the program’s targeted neighborhood or community.

7 An assessment of the community’s readiness to adopt a comprehensive risk-focused delinquency prevention

strategy.

7 An assessment of baseline data related to risk and protective factors prevalent in the community.

7 An identification of available resources and promising approaches that address identified risk and protective

factors and an assessment of gaps in existing services.

7 A strategy for mobilizing the community to implement delinquency prevention activities.

7 A strategy for obtaining and coordinating identified resources to implement promising approaches that address

priority risk factors and strengthen protective factors.

7 A plan describing how program funds and matching resources will be used to accomplish stated goals and

objectives.

7 A description of the Prevention Policy Board’s program management role.

7 A plan for collecting performance and outcome evaluation data.
Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation 17

How does OJJDP support communities to

apply for and implement the Community

Prevention Grants Program? 

To support communities in the Title V grant

application process, OJJDP provides training on

community mobilization, data collection and analysis

of risk and protective factors, and prevention plan and

program development, including how to select

prevention strategies to meet the unique needs of each

applicant community. The training and tools assist

communities through each step of the Community

Prevention Grants Program process to support and

enhance their delinquency prevention planning and

implementation. These resources are outlined in

greater detail in Section 3 below.

Federal Allocation of Title V

“The budget for our corrections has gone

through the ceiling...They can’t build enough

prisons in Mississippi. We can’t afford to do

that anymore...As a result of the Title V money

being available, we are getting down to

attacking the root causes of violence and

delinquency in our community. When you

spend the money to turn a whole family

around, the [social] problems that cause

people to commit horrible crimes go away. It’s

a cost effective way of using taxpayer money.”

— Mary Jane Gaudet, Program Director,

Adams County Youth Court,

Adams County, Mississippi

Local communities must have sufficient resources to

plan and implement effective delinquency prevention

efforts. In line with States’ commitment to

prevention, OJJDP provides the funding to support

communities at the local level. In fact, over the years,

OJJDP has successfully requested that Congress

increase prevention dollars under Title V. As shown

in exhibit 6, under Title V, appropriations to the

Community Prevention Grants Program have nearly

tripled from the first appropriation of $13 million in

FY 1994, to an appropriation in FY 2000 of more

than $36.4 million. As of its seventh year, Title V

program funds have been utilized to support nearly

1,100 local delinquency prevention efforts

nationwide—a testimony to the Federal and State

commitment to establishing prevention partnerships.

Exhibit 7 presents the total number of communities

with subgrants awarded since FY 1994 for each

participating State (a total of 1,093). 

Title V Community Prevention Grants

Program 

Seven-Year Summary (1994–2000)

d Forty-nine States, the District of Columbia,

and five territories participated.

d One thousand ninety-three (1,093)

communities received subgrants to mobilize

resources and implement delinquency

prevention plans.

d Three hundred sixty-one (361) communities

have received a full 3 years of funding with a

total award ranging from $8,000 to

$1,503,000.

State and Local Subgrant Awards

The Community Prevention Grants Program award

process begins with Federal allocations to the States. 

Up to 5 percent of a State’s allocation can be used to

cover the costs of administering and evaluating

Community Prevention Grants Program subgrants and

to support SAG activities related to the program. No

less than 95 percent of the money can be used to

competitively award subgrants to units of local

government. In FY 2000, only two States (South

Dakota and Wyoming) did not participate in the Title

V Community Prevention Grants Program.8

 In FY

2000, State allocations ranged from a minimum of

$100,000 to a maximum of $4,662,000. Each

territory received $33,000, except Puerto Rico which

received $604,000 based on its juvenile population. 

Exhibit 8 displays the State allocations of Title V

funds from FY 1994 through FY 1999 (combined)

and FY 2000.

The sizable increase in funds appropriated to the

Community Prevention Grants Program in FY 1999

continues to provide new opportunities for States to

enhance their current Title V award process, despite a

marginal decrease in the allocation in FY 2000. 

8 The State of Wyoming has never participated in the Community

Prevention Grants Program. The State of South Dakota

participated in the Program in 1994 and 1995. 
18 Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation

Exhibit 6

Title V Appropriations 1994–2000

d In Fiscal Year 1994, $13 million was appropriated under Title V to fund States’ and territories’ delinquency

prevention strategies.

d In Fiscal Year 1995, of the $20 million appropriated, $1 million was applied to prevention programming

under the SafeFutures Initiative. Unobligated funds from Fiscal Year 1994 ($257,000) were combined with

the remaining $19 million of Fiscal Year 1995 funds, a total of $19,257,000 allocated to States and territories

under the Community Prevention Grants Program.

d In Fiscal Year 1996, of the $20 million appropriated, $200,000 was applied to the SafeFutures Initiative. 

Unobligated funds from Fiscal Year 1995 ($133,000) were combined with the remaining $19.8 million of

Fiscal Year 1996 funds, a total of $19,933,000 allocated to States and territories under the Community

Prevention Grants Program.

d In Fiscal Year 1997, of the $20 million appropriated, $1.2 million was applied to the SafeFutures Initiative. 

Unobligated funds from Fiscal Year 1996 ($133,000) were combined with the remaining $18.8 million of

Fiscal Year 1997 funds, a total of $18,933,000 allocated to States and territories under the Community

Prevention Grants Program.

d In Fiscal Year 1998, of the $20 million appropriated, $1.2 million was applied to the SafeFutures Initiative. 

Unobligated funds from Fiscal Year 1997 ($33,000) were combined with the remaining $18.8 million of

Fiscal Year 1998 funds, a total of $18,833,000 allocated to States and territories under the Community

Prevention Grants Program.

d In Fiscal Year 1999, of the $95 million appropriated, $25 million was designated for the Enforcing Underage

Drinking Laws Program, $15 million for the Safe Schools Initiative, and $10 million to the Tribal Youth

Program, $1.2 million was applied to the SafeFutures Initiative, $900,000 was allocated under a 2 percent

statutory set aside to support Community Prevention Grants Program-related training and technical

assistance, and $2,690,000 was allocated under a 10 percent statutory set aside to support Community

Prevention Grants Program-related research, evaluation, and statistics. Unobligated funds from Fiscal Year

1998 ($334,000) were combined with the remaining $40,210,000 for a total of $40,544,000 allocated to

States and territories under the Community Prevention Grants Program. 

d In Fiscal Year 2000, of the $95 million appropriated under Title V, $25 million was designated for the

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program, $15 million for the Safe Schools Initiative, and $12.5 million

for the Tribal Youth Program, $1.2 million was applied to the SafeFutures Initiative, $850,000 was allocated

under a 2 percent statutory set aside for training and technical assistance, and $4,250,000 was allocated under

a 10 percent statutory set aside for research, evaluation and statistics. Unobligated funds from Fiscal Year

1999 ($216,000) were combined with the remaining $36,200,000 for a total of $36,416,000 allocated to

States and territories under the Community Prevention Grants Program.
Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation 19

Exhibit 7

Title V Community Prevention Grants Program

Number of Subgrants by State, 1994–2000 (Total=1,093)
20 Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation

Exhibit 8

Allocation of Community Prevention Grants Program Funds to States

Fiscal Year 1994 (FY 94): $13,000,000 Fiscal Year 1998 (FY 98): $18,833,000

Fiscal Year 1995 (FY 95): $19,257,000 Fiscal Year 1999 (FY 99): $40,544,000

Fiscal Year 1996 (FY 96): $19,933,000 Fiscal Year 2000 (FY 00): $36,416,000

Fiscal Year 1997 (FY 97): $18,933,000

State FY 94-99

Amount

FY 00

Amount

Total

Amount State/Territory FY 94-99

Amount

FY 00

Amount

Total

Amount

Alabama $2,013,000 $567,000 $2,580,000 New Hampshire $639,000 $148,000 $787,000

Alaska $585,000 $101,000 $686,000 New Jersey $3,650,000 $1,041,000 $4,691,000

Arizona $2,193,000 $661,000 $2,854,000 New Mexico $924,000 $164,000 $1,178,000

Arkansas $1,214,000 $342,000 $1,556,000 New York $7,657,000 $2,107,000 $9,764,000

California $16,415,000 $4,662,000 $21,077,000 North Carolina $3,022,000 $897,000 $3,919,000

Colorado $1,833,000 $544,000 $2,377,000 North Dakota $575,000 $100,000 $675,000

Connecticut 1 $1,341,000 $370,000 $1,711,000 Ohio $5,327,000 $1,488,000 $6,815,000

Delaware $579,000 $100,000 $679,000 Oklahoma $1,638,000 $460,000 $2,098,000

Florida $6,247,000 $1,852,000 $8,099,000 Oregon $1,488,000 $432,000 $1,920,000

Georgia $3,409,000 $999,000 $4,408,000 Pennsylvania $5,389,000 $1,496,000 $6,885,000

Hawaii $652,000 $156,000 $807,000 Rhode Island $612,000 $124,000 $736,000

Idaho $681,000 $184,000 $865,000 South Carolina $1,682,000 $472,000 $2,154,000

Illinois $5,555,000 $1,576,000 $7,131,000 South Dakota 3, 5 $591,000 $105,000 $696,000

Indiana $2,778,000 $794,000 $3,572,000 Tennessee $2,436,000 $697,000 $3,133,000

Iowa $1,360,000 $378,000 $1,738,000 Texas $9,574,000 $2,777,000 $12,351,000

Kansas $1,286,000 $365,000 $1,651,000 Utah $1,264,000 $367,000 $1,631,000

Kentucky $1,809,000 $517,000 $2,326,000 Vermont $575,000 $100,000 $675,000

Louisiana $2,163,000 $583,000 $2,746,000 Virginia $3,022,000 $860,000 $3,882,000

Maine $649,000 $153,000 $802,000 Washington $2,658,000 $770,000 $3,428,000

Maryland $2,363,000 $673,000 $3,036,000 West Virginia $792,000 $211,000 $1,003,000

Massachusetts $2,544,000 $723,000 $3,267,000 Wisconsin $2,406,000 $664,000 $3,070,000

Michigan $4,464,000 $1,258,000 $5,722,000 Wyoming 1, 2, 3, 5 $575,000 $100,000 $675,000

Minnesota $2,321,000 $659,000 $2,980,000 District of Columbia 4 $575,000 $100,000 $675,000

Mississippi $1,414,000 $396,000 $1,810,000 American Samoa $190,000 $33,000 $223,000

Missouri $2,457,000 $693,000 $3,150,000 Guam 1 $190,000 $33,000 $223,000

Montana $610,000 $117,000 $727,000 Puerto Rico $2,145,000 $604,000 $2,749,000

Nebraska $828,000 $233,000 $1,061,000 Virgin Islands 1, 2, 3 $190,000 $33,000 $223,000

Nevada $761,000 $244,000 $1,005,000 N. Mariana Islands $190,000 $33,000 $223,000

1 These States/territories did not apply for FY 94 funds. 2 These States/territories did not apply for FY 95, FY 96, or FY 97

funds.

3 These States/territories did not apply for FY 98 funds.

4 FY 98 funds held. 5 These States did not apply for FY 99 or FY 00 funds.
Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation 21

In fact, to date, 13 States and Puerto Rico have

awarded (or plan to award) more subgrants than in

previous years; 12 States have awarded (or plan to

award) the same number of subgrants from past

years but at higher levels of funding; and 19 States

have awarded (or plan to award) more subgrants

and at higher levels of funding than in previous

years. Arkansas has chosen to fund fewer

subgrantees but at a higher level of funding. North

Dakota, Vermont, and the four territories are not

affected by increased appropriations because, based

on their juvenile population, they are eligible only

for the minimum award. 

Using FY 2000 funds, a total of 235 subgrants have

been awarded, ranging from $7,703 to $300,000. 

Subgrantees reflect a diverse group of communities

nationwide—such as New Castle, Delaware;

Boston, Massachusetts; Columbia, Missouri;

Mandan, North Dakota; Hurricane, West

Virginia—both urban and rural, small and large. 

With FY 2000 funds, States awarded 83 “new”

subgrants (those that had not received a subgrant in

previous years) and 137 “continuation” subgrants

(those that previously had received a subgrant and

in FY 2000 would receive a second or third year of

funding). Of the 54 States and territories that

participated in the Community Prevention Grants

Program in FY 2000, 28 have awarded some or all

of their FY 2000 funds, leaving 26 still to award

FY 2000 funds. Of the States that still have money

to award, 24 have indicated that they plan to award

Title V funds to at least an additional 111 new and

158 continuation communities.9

 The remaining two

States were unable at the time of this report to

estimate the number of new or continuation

subgrants they would award. Given this, once all

participating States and territories have awarded

these funds, the total number of FY 2000

Community Prevention Grant Program subgrantees

should exceed 504.

3. Federal Support for Training and

Technical Assistance

In accordance with the JJDP Act of 1974, as

amended, and to assist communities to spend their

prevention dollars effectively, OJJDP provides

training and technical assistance on the

development, implementation, and operation of

new approaches, techniques, and methods related to

juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. In

conjunction with the Title V grant award structure

and funding process, OJJDP continues to provide

training and technical assistance to help States and

communities build their capacity to plan and

implement effective prevention strategies. 

Technical assistance and training is available upfront (pregrant award), to assist potential Title V

grantees to develop the knowledge and skills

necessary to successfully negotiate each key stage

of the comprehensive, risk- and protection-focused

planning process. Ongoing technical assistance and

training also are available to ensure that Title V

grantees have the skills necessary to successfully

implement and monitor their delinquency

prevention strategies. OJJDP supports a number of

training and technical assistance vehicles, two that

are specific to the Community Prevention Grants

Program. These two vehicles are outlined in more

detail in the sections that follow.

Training and Technical Assistance for

Planning and Implementation

To ensure community acquisition of necessary

skills, OJJDP offers communities training and

technical assistance designed to enhance their

capacity to apply for and receive a competitive

Title V grant and to effectively negotiate the four

implementation stages. 

A core component of this training and technical

assistance is the Title V training curriculum. 

OJJDP awarded a contract to a new Title V training

and technical assistance provider, Development

Services Group, Inc. (DSG), on April 1, 2000. 

DSG has developed a new training curriculum. 

Emphasizing theoretically based and evidencedriven planning, the curriculum presents an

integrated, balanced approach that combines riskand protection-focused prevention with community

asset building.

9 Some States still have FY 1999 funds left to award. As such,

the new and continuation subgrants may, in some cases, 

include a combination of FY 1999 and FY 2000 funds. 
22 Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation

To improve the Title V program and enhance

training effectiveness, DSG and OJJDP conducted

four regional focus groups between April and July

2000 with more than 30 State Juvenile Justice

Specialists and Title V coordinators to gain their

insight on past training sessions. The focus group

participants provided many recommendations, most

of which were incorporated into the new Title V

training curriculum. Key among them was that the

training curriculum be made more flexible to meet

the specific needs of participating communities and

that the training help community members more

effectively engage in the Title V process. In

response, the first training, Community Team

Orientation, has been shortened to 4 hours and,

rather than being taught at a regional level, it is

brought to each individual community. The first 2

hours are geared to community leaders. This,

combined with the fact that the entire training takes

place right in the community, facilitates the

participation of key leaders and more fully engages

PPB members. 

The focus group participants made other

suggestions as well. First, to build upon

communities’ existing knowledge of other

prevention frameworks, they suggested that the

training curriculum include a variety of risk- and

protection-factor focused models, including those

based on assets and resiliency. As a result, the new

Title V curriculum incorporates asset and resiliency

prevention models in addition to the risk- and

protection-focused approach. Second, the

participants reported that communities sometimes

find the data collection process complex and

recommended that the data collection burden be

reduced. In response, an easy-to-use Community

Data Collection Manual was developed and

introduced in the Community Team Orientation,

the first training session. With trainers available to

assist, community team members complete data

collection charts designed to simplify and facilitate

the process of collecting indicator data for risk and

protective factors. Finally, the focus group

recommended that more examples of successful

prevention strategies be provided. To

accommodate this request, DSG developed a

science-based Effective and Promising Programs

Guide, which presents program, evaluation, and

contact information on more than 50 programs that

meet selection criteria for effectiveness. The Guide

is used in the second training session, Community

Data Collection and Analysis. 

The New Title V Training Curriculum

The new training curriculum includes three training

sessions offered to communities interested in

applying for Title V funds: Community Team

Orientation, Community Data Collection and

Analysis, and Community Plan and Program

Development. Each training session is explained in

detail below.

The first training, Community Team Orientation, is

brought to each community interested in applying

for Title V funds. The goal of the half-day training

is to bring together key local leaders and all

members of the PPB to provide: an overview of the

Title V model, team building, and mobilizing and

sustaining a community planning board;

delinquency and prevention background

information; major prevention models; collecting

risk and protective factor indicators; and assessing

community readiness and commitment to

prevention. 

The Community Data Collection and Analysis

training is the second in the series. It is a 2-day

training taught at a regional level. Between four

and six members of the community attend this

training and bring with them the data they have

collected since the first training. In the training

sessions, participants review the collected data,

including analyzing, interpreting, prioritizing, and

presenting risk and protective factor data; assessing

community resources and gaps in these resources;

and crafting a community profile and assessment

report, which forms the basis of the Title V 3-year

comprehensive delinquency prevention plan. 

Participants also are introduced to promising and

effective programs to help community members

choose prevention strategies to impact their

community’s unique risk and protective factor

profile. 

The third training, Community Plan and Program

Development, centers on the development of the 3-

year comprehensive delinquency prevention plan.

Taught regionally, this 1-day training is designed to

accommodate up to six participants from each

community. The session focuses specifically on
Federal Resources for Effective Prevention Planning and Implementation 23

reviewing each community’s plan through a

template, created just for this purpose, which

presents step-by-step instructions on plan

completion. Work sessions focus on selecting

promising and effective programs, learning to

assess the suitability of programs in each

community, designing an evaluation plan, and

developing goals, objectives, and a timetable for

implementation. 

State Juvenile Justice Specialists and Title V

Coordinators are encouraged to participate in the

training. They can assist team members to locate

community risk and protective factor data and

explain and provide guidance on their State’s

Request For Proposal (RFP) process. In addition,

if the series of three training sessions does not fit a

State’s particular funding timetable or a community

has specific needs, DSG offers customized training

to States and communities. 

OJJDP also provides other technical assistance to

States and communities on an as-needed basis. 

Through OJJDP’s Formula Grants Technical

Assistance contract, Title V subgrantees can access

training on a variety of interest areas and technical

topics through their OJJDP State Representative. 

Technical assistance activities under this vehicle

include helping to strengthen a community’s

conceptual understanding of risk- and protectionfocused prevention, familiarizing State Agency or

Advisory Group members with the Title V

approach, teaching community members how to

maintain and build upon existing collaborative

relationships, and helping with more technical

aspects such as evaluation design and

implementation. 

In line with its ongoing commitment to research

and evaluation, OJJDP also provides valuable 

evaluation technical assistance to subgrantees

through its Title V Community Self-Evaluation

Workbook (Workbook). Published in 1995, the

Workbook provides communities with the

framework and tools they need to determine where

they are in relation to their delinquency prevention

goals and objectives and to measure their progress

in decreasing risk factors, enhancing protective

factors, and improving community conditions. The

Workbook consists of easy-to-complete forms and

step-by-step instructions that guide communities 

through evaluation activities designed specifically

around the Title V prevention model. The

Workbook also provides information about how to

analyze and use evaluation data to improve

program operation and youth services. Training on

the Workbook can be accessed through the Formula

Grants Technical Assistance contract described

above. 

Communities vary in how far they have progressed

in their delinquency prevention efforts. However,

the structure and support provided by OJJDP is

designed to assist communities to progress further

than they would have otherwise. Across the

country, thousands of community members have

learned the value of risk- and protection-focused,

comprehensive delinquency prevention planning. 

As they have become more proficient in

implementing this approach, communities have

begun to experience significant improvements in

many areas, including better collaboration among

community agencies and organizations, enhanced

coordination of program services, access to

additional funds, enhanced protective factors, and

decreases in risk factors and juvenile problem

behaviors. In addition, acknowledging the

accomplishments at the local level, State agencies

are now using Title V planning principles to

improve State-level planning and guide the

administration of other grant programs. The

following chapter describes in greater detail the

experiences of States and communities in

implementing the Community Prevention Grants

Program and demonstrates clearly the impact of

this support. 
Risk-Focused Prevention in Action 25

III. Risk-Focused Prevention in Action

As a comprehensive program designed to achieve

sustained community change, there is even more

evidence this year, the seventh year of the

Community Prevention Grants Program, that

change is taking place and taking hold. Over the

years, this annual report has documented

significant change at the local level, including

increased collaboration; broad, community-level

systems change; and increased capacity to leverage

resources to support long-term implementation of

prevention activities. This year, in addition to

highlighting positive change at the local level, the

2000 Report reflects evidence that Title V is

creating significant change at the State level as

well. 

This chapter describes the impact of Title V on

both States and communities as they have

implemented the Community Prevention Grants

Program. To understand this impact more fully, a

series of questions were posed to State Juvenile

Justice (JJ) Specialists and local Title V

communities.10 Both JJ Specialists and community

representatives were asked to report on the most

significant change or impact that Title V has had in

their State or community. Local representatives

also were asked to discuss factors that either

facilitated or hindered their ability to successfully

implement the Title V model and then describe the

future of Title V in their community. Their

responses, in combination, provide a “snapshot” of

the type of change the Community Prevention

Grants Program is generating nationwide. 

This chapter begins with a look at Title V-inspired

change at the State level, including comprehensive

planning and support for prevention. The final

section reports on the experiences of local

communities and the type of change Title V is

creating there. This chapter offers ample evidence

to support the statement that “risk- and protectionfocused prevention works.” 

1. Title V Impact at the State Level

As a new approach to delinquency prevention, one

based on sound and rigorous research, Title V’s

risk- and protection-focused prevention model was

expected to create significant change at the

community level. Across the Nation, however,

Title V also is facilitating important change at the

State level. Specifically, Title V is:

d Promoting comprehensive planning at the

State level—pushing States to move beyond

prevention strategies toward a statewide

comprehensive, community-based continuum

of services that includes integrating the Title V

principles into other State-sponsored grant

programs. 

d Promoting State-level support for better and

more effective prevention strategies—pushing

States to support prevention and strategically

allocate resources to promising strategies

supported by the Title V model. 

These two changes are discussed in further detail in

the next section. 

Comprehensive Planning at the State Level

Asked about the single most important change Title

V has created at the State level, 32 percent of JJ

Specialists report that Title V has driven them to

develop and implement comprehensive statewide

prevention plans. Through its emphasis on

collaboration and data-driven decisionmaking, Title

V has motivated juvenile justice leaders in many

States, including Indiana, Kansas, and New Jersey,

to move beyond categorical prevention

programming toward strategic, comprehensive, and

long-term State planning. The emphasis on

10 Data were collected between December 2000 and January 2001

from the 48 participating States, the District of Columbia, and 5

U.S. territories. South Dakota and Wyoming did not respond to

the survey because they do not participate in the Community

Prevention Grants Program. Three Juvenile Justice Specialists

(or other key State staff responsible for overseeing the

implementation of Title V) elected not to answer the question

about Title V-inspired change at the State level. JJ Specialists

also were asked to nominate local Title V subgrantees for

followup data collection. In total, 64 communities were

nominated for followup. Of the 64 communities nominated, 44

were reached for comment (a 69 percent participation rate).
26 Risk-Focused Prevention in Action

statewide planning has allowed needs to surface

across the State and inform the development of

plans—not unlike the 3-year plans required of Title

V subgrantees—to strategically allocate resources to

meet State-specific needs. Although it takes many

different forms, this comprehensive approach to

State prevention planning shapes the way States

think about prevention, allocate Title V resources,

and structure other State grant programs. Similar to

the lessons learned by local Title V communities,

strategic programmatic and funding decisions are all

but impossible without an overarching, data-driven

plan. 

In Indiana, Title V was the inspiration behind a

working group developed to coordinate planning

among State agencies to support positive youth

development and other prevention initiatives. In

coordinating their efforts, State agencies not only

benefit from pooled resources, but they also set an

example for the type of prevention planning they

expect from local communities through programs

such as Title V. 

Title V has provided Kansas, which has

implemented a Juvenile Justice Reform initiative,

both a model for State-level decisionmaking and

planning based on risk assessment and locally-based

strategies and funds to implement 29

comprehensive community plans across the State. 

New Jersey plans to integrate the Title V principles

into a comprehensive State juvenile justice strategy

that allocates resources to local communities to

support critical points along the juvenile justice

continuum of care (e.g., prevention, intervention,

graduated sanctions). 

“Title V has provided support to the State

and its communities [by providing the model

and the funds] to move beyond [specific]

prevention strategies toward a statewide

comprehensive community-based continuum

of services.”

— Paula Schuttera, JJ Specialist,

Kansas

While Title V has inspired some States to create

State-level juvenile justice plans, its emphasis on

comprehensive planning and data-driven assessment

has significantly influenced the administrative

policies and practices of others, specifically, on how

they structure and administer juvenile justice grant

programs and funds. Presently, at least 12 States (25

percent) apply the Title V planning requirements

(e.g., community mobilization, data-driven

assessment, research-based strategies) to other Statesponsored juvenile justice and related grant

programs. More and more, it seems, Title V is

providing the model for prevention planning. 

In Oregon, Title V increased awareness at the State

level of the effectiveness of community-based riskfocused prevention strategies to reduce the number

of youth entering the juvenile justice system. To

further support wide dissemination of the model, in

1999 the Oregon State Legislature approved a

Juvenile Crime Prevention Partnership to distribute

$19 million to Oregon counties to implement

research-based crime prevention strategies. To be

eligible to receive the funds, communities must use

a planning process that mirrors Title V.

In Washington, the success of the Title V approach

has been credited with re-energizing the State’s

investment in prevention and, subsequently,

influencing the development and implementation of

its Juvenile Justice Violence Prevention Grants

Program, which in 1999 provided $560,000 in local

grant awards for prevention programming. Based

on the Title V model of prevention planning, State

Juvenile Violence Prevention Grants assist

communities in planning and implementing local

delinquency prevention efforts based on sound

research and best practices. 

Recognizing the value and applicability of the Title

V planning model, some States have adopted the

Title V principles to all State prevention efforts. In

Pennsylvania, the Title V research-based planning

process has become so widespread, the State has

established a pool of funds under its Research-Based

Delinquency and Violence Prevention Program to

support communities in planning, assessing, and

implementing promising prevention strategies,

including those started under Title V. In addition,

other Pennsylvania State agencies have either

incorporated or plan to incorporate the Title V

process into their grant programs, including the

Departments of Health, Education, and Public

Welfare, and the Bureau of Drug and Alcohol

Prevention. 
Risk-Focused Prevention in Action 27

Virginia and New York are following suit. In

Virginia, using Title V as the model for prevention

planning, State policymakers, with the support of

legislative staff members, insist that all local Statesponsored prevention initiatives include the Title V

planning requirements. New York, too, has

integrated the Title V philosophy, specifically the

principles of collaboration and local

decisionmaking, into the development,

administration, and monitoring of all its juvenile

justice grant programs. Other States, such as

Kansas, Mississippi, and Texas, have integrated

some of the components of risk-focused prevention

planning into their grant programs, most frequently

community mobilization and assessment. 

“The concepts of collaboration and

community responsibility in delinquency

prevention efforts are applicable to all State

juvenile justice funding streams in all

localities. Consequently, the development,

monitoring, and administration of all juvenile

justice programs in New York State have

been influenced by the existence and

subsequent success of the Title V movement

in establishing community-based 

delinquency prevention.” 

— Ann Cadwallader, Title V Community

Prevention Grants Program 

Coordinator, New York

More Effective Prevention Programming

Twenty-six percent of State JJ Specialists report

that Title V has enhanced their State’s investment

in prevention and helped to facilitate effective

prevention programming at the local level. By

educating stakeholders regarding the principles of

effective prevention and providing both the model

and funding for successful delinquency prevention

at the local level, Title V has helped advance a

common sense of purpose and understanding

among State policymakers, including State

Advisory Group members and legislators, about

where to focus resources and how to prevent

delinquent behavior. This common framework, in

turn, promotes a commitment to prevention, or

“front-end” approaches, and support, both

philosophically and financially, for effective

delinquency prevention programs. For example, in

Wisconsin, Title V drew attention at the State level

to the importance of prevention, collaboration, and

data-driven planning, concepts the State continues

to emphasize. Similarly, by providing the model

and funding for prevention in Colorado, Title V

has ensured that key State-level stakeholders have

remained focused on the front-end, an investment

the Colorado Title V Coordinator considers to be

smart both “fiscally and from a humanistic

perspective.” 

“Title V has brought the importance of

prevention to the forefront. Along with what

we have learned from the Comprehensive

Strategy, [Title V] has placed Iowa in a

position of going statewide with a juvenile

justice youth development-focused model of

prevention.”

— Eric Sage, Title V Coordinator,

Iowa

According to JJ Specialists in 10 States

(20 percent), including Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio,

and Utah, the effectiveness of local delinquency

prevention initiatives has sustained the State’s

commitment to prevention. The Community

Prevention Grants Program provides communities

with the tools they need to assess their own

delinquency prevention needs and resources and

then choose and implement prevention strategies

with demonstrated effectiveness to reduce risk

factors. Having this process in place has increased

the effectiveness of local delinquency prevention

efforts and, in doing so, has contributed to a sense

of confidence among State level decisionmakers

that their funding decisions actually will produce

expected outcomes. 

“The Title V program has improved the

quality and quantity of delinquency

prevention programs in Ohio. The nature of

the model forces communities to identify

community needs and fill gaps in services. 

Because of the success in Ohio, the State

plans to expand the model statewide.”

— Kristi Mason, JJ Specialist,

Ohio

Finally, while States appreciate having a model for

prevention planning and are excited by the change

that Title V stimulates, for some it is the funding
28 Risk-Focused Prevention in Action

that has proven to be the most significant benefit of

the Community Prevention Grants Program. It has

provided States with a funding source for

prevention programming, something that did not

exist until Title V. In Georgia, for example, Title

V’s most significant impact has been in relation to

the State’s pre-existing Family Connection

Initiative. Begun in 1992, the initiative, like Title

V, is a statewide program designed to support the

creation of local collaborative boards in Georgia’s

159 counties. While the State had significant

funding to assist Family Connection communities

with the required planning and assessment process,

it did not have the money to implement prevention

services. Having met the mobilization and

planning requirements for a Title V subgrant, the

communities were well-positioned to receive Title

V funds and gain the long-awaited support

necessary to implement prevention strategies and

address risk factors. 

The increased allocation of funds to the

Community Prevention Grants Program in

FY 1999 had a twofold impact in North Carolina in

FY 2000. First, the increase in resources allowed

the State agency to further disseminate the Title V

model by supporting a larger number of

community prevention initiatives at a higher level

of funding. Second, the increased allocation

provided additional resources to North Carolina’s

local Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils, which,

like the Title V Prevention Policy Board, conduct

county-level data-driven assessments and then plan

and oversee community-based delinquency and

substance abuse prevention strategies and

programs. According to Roshanna Parker, North

Carolina’s Criminal Justice Planner, by providing

much needed resources, Title V has “helped

communities feel a sense of pride and ownership in

their delinquency prevention efforts.”

Even in those States with significant nonfederal

prevention resources, the Title V allocation makes

a difference. The Kentucky General Assembly

currently allocates $1.5 million for prevention

programming throughout the State, but the money

is not guaranteed on a year-to-year basis. 

Combined with the Title V appropriation, the

money allows the State to fund many more local

prevention initiatives than it otherwise could. 

Moreover, should the General Assembly choose

not to reallocate the money next year or in future

years, the Title V dollars will provide resources to

support local prevention efforts. 

The information presented in this section provides

evidence that the Community Prevention Grants

Program is shaping statewide prevention planning

and policy development and, in doing so, enables

State agencies to better support effective and

meaningful prevention programs at the local level. 

The next section describes Title V-inspired change

at the community level. 

2. Title V Impact at the Local Level

As a comprehensive program designed to achieve

sustained community change, the Community

Prevention Grants Program promotes communitywide collaborative efforts through the Prevention

Policy Board (PPB). PPBs are tasked with

conducting a thorough assessment of their

communities to identify underlying risk factors,

protective factors, and existing community

resources. Taken together, the PPB and

community assessment are intended to increase the

effectiveness of local delinquency prevention

efforts. And, according to the community

representatives interviewed for this Report, Title V

is providing communities with objective data to

drive their local prevention plans, is promoting

collaboration, and is producing encouraging and

exciting prevention program outcomes. 

The next section describes these local-level

changes in greater detail and includes a discussion

of factors that either helped or hindered

community progress in these areas. These changes

reflect a strong and sustained local commitment to

building healthy communities and supporting

strong families and law-abiding youth. 

The Community Assessment: Promoting

Collaboration and Planning

One of the assumptions underlying the Community

Prevention Grants Program model is that when

communities mobilize around a common vision,

their ability to effectively plan and coordinate their

prevention efforts improve. While there is

evidence to support this assumption (evidence
Risk-Focused Prevention in Action 29

presented in past Reports), we now have

information to suggest that the community

assessment process and its subsequent findings also

facilitate mobilization and support the development

of a shared, sustained community vision. In fact,

30 percent of community representatives report

that the community assessment process and

resulting data was the most significant impact Title

V had on their community. By providing

empirical documentation of local problems, the

assessment better equips community members to

reach a consensus regarding their most pressing

problems and the types of prevention strategies

needed to address them and, in doing so, facilitates

community buy-in and collaboration. As one PPB

member said, “You can’t dispute the evidence. 

Once it’s there, you have to look at it. And once

everyone understands what it’s saying, you have to

agree to do something about it.” 

In Utah’s Carbon and Weber Counties, for

example, there was little interest in supporting the

Title V initiative prior to the community

assessment. Once people had the data and could

think about local problems objectively, they

became both interested and supportive. The

assessment “finally provided data which we could

use to educate the community and raise awareness

of the real problems.” The community now

supports the Title V initiative. In fact, the counties

are now involved in ongoing data collection

activities, including surveys in the schools, and use

the information to monitor problems and

coordinate and develop programs. 

“The assessment showed the community its

strengths and educated people about what

existed that they may not have known about

before...Because of the assessment process,

people from all facets of the community are

now working collaboratively to make a better

community. Even if the programs go away,

the new spirit of collaboration will endure.

This collaboration also has brought about

better coordination of existing resources and

the development of other new collaborative

programs.” 

— Carma Homer, Administrative Officer,

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services,

McKean County, Pennsylvania

In addition to facilitating community support, the

assessment data drive the community planning

process. Once the assessment is complete and the

data are in, the PPB and community members have

a common framework for thinking about local

problems (the data make it difficult for agencies

and individuals to push their own agendas) that

guides the planning process. Armed with a

thorough and shared understanding of the

problems, the resources available, and the gaps yet

to be filled, the community can collectively decide

on the best plan from which to proceed. In

Thurston County, Washington, the assessment

showed that the county did not need new services

but simply needed to improve access to services it

already had. Instead of creating new

programs—the community’s initial

inclination—the county established neighborhood

centers that would bring existing social,

educational, and recreational services into 

neighborhoods that needed them most. 

Through its emphasis on assessment and planning,

Title V continues to facilitate collaborative

planning and solutions to shared community

problems. Across communities, Title V continues

to bring together agencies, organizations, local

groups and institutions, and individuals who

previously mistrusted each other or simply were

not accustomed to working together. Law

enforcement, school districts, courts, and social

service agencies now share information, and

communicate on a regular basis. In general,

communities report that the impact of collaboration

at the local level continues to be both broad and

positive. Specifically, collaboration has:

d Created a more uniform approach to

community problems.

d Stimulated additional funding opportunities

and increased access to resources. 

d Produced more effective resource allocation.

d Increased community awareness of problems

and resources.

d Strengthened interagency service coordination

and increased accessibility to services for

youth and families.
30 Risk-Focused Prevention in Action

d Brought about the development of new and

effective programs.

d Established better relationships among parents

and youth and major institutions such as

schools, courts, and law enforcement.

The collaboration inspired by Title V has had an

unanticipated impact as well. Based on the

example set by local PPBs, the spirit of

collaboration has expanded to local neighborhoods

and community groups. In the Sheldon section of

Beaufort, South Carolina, an area characterized by

extreme poverty and adversarial relationships

among its 19 neighborhoods, the Title V PPB

worked hard to convince local leaders to work

together. Currently functioning as the PPB, the

neighborhood leaders now meet regularly. The

subsequent coordination and development of

programs and services is helping Sheldon

community members to achieve their ultimate

goals of decreasing juvenile arrest rates and

improving the academic standing of children in the

community.

In Thurston County, Washington, Title V supports

four neighborhood centers in low-income housing

complexes that provide a variety of afterschool

activities for youth and outreach programs,

resources, and information for adults in the

neighborhoods. While these efforts have been

successful, including re-engaging youth in school

and connecting parents and families to much

needed resources, the example set by the project’s

advisory board has led to strong partnerships at the

neighborhood level. The neighborhood centers

have formed partnerships with local schools, law

enforcement, institutions such as the Girl Scouts

and 4-H, service clubs, and churches. According to

Mary Segawa, the project’s director, “The centers

have really helped to build a sense of community.”

Effective Prevention Programming

Inherent in the Community Prevention Grants

Program model is the assumption that community

mobilization combined with data-driven assessment

and planning ultimately leads to more effective

prevention programming. Based on the experiences

of local community representatives, this assumption,

in fact, is true. This next section highlights many of

the promising outcomes Title V efforts have

produced nationwide including: 

d The KEYS Program (Kids Enjoying Youth

Safely) in Jefferson County, Illinois, serves

approximately 130 to 150 youth from lowincome families per day, referred primarily for

academic or behavioral problems. Based on the

community’s risk and resource assessment,

which showed delinquent behavior both on the

rise and occurring most frequently between 3

and 6 p.m., the program offers many

components, including academic achievement,

life skills education, conflict resolution, and a

parenting component. In the 2 years the

program has operated, disciplinary incidents

have dropped 10 percent, school attendance has

increased 20 percent, and participating youth

and schools report a 30 percent increase in

assignment and homework completion.

d The Cowley County Truancy Program in

Kansas, in an attempt to address students’ lack

of commitment to school, provides two

uniformed truancy officers to support five local

school districts to keep their youth in school. 

Since September 2000 when the Program

began, the number of truancy cases handled by

the county probation officer has dropped from

40 to 10. 

d The Parent Project in Minidoka County, Idaho,

designed to respond to local risk factors

including substance abuse and school dropout

as well as high gang activity, educates parents

and teachers in how to respond effectively to

destructive youth behaviors. Since 1997, 1,000

families have attended Parent Project classes. 

In this time, they have seen several countywide

changes, including a 33 percent decrease in

juvenile court petitions and a decrease in the

school dropout rate from 17 percent to 0

percent. In 1999, the Parent Project was

recognized by the Idaho Supreme Court and is

now the model for juvenile crime prevention

programming in Idaho.

d The Adams County Youth Court Program in

Mississippi, designed to address family

management problems, early academic failure,

and early initiation of problem behavior,

provides supportive services to nonviolent firsttime offenders and their families, including

court-mandated classes on conflict resolution,

anger management, values and choices, and
Risk-Focused Prevention in Action 31

peer pressure to increase positive youth

behavior by promoting healthy beliefs and clear

standards. Since the program began, Adams

County has seen a 47 percent decrease in the

number of youth charged with assault, from 74

in 1998 to 35 in 1999. 

d The West End Initiative in Mississippi County,

Missouri, provides youth leadership training to

a targeted group of high-risk youth, ages 9 to

14, to combat the early initiation of problem

behavior. The training includes classes in

impulse control, anger management, conflict

resolution, and problem solving. Across a 2-

year period, 40 percent of the participants

significantly increased their school attendance,

with 97 percent maintaining a 90 percent or

better attendance. Suspensions from the

elementary and middle school have dropped

from 119 in 1997 to 52 in 2000, a 44 percent

reduction. 

d The Juvenile Diversion Project in Grand Forks,

North Dakota, designed to reduce family

management problems, provides services to

nonviolent first-time offenders and their

families to divert them from court action and,

ultimately, reduce recidivism. Of the 311 youth

served by the program, 78 percent had not

reoffended 90 days after completing the

program. Further followup will be conducted

to assess the long-term impact of the program. 

d The Southwest Side Project in Altus,

Oklahoma, is an afterschool recreation program

designed to impact low neighborhood

attachment. Situated in a high-risk

neighborhood and run by a local Community

Police Officer, the program provides alternative

activities for at-risk youth and opportunities for

those youth to build a positive relationship with

the officer. Providing youth with afterschool

activities has decreased the number of

unsupervised youth home alone during the

afterschool hours and, in doing so, has

decreased by 50 percent the proportion of

residents who report youth gangs as a major

neighborhood problem.

d The Parents and Children Workshop offered in

McKean County, Pennsylvania, is designed to

reduce family management problems by

teaching effective parenting. After completing

the program, 98 percent of parents felt more

confident and competent in their parenting

abilities; 84 percent learned how to set clear

expectations for and monitor their children’s

behavior; and 100 percent learned positive

reinforcement techniques and problem-solving

skills—all characteristics of nonabusive

parents.

d The Youth and Families with Promise program,

in Utah’s Carbon and Weber Counties, targets

youth ages 10 to 14 who exhibit low selfconfidence, act out in school or the community,

or are experiencing academic difficulty,

problems associated with academic failure and

early initiation of problem behavior. The

program brings together children and their

parents to improve interpersonal skills and

strengthen family bonds. Based on the results

of the evaluation, which used well-established

surveys implemented pre- and post-program

participation and multivariate statistical

techniques to test for significant changes,

family relationships improved, youth

demonstrated greater respect for parents, and

indicated increased self-confidence. Youth also

demonstrated improved attitudes toward school,

completed more homework, received better

grades, and engaged in less cheating, truancy,

violence, and visits to the principal’s office; and

for youth who previously had been involved in

problem behaviors in the community, there

were statistically significant decreases in police

referrals and incidents of stealing, damaging or

destroying property, alcohol consumption, gang

activity, and violence.

d The ENCOURAGE program in Huntington,

West Virginia, is a suspension program for

youth in grades six through eight that provides

academic support and counseling to increase

their commitment to school and avoid future

suspensions. Since the program started in

1998, approximately 300 students have

participated, only 25 percent of whom have

returned to the program a second time. 

d The Middle School Enrichment Program in

East Haven, Connecticut, provides

constructive, supervised, afterschool activities

designed to increase students’ commitment to

school. The program includes tutoring;

individual and group activities, such as

photography, cooking, drama, and

woodworking; community involvement

projects; and mentoring. According to local

evaluation reports, the program has produced 
32 Risk-Focused Prevention in Action

statistically significant improvements in

participants’ perceptions of school and general

satisfaction with school, two indicators of

commitment to school. 

Connecticut also funded a first-year evaluation of all

seven of its Title V communities in 1999. Across

the initiatives, the evaluators found a number of

statistically significant changes including an

increase in participants’ overall satisfaction with

school; a positive relationship between participation

in academic support activities and a positive attitude

towards school; a positive relationship between

involvement in leadership training and improved

emotional stability; and a positive relationship

between community service activities and an

improved attitude toward school. These findings

lend further support to the proposition that risk- and

protection-focused prevention works.

“Currently I am a parent attending the Parent

Project class on Saturday mornings...To be

honest with you, I was ready to give up on

my son and have him live with his father...I

decided to attend the class as a last effort

really believing [it] would not help, just like

everything else I have tried. However, I have

seen a remarkable change in my son...He

has not threatened us...and I feel like he is a

much happier child. I am very grateful. I

enjoy being with my son again.”

— Excerpt from parent letter, Title V 

Parent Project,

Calhoun County, Alabama

3. Factors That Hinder and Facilitate

Community Success

While the Community Prevention Grants Program

has some impact on almost every community that

implements it, communities experience varying

degrees of success. This section outlines the

factors that communities most frequently reported

as either hindering or facilitating the successful

implementation of the Program model. 

Collaboration and Planning

While collaboration and planning are imperative to

effective community-based prevention, the

processes can be challenging to implement. In

fact, turf issues continue to be the most commonly

reported challenge to forming and sustaining

productive collaboration among board members

and completing the assessment process. 

Approximately one-third of all community

representatives reported that turf issues either had

been or continue to be an issue in their community. 

Turf issues are frequently attributable, in part, to

individuals, agencies, and organizations not having

worked together. In some cases, it was reported

that community representatives feared that

information shared with other service providers

might reveal weaknesses or gaps in services that

could potentially lead to a loss of funding. Some

providers felt that the process of joint planning is a

win-lose proposition: if one wins, the other

necessarily loses. Finally, some agencies did not

see the need for collaborative planning because

they worked from a “services-first” mentality,

putting the service they provide over the problem

they are working to manage. Other hindering

factors reported include a lack of community

ownership of the initiative and inadequate

representation of the community on the PPB. 

Communities also support collaboration and

planning. In fact, the most commonly reported

facilitating factor was having leadership and

support at either the State or local level. 

Leadership and support takes several forms. In

some communities, it takes the form of buy-in

from people who have the power to make decisions

or having a strong PPB composed of local leaders

who are both interested and educated about the

process. In others, it is the commitment of local

agencies, organizations, and individuals to commit

data and support programming decisions. In still

others, it is the guidance and support provided by

State Juvenile Justice Specialists to understand and

complete the process. Whatever shape the

facilitating factor of leadership and support takes,

according to community representatives, it is what

has helped them get through the process and

develop and sustain effective collaboration in their

communities. 

Effective Prevention Programming

While many community representatives said the

Title V planning model was instrumental in

helping to create effective programs, 37 percent
Risk-Focused Prevention in Action 33

reported that “money” was the factor that most

influenced the success or failure of their programs. 

Limited resources hinder communities’ efforts to

hire appropriately trained staff, acquire necessary

program materials and resources, and serve the

expected numbers of participants. Without these

basic necessities, it is difficult to produce program

outcomes in a sample significant enough to be

meaningful. Without proof of success,

communities find it difficult to secure additional

funds to enhance program efforts. In effect,

limited resources hinder communities from

achieving full and adequate program

implementation. On the other hand, communities

with adequate resources find their efforts

enhanced. In addition, when there are adequate

resources for programming, community

representatives report having more time to focus on

securing additional and future funding resources. 

4. Community Prevention After Title V

Despite all the positive outcomes reported,

communities still struggle to “institutionalize” their

prevention activities following the grant award

period. When asked about the future of the

Community Prevention Grants Program in their

community, 38 percent were not sure how they

would acquire the resources to continue their

efforts. This group reported several reasons for

their current situation. In some cases, the

community is simply strapped for resources and

must rely on competing for additional Federal or

State grants, a process that can be both intimidating

and labor intensive. In other cases, community

representatives readily admit that they did not think

about this issue far enough in advance and so were

not prepared to deal with it or did not have an

evaluation plan rigorous or comprehensive enough

to measure change. 

While some communities struggle, others move

forward. Twenty-five percent of the communities

in this sample have had some success in leveraging

additional resources and institutionalizing their

prevention activities. In some cases, as in Holland,

Michigan, and Norfolk, Virginia, the financial

responsibility for local prevention efforts has been

taken over by the city. In others, as is the case in

Jefferson County, Illinois, the school district has

assumed project costs in its annual budget. Other

communities have been awarded Federal grants,

such as a Drug-Free Communities Support

Program grant award, State grants, or private

foundation money to continue their efforts. Some

communities use a combination of techniques to

ensure continued support. 

Delaware County, Pennsylvania, for example, is a

community whose Title V grant ended a few years

ago. But its efforts have continued and, in fact,

have been enhanced. According to the project

director, the results of the Title V process—an

intact collaborative board and data-driven

plan—gave the community the local infrastructure

necessary to leverage “people power” and the

information necessary to put together strong grant

applications. In total, the community used the

original Title V grant to leverage $1.7 million in

additional funds, including several multiyear State

grants and private foundation dollars. These

resources have allowed the county to expand its

tutoring program, establish libraries at local

elementary schools where they did not exist before,

and provide afterschool activities for more than

700 students through the Middle School Prevention

Project. 

Jefferson County, Illinois, has leveraged additional

resources by updating its risk and resource

assessment data each year. The data has been

instrumental in obtaining new grants. Under the

leadership of the PPB and armed with the data, the

community has received more than $250,000 in

additional financial resources. The school district

has been so pleased with the program’s results, it

has absorbed all program expenses into the school

budget. 

Communities report that comprehensive planning

and evaluation processes are key factors that

enable them to secure additional funding. As such,

it is important to the continued success of Title V

that communities have ongoing support to plan,

implement, and evaluate effective prevention

efforts. 

These findings provide encouraging evidence that

the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program

model can promote collaborative and effective

prevention planning and help communities

strengthen positive youth development and reduce
34 Risk-Focused Prevention in Action

risk factors and problem behaviors among youth. 

With continued dissemination of the Community

Prevention Grants Program model—now being

implemented in nearly 1,100 communities

nationwide—local prevention and early

intervention efforts will continue to create positive

change in communities and the lives of this

Nation’s children and families. 
National Evaluation of the Community Prevention Grants Program 35

IV. National Evaluation of the Community

Prevention Grants Program

In addition to the data collection effort undertaken

each year for the Report to Congress, a parallel

effort has been going on in a smaller sample of

Community Prevention Grants Program

subgrantees. Since 1998, in line with its mission to

develop effective strategies for delinquency

prevention, OJJDP has conducted a long-term,

national-level evaluation of the Community

Prevention Grants Program in 11 communities in

six participating States (see exhibit 9 for

participating sites). Designed to test the key

assumptions on which the Title V model is built,

the national evaluation integrates case-study

methodology with a “theories of change” approach

to examine indepth the key stages of program

implementation at the local level. Ultimately, the

information gathered from the evaluation will help

OJJDP understand how different communities can

best create the conditions necessary for effective

prevention planning and programming. 

This next section outlines in detail the national

evaluation design and activities to date and

presents some early, preliminary findings that

demonstrate that the Community Prevention Grants

Program delinquency prevention model is bringing

about change at the local and State levels. 

1. National Evaluation Design and

Activities

Intended to examine the viability and effectiveness

of the Community Prevention Grants Program

delinquency prevention model, the national

evaluation addresses the following research

questions:

d What is the impact of the Community

Prevention Grants Program on community

planning, service delivery, risk factors,

protective factors, and juvenile problem

behaviors?

Exhibit 9

National Evaluation of the 

Community Prevention Grants Program

National Evaluation Sites

HAWAII

City and County of Honolulu 

MICHIGAN

West Ottawa County

City of Novi

NEBRASKA

City of Norfolk

City of Valentine

PENNSYLVANIA

Northampton County 

Fayette County

VERMONT

Town of Middlebury

Town of Windsor

VIRGINIA

Hanover County

City of Waynesboro
36 National Evaluation of the Community Prevention Grants Program

‚ What factors and activities lead to the effective

implementation of the Community Prevention

Grants Program model?

‚ What factors and activities lead to positive

program outcomes?

To address the research questions, the evaluation

team is examining the four key stages of program

implementation—including community

mobilization, assessment and planning,

implementation, and institutionalization and

monitoring—in the 11 participating communities

through the following key tasks: 

‚ An assessment of planning, implementation,

and outcome characteristics—by reviewing

relevant materials, such as grant applications,

community assessments, and program plans;

conducting interviews with key players,

including community leaders, PPB members,

project directors, and program staff; and

appraising existing evaluation plans, capacity,

and future evaluation support needs. 

‚ An assessment of the efficacy of the

Community Prevention Grants Program

model—based on intensive case studies of

each community’s “theory of change.” 11

‚ In combination, these activities provide a

framework for understanding both the process

and progress of this long-term delinquency

prevention program. 

In the spirit of collaboration and capacity building,

the national evaluation was designed to do more

than simply answer the research questions. It also

was designed to build local community capacity to

monitor, and thereby increase the effectiveness of,

local delinquency prevention plans. To this end,

evaluation training and technical assistance were

built into the design. To date, the evaluation team

has provided training and technical assistance to all

11 communities on a variety of topics, including

use of the Title V Community Self-Evaluation

Workbook; basic evaluation concepts, principles,

and methods, including logic models;12

development of community evaluation plans; and

State- and community-defined evaluation topics. 

Since 1998, the first year of implementation,

national evaluation team activities have focused

primarily on building relationships and

implementing data collection activities, although a

good deal of time has been spent as well on

developing the capacity of community members to

fully engage in data collection efforts. To date,

these activities, most often conducted onsite, have

included: 

‚ Establishing collaborative working

relationships at the State and community

levels—through frequent and ongoing contact

with State staff, State- and local-level

evaluators, and community members.

‚ Building the “State context” (e.g., assessing

State support for prevention programs, levels

of funding, availability of State-supported

training and technical assistance)—through

interviews with State Advisory Group

members, State Juvenile Justice Specialists,

and other key State-level stakeholders.

‚ Assessing the community—through the

collection and review of relevant materials,

such as grant applications and program activity

and evaluation plans and interviews with key

community players, including PPB members,

project coordinators and directors, and

program staff. 

‚ Developing tools for data collection and

management—including interview protocols,

program process and outcome logs, and

evaluation data collection guides.

Because the team relies on local data collection

support, the relationship between the evaluation

team and State and local stakeholders is built on

trust and confidence. To facilitate positive working

relationships, OJJDP supports the evaluation team

to maintain essential connections at both the State

and community level. 

11 A “theory of change” is simply a community’s theory of how

and why their initiative works. More specifically, a theory of

change is a community’s understanding of the systematic and

cumulative links between project activities, outcomes, and

context[ual] factors of the initiative” (Connell and Kubisch,

1998). 

12 A logic model is a graphic representation that clearly identifies

and lays out the logical relationships among program

conditions, activities, outcomes, and impacts. 
National Evaluation of the Community Prevention Grants Program 37

Future Evaluation Steps and Plans

OJJDP has provided ample financial resources to

the evaluation team to meet the specific evaluation

needs of the participating States and communities

and to collect the data to answer the evaluation

questions. In the future, OJJDP intends to support

the national evaluation team to carry out the

following activities: 

d Continue efforts to build local evaluation

capacity—through ongoing evaluation training

and technical assistance to States and

communities.

d Continue implementation of the evaluation

design—through ongoing collection of

community-level data and interviews with key

community players to allow them to fully

articulate their “theory of change.”

d Develop and disseminate a national Title V

survey—to empirically validate case-study

findings in a large, national sample.

d Disseminate early evaluation

findings—through summary reports on

implementation progress and in annual Title V

Reports to Congress.

Findings from the national evaluation will help

OJJDP refine the Title V risk- and protectionfocused prevention model and add to the growing

body of research on juvenile delinquency and

effective delinquency prevention strategies. 

2. Preliminary Findings: “What Seems To

Matter”

Based on preliminary analysis of national

evaluation data, including intensive interaction

with participating States and communities and 

information collected each year for the Title V

Reports to Congress, a number of important

findings have emerged regarding the factors

necessary for communities to plan and implement

effective risk-focused delinquency

prevention—factors that “seem to matter.” The

findings suggest that States and communities with

access to financial, technical, and even emotional

supports may better understand the Title V

prevention model and, therefore, implement it with

greater confidence and success. While these initial

findings have not been empirically validated

(although it is expected they will be in future

stages of the evaluation), they provide a window

into the type of support necessary for effective

delinquency prevention. Outlined in exhibit 10,

the findings are presented in greater detail below. 

Exhibit 10

Community Prevention Grants Program National

Evaluation Initial Findings: “What Seems To Matter”

“What Seems To Matter” at the State level includes: 

d State support for a Title V Coordinator.

d State support for the Title V model.

d State support for planning activities. 

d State support for timely training activities.

d State support for evaluation activities.

“What Seems To Matter” at the local level includes: 

d Community support for the Title V model.

d Community support for the planning process.

d Community support for evaluation.

d Community support for organizational leadership.

d Community support for a Title V Coordinator.

d Community support for ongoing resources.
38 National Evaluation of the Community Prevention Grants Program

At the State level, these findings include:

d State support for a Title V coordinator—It

seems to matter that the State agency designate a

State Juvenile Justice Specialist, a Title V

Coordinator, or a Prevention Specialist, whose

primary responsibilities are to support the State’s

Title V subgrantees by organizing and

overseeing Title V planning, implementation,

and evaluation activities and maintaining

frequent contact with local community members.

d State support for the Title V model—It seems

to matter that State Juvenile Justice Specialists

and other State prevention staff fully understand

and commit to the Title V model and convey this

information to local subgrantees.

d State support for planning activities—It seems

to matter that States provide resources to support

potential and current Title V subgrantees to fully

implement the labor and resource intensive datadriven planning phase including State-sponsored

planning grants, training and technical

assistance, and risk- and protective-factor data

sources. 

d State support for timely training activities—It

seems to matter that potential Title V

subgrantees participate in training at a time when

newly acquired information and skills can be

readily applied to planning activities and

communities have sufficient time to fully

develop their 3-year plans. 

d State support for evaluation activities—It

seems to matter that State Juvenile Justice

Specialists and other State prevention staff

understand basic evaluation principles and

concepts and can support local Title V

subgrantees in their efforts to develop and

implement realistic evaluation plans. 

At the community level, findings include: 

d Community support for the Title V model—It

seems to matter that the unit of local government

representatives, Prevention Policy Board

members, and Title V project directors,

coordinators, and program staff fully understand

and commit to the Title V model. 

d Community support for the planning

process—It seems to matter that community

members involved in the Title V planning

process have the information and support they

need—including training and ongoing technical

assistance—to link Title V planning,

implementation, and evaluation activities. 

d Community support for evaluation—It seems

to matter that community members have access

to ongoing evaluation training and technical

assistance and support to develop and implement

local evaluation plans. 

d Community support for organizational

leadership—It seems to matter that Title V

communities have a strong lead agency or

organization with experience conducting datadriven risk assessments and planning and

implementing a comprehensive, communitybased prevention initiative. 

d Community support for a Title V

coordinator—It seems to matter that Title V

communities have a coordinator or project

director whose primary responsibility is to

organize and oversee Title V planning,

implementation, and evaluation. 

d Community support for ongoing resources—It

seems to matter that Title V communities have

ongoing access to local financial, material, and

in-kind resources.

The national evaluation of the Title V Community

Prevention Grants Program is contributing valuable

information to the base of knowledge about “what

works” in prevention. It goes beyond the existing

knowledge about risk- and protection-focused

strategies to examine other factors that contribute to

successful delinquency prevention efforts. The

process and outcome evaluation being conducted in

the 11 communities in 6 States is showing not only

what works but why it works. OJJDP’s support of

this evaluation adds to a research foundation that can

be used by all who are committed to further reducing

the problem of juvenile crime and delinquency.
Concentration of Federal Efforts in Delinquency Prevention 39

V. Concentration of Federal Efforts in Delinquency

Prevention

The Community Prevention Grants Program

promotes collaboration among local government

agencies by requiring broad stakeholder

representation on the Prevention Policy Board and

granting communities the flexibility to fund

prevention efforts tailored to meet local needs. 

Collaboration is essential to achieving communitylevel changes in norms and expectations because it

promotes widespread communication of consistent

prosocial messages. 

Collaboration at the Federal level is equally

important to achieving nationwide improvements in

delinquency prevention. Consistent with this focus,

OJJDP works in partnership with other Federal

agencies and national organizations to coordinate

prevention programs to impact juvenile justice and

delinquency. Through its partnerships with the U.S.

Departments of Education, Health and Human

Services, Labor, and others, OJJDP has focused on a

variety of issues, including increasing school safety,

preventing youth drug and alcohol use, strengthening

the link between the educational and juvenile justice

systems, and improving the physical and mental wellbeing of youth. Examples of these collaborative

initiatives represent only a few of the agency’s efforts

to coordinate resources and expertise to support

prevention efforts that complement OJJDP’s mission

and strengthen its efforts. These initiatives are

described in greater detail in the section below. The

final section of this chapter describes both the

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Council) and the

Concentration of Federal Efforts (CFE) program and

how each supports OJJDP in providing leadership

and coordination of Federal delinquency prevention

policies and initiatives.

1. Improving School Safety

A major focus of OJJDP’s collaborative partnerships

in recent years has been to improve safety in U.S.

schools. By promoting comprehensive, researchbased approaches to reducing school violence,

OJJDP encourages entire communities to participate

in planning and implementing programs designed to

prevent violence and support healthy youth

development. Two of OJJDP’s major initiatives to

improve school safety, the Safe Schools/Healthy

Students Initiative and the National Resource Center

for Safe Schools, are described below.

Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, a

partnership among OJJDP and the U.S. Departments

of Education, and Health and Human Services,

supports urban, rural, suburban, and tribal school

district efforts to link prevention activities and

community-based services and to provide communitywide approaches to violence prevention and healthy

child development. The initiative draws on the best

practices of the education, justice, social service, and

mental health systems to promote a comprehensive,

integrated framework for use by communities in

addressing school violence.

The goals of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students

Initiative are: (1) to help students develop the skills

and emotional resilience to promote positive mental

health, engage in prosocial behavior, and prevent

violent behavior and drug use; (2) to ensure that all

students who attend the targeted school have a safe,

disciplined, and drug-free environment in which to

learn; and (3) to develop an infrastructure that will

institutionalize and sustain integrated services after

Federal funding has ended. To be eligible to receive

a grant, school districts are required to submit

comprehensive plans that include formal partnerships

with law enforcement officials and local mental

health authorities in collaboration with families,

juvenile justice officials, and community-based

organizations. The FY 2000 funds were awarded to

support 23 new 3-year projects, adding to the 54 Safe

Schools/Healthy Students projects funded last year.
40 Concentration of Federal Efforts in Delinquency Prevention

National Resource Center for Safe Schools

The National Resource Center for Safe Schools

(NRCSS) was established with funding from OJJDP

and the U.S. Department of Education’s Safe and

Drug-Free Schools Program. Through the

dissemination of publications and school safety

statistics and the provision of training and technical

assistance on school safety and violence prevention to

public schools and school districts, NRCSS works to

create safe learning environments and prevent school

violence. The NRCSS expert trainers assist

communities and States to implement safe school

strategies, such as establishing youth courts and

mentoring programs, incorporating conflict resolution

education into school programming, enhancing

building safety, and adopting consistent and clear

policies and procedures developed collaboratively by

the school community. 

NRCSS has provided workshops or training to more

than 7,000 persons across the United States. These

have ranged from small groups of administrators to

large gatherings of all-district personnel. The Center,

wherever possible, presents information at regional

conferences attended by district teams, to more

efficiently reach broad audiences. These gatherings

are presented in partnership with State educational

agencies and State school safety centers.

2. Preventing Youth Drug and Alcohol Use

OJJDP has strong partnerships with other Federal and

national organizations in the prevention of youth drug

and alcohol use. Through these collaborations, OJJDP

has increased awareness and provided grant funds to

support State- and community-based prevention

initiatives. Two of these collaborative efforts are

described below, the Drug-Free Communities Support

Program and the “Leadership to Keep Children

Alcohol Free” campaign.

Drug-Free Communities Support Program

Established by Congress through the Drug-Free

Communities Support Act of 1997, the Drug-Free

Communities Support Program is designed to

strengthen community-based coalition efforts to

reduce youth substance abuse. The coalitions include

community representatives from each of the following

areas: youth; parents; business; media; schools; youth

service organizations; law enforcement; civic,

volunteer, and fraternal groups; health care

professionals; State, local, or tribal governmental

agencies with expertise in the field of substance abuse;

and other organizations involved in reducing substance

abuse. The program enables these coalitions to

enhance collaboration and coordination to target the

use of illegal drugs and the underage use of alcohol

and tobacco. The coalitions also encourage citizen

participation in substance abuse reduction efforts and

disseminate information about effective programs.

Administered by OJJDP through an interagency

agreement with the Office of National Drug Control

Policy, in FY 2000 the Drug-Free Communities

Support Program provided nearly $9 million in grant

awards to enhance local efforts to prevent substance

abuse by young people. The new grants went to 94

sites, including Boston, Chicago, Detroit, and

Washington, D.C. 

Leadership to Keep Children Alcohol Free

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute

on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) created,

“Leadership to Keep Children Alcohol Free,” a

multiyear, highly visible national campaign to prevent

the early onset of drinking among children ages 9 to

15. The campaign is led by Governors’ spouses from

States across the country. NIAAA is currently

collaborating with The Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Office of

Women’s Health, Office of Research on Minority

Health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration, and the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration to support this

campaign. 

The first phase of “Leadership to Keep Children

Alcohol Free,” which is now complete, focused on

developing the initiative’s goals and objectives,

creating a national leadership team, and developing a

technical assistance kit to educate community leaders,

opinion makers, and the public about the seriousness

of underage drinking and what they can do to combat

it.

OJJDP is partnering with NIAAA and the Governors'

spouses for the next phase of the project, which will
Concentration of Federal Efforts in Delinquency Prevention 41

explore all aspects of underage drinking and identify

programs and activities from around the country that

have shown promise in reducing underage drinking. 

This public education and outreach effort will include

the development of a prevention guide, public service

announcements, and a research task force. OJJDP

expects to provide significant funding in FY 2001 to

support this initiative. 

3. Linking the Educational, Workforce

Training, and Juvenile Justice Systems

To demonstrate the links between educational and

training opportunities for youth and their

involvement in the juvenile justice system, OJJDP is

collaborating with the U.S. Departments of Labor

and Education to identify and document “best

practices” to educate and train juvenile offenders and

to address issues related to disabled youth in the

juvenile justice system. The Evaluation of the

Education and Training for Youthful Offenders

Initiative and the National Center on Education,

Disability, and Juvenile Justice, which are described

below, are only two examples of OJJDP’s

collaborative efforts in this area.

Evaluation of the Education and Training for

Youthful Offenders Initiative

OJJDP and the U.S. Department of Labor have

provided considerable funding to public and private

organizations to promote the benefits of youth

employment programs, with limited success. The

evaluation of the Education and Training for

Youthful Offenders Initiative should provide more

information on which education and training program

characteristics are most effective. The evaluation of

the initiative in Florida and Indiana will determine

the extent to which educational, job training, and

aftercare services are being implemented consistent

with the expectations of the U.S. Department of

Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

An impact evaluation of the Initiative, the results of

which are expected in 2 years, will measure the

effects of the program on youth job-related skills,

employment, earnings, academic performance, and

recidivism.

National Center on Education, Disability, and

Juvenile Justice

The National Center on Education, Disability, and

Juvenile Justice (EDJJ), a joint effort between OJJDP

and the U.S. Department of Education, is a

collaborative research, training, technical assistance,

and dissemination program designed to research and

develop more effective responses to the needs of

youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system

or those at-risk for involvement with the juvenile

justice system. The activities of the EDJJ Center

address such issues as school and community-based

prevention activities, education programs in juvenile

correctional settings, and transitional activities as

youth leave juvenile corrections and reenter their

communities. Through a network of practitioners,

administrators, and policymakers, the EDJJ Center

shapes more effective and appropriate responses and

accommodations for youth with disabilities. 

4. Improving the Physical and Mental WellBeing of Youth

Issues of youth physical and mental well-being are

closely linked to issues of delinquency prevention

and juvenile justice. By supporting several efforts

led by other Federal agencies, OJJDP has contributed

to the development of information to help parents,

youth, schools, and communities address such issues

as injury prevention, the influence of media violence

on youth, and youth mental health. Three of these

efforts, which occurred during FY 2000, are

described below.

SafeUSA

SafeUSA is an alliance of organizations dedicated to

eliminating unintentional and violent injury and

death in America. SafeUSA seeks to make homes,

schools, work sites, transportation areas, and

communities safer by working through partnerships

to enhance public awareness and support injury

prevention efforts at all levels. The U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services and the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention developed the

SafeUSA alliance. In addition to OJJDP, Federal

agency partners include the U.S. Departments of

Defense, Education, Housing and Urban

Development, and Transportation. 
42 Concentration of Federal Efforts in Delinquency Prevention

The goals of SafeUSA are to help Americans be: (1)

safe at home from injuries resulting from fire, falls,

poisonings, drownings, child abuse, and intimate

partner violence; (2) safe on the move from injuries

caused by motor vehicle, bicycle, and motorcycle

crashes and from injuries sustained as pedestrians;

(3) safe at school from injuries sustained on the

playground, while playing sports, and as a result of

youth violence; (4) safe at work from injuries related

to environmental hazards, equipment, working

conditions, and violence; and (5) safe in the

community from violence and unintentional injuries

caused by falls, fires, and drownings in public places. 

Safety in the community also involves prompt and

appropriate responses from emergency medical

systems, 911 operators and dispatchers, poison

control centers, and trauma care systems when

injuries do occur.

In addition to the collaborative efforts of SafeUSA,

information and best practices on such topics as

reducing school violence are provided through the

SafeUSA Web site and toll-free hotline.

Study of Marketing of Violent Entertainment

to Children

In 1999, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with

financial support from OJJDP, conducted a study to

determine the extent to which movies, video and

computer games, and music recordings that are agerestricted because of their violent content are

marketed and made available to youngsters. The

report, “Marketing Violent Entertainment to

Children: A Review of Self-Regulation and Industry

Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording &

Electronic Game Industries,” found that while the

entertainment industry has taken steps to identify

content that may not be appropriate for children, the

companies in those industries still routinely target

juveniles younger than 17 years old in their marketing

of products their own ratings systems claim to contain

violent content. The report recommended that the

industry establish or expand codes that prohibit

targeting its marketing efforts to children and impose

sanctions for violations; improve self-regulatory

system compliance at the retail level; and, increase

parental awareness of the ratings and labels. 

In response to these findings, OJJDP is working with

the FTC to develop materials to help parents better

control their children’s access to inappropriate media

products. The materials will describe the voluntary

rating systems established by the motion picture,

music recording, and electronic game industries;

explain how violent entertainment can be marketed to

children, especially in locations not monitored by

parents; and suggest actions parents may take to

reassert their control over the types of media products

to which their children are exposed. 

Surgeon General’s Conference on Children’s

Mental Health and the Surgeon General’s

National Action Agenda for Children’s

Mental Health

In September 2000, the Surgeon General’s

Conference on Children’s Mental Health:

Developing a National Action Agenda was held in

Washington, DC. Three hundred participants were

invited, representing a broad cross-section of mental

health stakeholders, including youth and family

members, professional organizations and

associations, advocacy groups, faith-based

practitioners, clinicians, educators, health care

providers, members of the scientific community, and

the healthcare industry. This conference was

designed to enlist their help in developing specific

recommendations for a National Action Agenda on

Children’s Mental Health.

Consistent with OJJDP’s interest in promoting

healthy youth development, OJJDP staff participated

on the Interdepartmental Planning Committee for the

Surgeon General’s Conference on Children’s Mental

Health and contributed to the Surgeon General’s

National Action Agenda for Children’s Mental

Health, the document which was developed following

the conference. This document contains the Surgeon

General’s recommendations for improving the state of

children’s mental health in this country, as well as

proceedings from the conference. In addition to

planning and report development, OJJDP provided

significant financial support for the conference.

5. Gender Issues

Initiated and established by OJJDP, the Interagency

Working Group on Gender Issues provides a forum 
Concentration of Federal Efforts in Delinquency Prevention 43

for Federal agencies to share information about

gender-specific research, programming, training, and

technical assistance. The working group provides

input for three OJJDP gender initiatives set for

operation in FY 2001: 

d The National Girls Institute—the Institute will

emphasize greater coordination among service

agencies charged with meeting the needs of

juveniles and help foster a continuum of

prevention, intervention, and graduated sanctions

and services for girls.

d The National Girls Study Group—representing a

broad range of academic and professional

disciplines, this Study Group will review the

literature on juvenile female violence,

delinquency, antisocial behavior, and

victimization and recommend future action.

d A National Girls Symposium—the working

group will support the development of a

symposium emphasizing the importance of

integrated service delivery for girls.

These initiatives are designed to meet the needs of atrisk girls and those already involved in the juvenile

justice system.

6. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention and

Concentration of Federal Efforts

Program

In addition to OJJDP’s targeted efforts to address

crosscutting youth issues with other Federal agencies

and national organizations described in the previous

sections, OJJDP has two permanent entities that

support its participation in collaborative partnerships,

the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Council) and the

Concentration of Federal Efforts (CFE) program. 

Through the work of the Council and the CFE

program, OJJDP facilitates ongoing coordination and

collaboration with other organizations. The Council

and the CFE program are described below.

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

The Council, an independent organization in the

executive branch of the Federal Government, was

established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act of 1974, as amended. The Council

encourages Federal agencies to collaborate on

programs that improve juvenile justice systems,

prevent juvenile delinquency, and focus on missing

and exploited children. The Council facilitates

interagency collaboration through program

coordination, program planning, and policy

development. The Council, which is comprised of

nine ex-officio members and nine juvenile justice

practitioners, coordinates overall policy and

development of objectives and priorities for all

Federal juvenile delinquency programs. The

Attorney General chairs the Council, and the

Administrator of OJJDP serves as the Vice-Chair.

The Council plays an important role in developing

comprehensive, systematic Federal responses to

issues and problems associated with juvenile justice

and delinquency prevention. As required by the

JJDP Act, the Council makes annual

recommendations to Congress on policies, priorities,

and long-term planning regarding programs related to

delinquency and missing and exploited children.

Meeting the Needs of Parents

In addition to the role described above, the Council

also provides a vital avenue of information

development and distribution to communities and

juvenile justice professionals. In 2000, as part of a

national agenda to foster positive youth development

and reduce violence and delinquency, the Council

developed and launched Parenting Resources for the

21st Century (www.parentingresources.ncjrs.org), an

online guide that links parents to information that can

help them meet the challenges of raising a child. The

Web site covers everything from caring for a newborn

to finding college scholarships. It will provide quick

and easy access to a broad array of information that

parents need to raise a healthy and productive child. 

The parenting site, which includes information on

advocacy, education, employment, mental health,

nutrition, learning disabilities, and volunteer

activities, addresses the following eight core issues: 

d Child and Youth Development—Presents

information about common behaviors and

developmental milestones, as well as emotional
44 Concentration of Federal Efforts in Delinquency Prevention

and physiological changes that typically occur

during different stages of a young person’s life. 

d Child Care and Education—Provides information

on what skills children are expected to master at

each grade level, how to support children’s

learning processes, and how to ease children’s

transitions between schools. Also offers

guidance on home schooling, alternative schools,

and standardized tests. 

d Family Concerns—Presents information about

gangs, hate crimes, school safety, domestic

violence, child abuse, substance abuse, tobacco,

mental health, and suicide. 

d Family Dynamics—Provides information on

matters pertaining to different types of family

relationships, such as single, two-parent, and

multigenerational families; such special

circumstances as the incarceration of a family

member; and work and family issues, such as

alternative work schedules and day care. 

d Health and Safety—Includes information on

exercise and nutrition guidelines, and strategies

for dealing with chronic ailments. The links also

deal with topics such as Internet safety and

caring for aging parents. 

d Out-of-School Activities—Provides links to

information about a wide range of activities to do

at home and in the community, including sports,

arts, volunteering, and employment.

d Resources—Offers information about financial

assistance and publications of interest to parents

and youth-serving organizations. 

d What’s New—Provides up-to-date information

about new parenting-related developments,

research, publications, and events.

In addition to information and resources, the

Parenting Resources Web site currently provides

links to more than 500 related Web sites. To

advertise the availability of this new resource, the

Council also has developed brochures about the Web

site and utilizes member agency clearinghouses and

home pages to advertise its availability. 

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program

In consultation with the Council, the CFE program

promotes interagency cooperation and coordination

among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the

area of juvenile justice. The program seeks to ensure

that juvenile justice funds are used in the most costeffective manner. In addition to supporting the

mission of the Council, the CFE program has three

primary responsibilities: 

d To develop objectives and priorities for Federal

juvenile delinquency prevention programs and

activities.

d To identify Federal programs that address

juvenile justice issues and promote a unified and

cooperative approach.

d To submit annual recommendations to the

President and Congress concerning the

coordination of Federal juvenile delinquency

programs and activities.

The CFE program supports the work of several of

OJJDP’s major collaborative efforts with other

Federal agencies to address issues related to and

impacting juvenile delinquency, including the Media

Match Task Force with the Office of National Drug

Control Policy; the Invest in Youth Campaign with

the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National

Crime Prevention Council; the Girl Power Project

Steering Committee with the Department of Health

and Human Services; and the SafeUSA project,

described above.

In sum, through joint funding and support of

activities that promote coordination and collaboration

at the Federal, State, and local levels, OJJDP, its

Federal partner agencies, the Coordinating Council,

and the CFE program continue to enhance the

Nation’s response to juvenile delinquency and build a

knowledge base about “what works” in delinquency

prevention. In addition, by consolidating experiences

and “lessons learned” in prevention, collaboration,

and coordination, OJJDP continues to inform

coordination and collaboration at the State and local

levels to strengthen local initiatives addressing

juvenile violence and delinquency, such as the Title

V Community Prevention Grants Program.

Through future collaborative activities with other

Federal agencies, groups, and programs, OJJDP will

contribute further to the understanding of juvenile

delinquency, while moving all involved one step

closer to creating communities free of violence. 
Next Steps in Delinquency Prevention 45

VI. Next Steps in Delinquency Prevention

In the past year, there has been significant progress

on a number of fronts in efforts to reduce the problem

of juvenile delinquency. OJJDP’s Community

Prevention Grants Program has played an important

role in these efforts. Prevention models, such as Title

V, provide the context and guidance for communities’

prevention efforts. Ongoing research examining the

role of risk and protective factors in juvenile

delinquency prevention guides communities about the

most effective targets for prevention efforts. In

addition, evaluations of prevention efforts continue to

demonstrate what strategies are most effective in

preventing juvenile delinquency. To further prevent

juvenile crime, OJJDP must continue and expand this

work.

Since 1994, nearly 1,100 communities have

implemented Title V delinquency prevention

initiatives using the Program’s model and guidelines

and have produced positive impacts at the State and

community levels in the areas of improved

collaboration, improved planning, more effective

prevention programming, and reductions in risk

factors. The efforts of these communities

demonstrate that comprehensive, community-based

efforts work, specifically, when these efforts are

based on risk and protective factors, implemented

within a planned framework, and use proven

approaches to delinquency prevention. Through the

national evaluation, OJJDP is learning what factors

facilitate and hinder communities’ successes and,

therefore, the kinds of support, guidance, and

outreach communities need to succeed. 

 

OJJDP continues to monitor the implementation of

Title V in States and communities and use the

subsequent information and findings to support the

implementation of comprehensive strategies in

communities nationwide, inform and strengthen the

overall Title V process, and identify areas for future

development and research. As the Community

Prevention Grants Program moves into its eighth

year, OJJDP will strive to move States and

communities forward in their efforts to prevent

juvenile delinquency by meeting the following

objectives:

d Encourage States and communities to move

beyond prevention strategies toward a more

comprehensive community-based continuum of

services. While States and communities have

shown great success in implementing the Title V

delinquency prevention model, OJJDP continues

to recognize the importance of comprehensive

planning that addresses the need for a continuum

of services, including prevention, early

intervention, graduated sanctions, and aftercare. 

To this end, OJJDP will encourage States and all

Title V communities to apply what they have

learned through their experience and training

with the Community Prevention Grants Program

to develop a comprehensive strategy that

integrates all local youth efforts and, in doing so,

addresses the full continuum of services.

d Increase emphasis on selecting promising or

effective programs. In recent years, the body of

knowledge about “what works” in prevention has

grown. As such, communities that have

undergone data-based needs assessments and

have identified their priority risk and protective

factors now have a wealth of programs from

which to choose to address those factors. To

further emphasize the importance of choosing

promising and effective programs, the Title V

training and technical assistance provider

monitors the prevention research and

incorporates the most up-to-date information

regarding promising and effective programs into

training and technical assistance activities and

materials. The new Title V training curriculum

includes the Effective and Promising Programs

Guide (Guide). The Guide presents 77 tested

programs from which communities can

choose—programs that address risk factors,

protective factors, and all age groups. This

Guide will be updated regularly to incorporate

new information about effective programs as it

becomes available. OJJDP will strongly

encourage States and communities to use this

valuable information resource to adopt promising

and effective strategies.

d Tailor training and technical assistance to

individual community needs for all phases of the

Title V model. Throughout the duration of the

Community Prevention Grants Program, OJJDP

has provided pregrant award training for the first
46 Next Steps in Delinquency Prevention

three phases of the Title V model (community

mobilization, assessment and planning, and

implementation). In the past, the training

curriculum was standard; that is, all participating

communities received the same information,

delivered in the same manner. Based on State

and community feedback, however, the new

training curriculum continues to address the

standard principles, concepts, and skills

associated with effective community-based

prevention planning but incorporates the unique

local context of participating communities into

training materials and examples. This strategy

creates a training environment where the

information presented is more relevant to

participants. As a result, communities are better

equipped to translate the training information

into local practice. In addition, communities will

be encouraged to access additional,

individualized technical assistance to build on

the knowledge and skills they acquire in the pregrant award training. Providing communities

with opportunities for individualized training and

technical assistance is yet one more way OJJDP

continues to support Title V communities in their

efforts to successfully prevent juvenile

delinquency. 

d Conduct outreach to underserved populations

including Native Americans and rural

communities. While the Title V model is flexible

enough to be implemented in various types of

communities, certain communities and groups

may have special needs or circumstances that

require special attention. Some communities

have struggled to implement the Title V model

due to cultural considerations or a geography that

impedes collaboration and coordinated service

provision. OJJDP will work with States to reach

out to communities with special needs and

circumstances to understand how these

circumstances impact their ability to implement

the Title V model. OJJDP will use this

information to provide training and technical

assistance that meets each group’s special needs

and, in turn, enables them to effectively compete

for a Title V subgrant award and, once funded, to

implement the model.

d Continue to use information from the national

evaluation to strengthen the Title V model and

contribute to the research foundation about what

works in delinquency prevention. In the coming

year, the Title V national evaluation team will

disseminate early evaluation findings from the 6

States and 11 communities participating in the

national evaluation case studies. In addition, a

national Title V survey will be developed and

disseminated to empirically validate case study

findings in a large national sample. These efforts

will provide OJJDP with further information

about the impacts of the Community Prevention

Grants Program and the factors influencing those

impacts. This information is useful not only as a

monitoring tool for Title V but as a contribution

to the field of research about delinquency

prevention that benefits all who are committed to

preventing juvenile crime.

OJJDP’s Community Prevention Grants Program is

having a broad influence on nationwide efforts to

reduce juvenile delinquency. State by State and

community by community, Title V delinquency

prevention efforts are taking hold; their successes are

the return on OJJDP’s investment. In turn, OJJDP

provides ongoing assistance to support the efforts of

States and communities nationwide. The objectives

set for the coming year are based on information

about what is needed to move forward with

delinquency prevention efforts. OJJDP is committed

to following this path to achieve further success in

preventing juvenile delinquency.
47

For Further Information about the Title V

Community Prevention Grants Program and Other

OJJDP Programs...

Visit the Home Page of the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice at:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org

Contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at:

Phone: 800-638-8736

Fax: 301-519-5212

Address: P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849-6000

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Web Site: http://ncjrs.org
References 49

References

Blum, R.W., Beuhring, T., and Rinehart, P.M. 2000. 

Protecting Teens: Beyond Race, Income and Family

Structure. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Adolescent

Health.

Brewer, D.D., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and

Neckerman, H.J. 1995. “Preventing serious, violent,

and chronic juvenile offending: A review of

evaluations of selected strategies in childhood,

adolescence, and the community.” In A Sourcebook:

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders,

edited by J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins,

and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, pp. 61-141.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). 

1999. Understanding Substance Abuse Prevention:

Toward the 21st Century. Washington, DC:

Department of Health and Human Services,

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, CSAP.

Connell, J.P., and Kubisch, A.C. 1998. “Applying a

theory of change approach to the evaluation of

comprehensive community initiatives: Progress,

prospects, and problems.” In New Approaches to

Evaluating Community Initiatives: Volume 2, Theory,

Measurement, and Analysis, edited by K. FulbrightAnderson, A.C. Kubisch, and J.P. Connell. 

Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, pp.15-44.

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. 1996. Combating Violence

and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice

Action Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. 2000. Juveniles and the

Death Penalty. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Elliott, D.S. 1997. Blueprints for Violence

Prevention, Vols. 1 and 2. Boulder, CO: University

of Colorado, Center for the Study and Prevention of

Violence.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family

Statistics. 2000. America’s Children: Key National

Indicators of Well Being, 2000. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Grossman, J.B., and Tierney, J.P. 1998. “Does

mentoring work? An impact study of the Big

Brothers Big Sisters Program.” Evaluation Review,

22, (3): 403-426.

Hawkins, J.D., and Catalano, R.F. 1992. 

Communities That Care®: Action for Drug Abuse

Prevention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkohl, T.I, Farrington, D.P.,

Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., Harachi, T.W., and

Cothern, L. 2000. Predictors of Youth Violence.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin (NCJ No. 179065).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., and Bachman, J.G.

1999. The Monitoring the Future National Results

on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings,

1999. Bethesda, MD: Department of Health and

Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S.,

Hobé, J., Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M.,

and Chiesa, J. 1998. Investing In Our Children:

What We Know and Don’t Know About the Costs and

Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Santa

Monica, CA: RAND.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). 1997. 

Preventing Drug Use Among Children and

Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide. Bethesda,

MD: Department of Health and Human Services,

National Institute on Drug Abuse.
50 References

Olds, D., Henderson, C.R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J.,

Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., Pettitt, L., Sidora, K.,

Morris, P., and Powers, J. 1998. “Long-term effects

of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and

antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a

randomized controlled trial.” Journal of the

American Medical Association 280 (14): 1238-1244.

Parks, G. 2000. The High/Scope Perry Preschool

Project. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (NCJ No. 181725).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Pransky, J. 1991. Prevention: The Critical Need. 

Springfield, MO: Burrell Foundation.

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D.,

Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. 1998. 

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t,

What’s Promising. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Snyder, H.N. 2000. Juvenile Arrests 1999. Juvenile

Justice Bulletin (NCJ No. 185236). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Thornberry, T.P., Huizinga, D., and Loeber, R. 1995. 

“The prevention of serious delinquency and violence:

Implications from the program of research on the

causes and correlates of delinquency.” In A

Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders, edited by J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D.

Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

United States Office of the Surgeon General. 

(January 17, 2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the

Surgeon General [online]. Available:

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/

youthviolence/ (Retrieved: March 8, 2001).

Wilson, J., and Howell, J. 1993. Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders:

Program Summary. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. 
Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a wide variety of materials,

including Bulletins, Fact Sheets, Reports, Summaries, videotapes, CD–ROMs, and the Juvenile Justice journal. These materials and other

resources are available through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), as described

at the end of this list.

The following list of publications highlights the

latest and most popular information published

by OJJDP, grouped by topical areas:

Corrections and Detention

Construction, Operations, and Staff Training

for Juvenile Confinement Facilities. 2000,

NCJ 178928 (28 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997

Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.).

Implementation of the Intensive CommunityBased Aftercare Program. 2000, NCJ 181464

(20 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 1999. 2000, NCJ 185236

(12 pp.).

Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare. 1999, NCJ 175715 (24 pp.).

State Custody Rates, 1997. 2000, NCJ 183108

(4 pp.).

Courts

Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth. 2000, NCJ 182787 (112 pp.).

Focus on Accountability: Best Practices 

for Juvenile Court and Probation. 1999,

NCJ 177611 (12 pp.).

From the Courthouse to the Schoolhouse:

Making Successful Transitions. 2000,

NCJ 178900 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1997. 2000,

NCJ 180864 (120 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (Juvenile Court Issue), Volume

VI, Number 2. 1999, NCJ 178255 (40 pp.).

Juveniles and the Death Penalty. 2000,

NCJ 184748 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the

1990’s: Lessons Learned From Four Studies.

2000, NCJ 181301 (68 pp.).

Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three

States That Changed the Rules. 2000,

NCJ 181203 (66 pp.).

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1997. 2000,

NCJ 181204 (16 pp.).

Teen Courts: A Focus on Research. 2000,

NCJ 183472 (16 pp.).

Delinquency Prevention

1999 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention

Programs. 2000, NCJ 182677 (60 pp.).

Competency Training—The Strengthening

Families Program: For Parents and Youth

10–14. 2000, NCJ 182208 (12 pp.).

Comprehensive Responses to Youth at Risk:

Interim Findings From the SafeFutures Initiative. 2000, NCJ 183841 (96 pp.).

Co-occurrence of Delinquency and Other Problem Behaviors. 2000, NCJ 182211 (8 pp.).

High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. 2000,

NCJ 181725 (8 pp.).

The Incredible Years Training Series. 2000,

NCJ 173422 (24 pp.).

Juvenile Mentoring Program: A Progress

Review. 2000, NCJ 182209 (8 pp.).

Law Enforcement Referral of At-Risk Youth:

The SHIELD Program. 2000, NCJ 184579

(8 pp.).

The Nurturing Parenting Programs. 2000,

NCJ 172848 (12 pp.).

Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offending. 2000, NCJ 178898 (16 pp.).

Gangs

1998 National Youth Gang Survey. 2000,

NCJ 183109 (92 pp.).

Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement.

2000, NCJ 182210 (12 pp.).

Youth Gang Programs and Strategies. 2000,

NCJ 171154 (96 pp.).

The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence

Connection. 1999, NCJ 171152 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs in Schools. 2000, NCJ 183015

(8 pp.).

General Juvenile Justice

The Community Assessment Center Concept.

2000, NCJ 178942 (12 pp.).

Increasing School Safety Through Juvenile

Accountability Programs. 2000, NCJ 179283

(16 pp.).

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

Strategic Planning Guide. 1999, NCJ 172846

(62 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (Mental Health Issue), Volume

VII, Number 1. 2000, NCJ 178256 (40 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (American Indian Issue), Volume VII, Number 2. 2000, NCJ 184747 (40 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National

Report. 1999, NCJ 178257 (232 pp.). Also

available on CD–ROM. 2000, NCJ 178991.

OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for

Juveniles. 1999, NCJ 177602 (52 pp.).

Special Education and the Juvenile Justice

System. 2000, NCJ 179359 (16 pp.).

Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior.

2000, NCJ 178899 (8 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Kidnaping of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS.

2000, NCJ 181161 (8 pp.).

Overview of the Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse: Update 2000. 2000,

NCJ 178893 (12 pp.).

Parents AnonymousSM: Strengthening America’s

Families. 1999, NCJ 171120 (12 pp.).

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.). Also available in Spanish. 2000, NCJ 178902.

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998,

NCJ 173393 (20 pp.).

Developing a Policy for Controlled Substance

Testing of Juveniles. 2000, NCJ 178896 (12 pp.).

Family Skills Training for Parents and Children.

2000, NCJ 180140 (12 pp.).

Violence and Victimization

Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles.

2000, NCJ 179034 (12 pp.).

Children as Victims. 2000, NCJ 180753 (24 pp.).

The Comprehensive Strategy: Lessons Learned

From the Pilot Sites. 2000, NCJ 178258 (12 pp.).

Fighting Juvenile Gun Violence. 2000,

NCJ 182679 (12 pp.).

Kids and Guns. 2000, NCJ 178994 (12 pp.).

Predictors of Youth Violence. 2000, NCJ 179065

(12 pp.).

Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence.

1999, NCJ 173950 (276 pp.).

Race, Ethnicity, and Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending. 2000, NCJ 181202 (8 pp.).

Safe From the Start: Taking Action on Children

Exposed to Violence. 2000, NCJ 182789

(76 pp.).

The materials listed on this page and many

other OJJDP publications and resources can

be accessed through the following methods:

Online:

To view or download materials, visit 

OJJDP’s home page: ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

To order materials online, visit JJC’s 24-

hour online store: puborder.ncjrs.org.

To ask questions about materials, e-mail

JJC: askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

To subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic mailing list, e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org,

leave the subject line blank, and type subscribe juvjust your name.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET)

Fax:

410–792–4358 (to order publications)

301–519–5600 (to ask questions)

800–638–8736 (fax-on-demand, Fact 

Sheets and Bulletins only)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS,

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

JJC, through the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service (NCJRS), is the repository for tens of thousands of criminal

and juvenile justice publications and resources from around the world. An abstract for each publication or resource is

placed in a database that you can search

online: www.ncjrs.org/database.htm.

Revised 06/12/2001
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

NCJ 190635