Final Report 

White House

Task Force For

Disadvantaged

Youth
The White House Task Force 

for Disadvantaged Youth 

Final Report 

October 2003 

The White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth 

Final Report 

October 2003 

Table of Contents

Letter of Transmittal 

Executive Summary..................................................1 

1 Introduction: 

Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth....................15

2 Better Management: 

Streamlining the Federal Response to 

Disadvantaged Youth........................................29

3 Better Accountability: 

Producing Results, Not Just Promises..........................53

4 Better Connections: 

Engaging Youth and Families....................................95

5 Give Priority to the Neediest Youth: 

Caring for Special Target Populations.........................103

Endnotes................................................................123

Acknowledgements.................................................137

Appendices...........................................................139



Executive Summary 1 

Executive Summary 

he complexity of the problems faced by disadvantaged youth is 

matched only by the complexity of the traditional Federal response 

to those problems. Both are confusing, complicated, and costly. 

Ideally, we want the families and communities of young people to be 

able to supply all that they need—love, a secure childhood, adequate 

housing, access to health care, a good education, discipline of character, a 

sense of personal responsibility, and a commitment to their communities 

and their country. Most young Americans are raised in this kind of 

environment, and they grow up to be healthy, responsible, and productive 

citizens. 

But there are children who have the same dreams for their own 

futures, whose daily realities make those dreams seem forever out of 

reach. The Federal government plays a significant role in helping to make 

up for those daily deficits for millions of disadvantaged youth. 

Because of his commitment to the Nation’s youth and to improving 

the effectiveness of Federal programs in general, the President created the 

White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth on December 23, 2002.1

He directed the Task Force to develop for his consideration a 

comprehensive Federal response to the problems of youth failure, under 

existing authorities and programs, with a focus on enhanced agency 

accountability and effectiveness. 

Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 

Our comprehensive Federal response begins with our Vision for 

Youth in the form of a national youth policy framework. This is an 

outcome-focused approach designed to express what we as a country 

want for disadvantaged youth and for all children. Namely, we want 

them to grow up: 

T
Executive Summary 2

• Healthy and Safe 

• Ready for Work, College, and Military Service 

• Ready for Marriage, Family, and Parenting 

• Ready for Civic Engagement and Service 

Our national youth policy framework is designed to ensure that programs we 

invest in meet one or more of these four goals. 

The Task Force was organized into committees around these four guiding 

principles. Each committee was charged with developing recommendations to 

improve Federal disadvantaged youth programs under existing authorities. 

While they were each assigned to review a different subset from among the 339 

Federal youth programs that we identified, each of the committees ultimately 

came to similar conclusions: The best way to get the greatest outcomes for 

disadvantaged youth from the significant Federal funds invested was to focus 

on these four goals: 

• Better Management 

• Better Accountability 

• Better Connections 

• Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 

Better Management: 

Streamlining the Federal Response to Disadvantaged Youth 

The Task Force developed a series of recommendations to address 

problematic management and coordination issues regarding the hundreds of 

Federal youth programs we identified. The recommendations in this section 

address some important issues that we discussed in our April, 2003 report, 

including problems with overlap and duplication as well as mission 

fragmentation. To begin to address these problems, we present a proposal for a 

Disadvantaged Youth Initiative, followed by recommendations on mission 

alignment, interagency coordination, and improving the Federal grants system. 

Create a Disadvantaged Youth Initiative 

Through the work discussed in our April, 2003 preliminary report, the Task 

Force identified the following issues that need to be addressed properly and as 

comprehensively as possible in order to increase the quality of Federal 

disadvantaged youth programs: 
Executive Summary 3 

• Reduce/eliminate overlap and duplication of services; 

• Focus policies and resources on Administration priorities; 

• Maximize the use of expertise that agencies already have; 

• Increase collaborative efforts; 

• Keep public health messages to youth consistent across 

agencies and programs; 

• Bring programs into the agency with whose mission they 

are most closely aligned; 

• Improve the quantity and quality of program evaluations; 

• Have a unified definition of “best practices;” 

• Develop a unified research agenda to identify best practices; 

• Encourage the development and use of similar performance 

measures for similar programs. 

To properly address these issues, to help ensure that disadvantaged youth 

grow up to be healthy, productive adults, and to maximize the return on our 

Federal investment, the Task Force proposes the creation of a Disadvantaged 

Youth Policy Initiative, to be coordinated through the Executive Office of the 

President, to do the following: 

1) Develop and coordinate policy, within existing policy processes 

and structures, to address the needs of disadvantaged youth; 

2) Maximize interagency collaboration to use the significant 

expertise within specific Federal agencies; 

3) Coordinate Federal research so we can fund programs that 

produce results that help disadvantaged youth; 

4) Find and elevate models of “what works,” through collaboration 

and coordination with existing agency structures, and help 

replicate them nationwide. 
Executive Summary 4 

MISSION ALIGNMENT 

Through the process of identifying the 339 Federal youth programs, 

we encountered several programs that were located in departments whose 

mission did not provide a clear and compelling reason for locating them 

within that agency. Our recommendations below reflect the belief that, 

clearly, the youth programs belong in an agency whose mission more 

closely matches theirs. 

Move YouthBuild to the Department of Labor and Better Align Youth 

ChalleNGe with the Department of Labor 

The Task Force recommends that the Department of Labor assume 

administrative responsibility for the YouthBuild program, currently administered 

by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and work with 

the Department of Defense on better aligning the Youth ChalleNGe program with 

other youth programs funded by DOL. Each program is, at its core, an 

employment and training program for disadvantaged youth, and will benefit from 

administrative oversight in DOL within the Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), since the strategic goals and mission of that department 

and agency align directly with the goals and mission of each program. 

Move the Gang Resistance, Education and Training Program to OJJDP 

The Task Force recommends that the Gang Resistance Education and 

Training Program, or “G.R.E.A.T.,” currently housed in the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, be transferred within the Department of 

Justice to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in 

the Office of Justice Programs. This transfer would include technical assistance 

and other support resources, as well as the grants budget, and the basic content of 

the strategic plan. It will link G.R.E.A.T. into the many OJJDP programs 

designed to prevent gangs and violence and promote constructive behavior among 

young people. 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

Interagency coordination should be accomplished around topic areas 

or special target populations. Where issue areas warrant the attention of 

multiple agencies, we recommend that an interagency group be created to 

ensure communication, coordination, and collaboration. The Federal 

government should also help facilitate interagency collaboration at the 

state and local levels as well, particularly since these levels of government 

receive the bulk of the Federal funds for youth-serving programs. The 
Executive Summary 5 

following are two examples of recommendations that support this 

approach. There is an additional recommendation regarding interagency 

coordination in Chapter 5. 

Improve Coordination of Mentoring Programs 

The Task Force recommends the creation of a Federal Interagency Workgroup 

on Mentoring to engage in a variety of activities identified in the report that 

would aid the coordination and collaboration of all mentoring programs and 

activities supported by Federal agencies. 

Support State and Local Community Planning Process 

The Task Force recommends that the relevant agencies contribute existing 

funds to provide interagency support for state and local government efforts to 

assess youth-related policies, programs, funding streams, indicators, and data in 

order to create and implement strategic plans for coordinated investment of 

Federal, state, and local dollars to improve outcomes for youth. 

IMPROVE THE FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM 

The current Federal grants process is in need of improvements to 

increase its value to these specific audiences: potential grantees, Federal 

program officers, and policymakers within the executive and legislative 

branches. This issue is critically important to those who care about 

disadvantaged youth, for the more they can take advantage of the 

resources of the Federal government and maximize their effectiveness, the 

more likely it is that there are going to be better outcomes for the youth 

who need help the most. 

The Task Force has developed a series of recommendations to improve 

this current system. Ideally, a searchable database of all past, present, and 

future grant activity would be created, which could then become the 

comprehensive database on discretionary grant spending in the United 

States. From our point of view, this will require a series of steps, which 

should include the following: 

Modernize the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Task Force recommends that the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) format be revised and updated to fit the way grants are currently 

administered. This would enable potential grantees as well as policymakers to 
Executive Summary 6 

better track grant opportunities and related activities within youth-serving 

agencies. 

Create a Centrally Available and Improved Grants Database 

The Task Force recommends that the CFDA should be linked to various other 

databases which are currently available, and also made accessible through 

Grants.gov, the government-wide e-grants portal website. 

Improve the FAADS Database 

The Task Force recommends the following ways to improve the Federal 

Assistant Awards Data System (FAADS). First, include the EIN (employer 

identification number) as well as the DUNS2 (Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., number) of 

each grant recipient. Both are unique identifiers and are required by statute and 

OMB policy to be submitted in applications for funding. Second, provide the key 

to the Federal Award Identifier Numbers provided by each agency so that the code 

can be understood by all. These changes will allow all users to identify specific 

grantees and determine which agencies and programs provided them with funds, 

and for what purposes. 

Create a Resource Mapping Function for the Database 

The Task Force recommends that grantees of all Federal youth-serving 

programs be required to provide the zip codes or GIS codes for all areas where they 

are providing services.

Research Eligibility of Faith-Based Grant Applicants 

The Task Force recommends that the Department Centers for Faith-Based and 

Community Initiatives review the data from our Federal Youth Programs Survey 

relating to the applicant eligibility of faith-based groups. The goal of these reviews 

is to determine the reasons for the reported apparent ineligibility of faith-based 

groups compared to nonprofit organizations, as reported by approximately half 

the Federal youth program managers. The Department Centers should then take 

any steps that they may determine are necessary to follow up with program 

officers within their agencies to ensure that it is clear that faith-based applicants 

are equally eligible to apply. 
Executive Summary 7 

Better Accountability: 

Producing Results, Not Just Promises 

Government likes to begin things — to declare grand new programs and 

causes. But good beginnings are not the measure of success. What matters 

in the end is completion. Performance. Results. Not just making promises, 

but making good on promises.3

 President George W. Bush 

The public policy world of youth programs suffers from a credibility 

gap. While there is the will among the public to help young people 

address the many difficult problems they face, there is a lack of consensus 

as to how to do it successfully. Unfortunately, the Federal government has 

been ineffective in helping to close that gap in the public’s mind.4

Through the last four decades, there has been growing Federal 

involvement and a rapidly increasing infusion of funds designed to 

address numerous problems of youth, including substance abuse, 

violence, teen pregnancy, hunger and nutrition, school failure, and 

workforce preparation. In Fiscal Year 2003 alone, the Federal government 

is spending $223.5 billion to help needy children and their families, 

focusing on these and related issues (see Appendix D). State and local 

governments and private groups will contribute billions more. 

As the President has noted, the focus needs to be on achieving results. 

Part of the responsibility for this lack of focus on results lies in the fact that 

the Federal government has often made funding decisions without clear 

evidence that what it is attempting to do will actually work. Thus, public 

faith in the efficacy of social programs to successfully address youth 

failure has eroded. They wonder, what really works? How can we know? 

This is important because, as one researcher has noted, “even the most 

perfect solution, if there were such a creature, needs to be recognized and 

believed in, in order to be adopted as durable policy.”5

This section of our report includes a number of recommendations 

providing a look at how the Federal government can strengthen its role 

in the area of research and evaluation of youth programs. With these 

recommendations, we call for the Federal government to develop and 

implement a coherent and comprehensive plan designed to identify 

with confidence and adopt those practices that will successfully help 

youth. 
Executive Summary 8 

The focus of the Task Force here was in two areas, the importance of 

which should not be underestimated. First, we had broad consensus of the 

need to improve the Federal role in helping to understand what works. 

Second, we also recognized that with a Federal investment in youthserving programs of hundreds of billions of dollars annually, we needed 

to firmly hold programs accountable for results showing that they actually 

achieve what they were designed to accomplish. This means that we need 

well-designed evaluations of current programs so that those not achieving 

their goals can be quickly discontinued and their resources diverted to 

other priority needs. 

UNDERSTANDING WHAT WORKS 

The Task Force has developed several recommendations aimed at 

improving the quality of the information we have about what works to 

improve youth outcomes. The first recommendation (in several parts) 

addresses our concern that we create a more consistent set of guidelines 

for assessing the quality of program evaluations across agencies. The 

second puts forth a road map for guiding the direction of future Federally 

supported research on youth programs, and the third offers a suggestion 

on improving national survey data collection. 

Develop a Unified Protocol for Federal “What Works” Clearinghouses 

The Task Force recommends that a committee of the relevant Federal agencies 

develop a consistent approach to the assessment of youth program and policy 

evaluations, including the development of protocols. Random assignment 

experiments are considered the “gold standard” of evaluation because they can 

most clearly attribute outcomes to interventions. The Task Force strongly 

recognizes this gold standard and believes those evaluations should be given the 

greatest weight in shaping what we know about what works. Because individual 

agencies have different needs, the protocols to be developed need not be identical, 

just sufficiently consistent so that materials and findings can be shared among 

agencies with relative ease. 

Build a Rigorous and Unified Disadvantaged Youth Research Agenda 

The Task Force recommends that a cross-agency research agenda based on 

large, randomized field trials be created and implemented to assess the 

effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for disadvantaged youth. The 

design of these field trials must be based on comprehensive, systematic reviews of 

previous trials, and supported within existing program resources. 
Executive Summary 9 

Improve Data Collected on the Well-Being of Families 

The Task Force recommends that the Federal government seek opportunities to 

improve the quality of data collected on families in the national data collection 

systems in order to better monitor the well-being of families, track problems, 

identify how populations are changing, and provide direction with agendasetting. 

HOLDING PROGRAMS ACCOUNTABLE FOR RESULTS 

Providing funds to grantees in order to support proven interventions 

does not in itself guarantee results. Youth programs must implement 

these programs correctly and must monitor their service delivery and 

program outcomes. Currently, similar youth programs rarely have similar 

performance measures in their Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) plans, and nearly half do not measure performance at all.6 In this 

section we present recommendations for developing and implementing 

common youth program performance standards and measures. We 

suggest that these will serve as a starting point for discussion and 

consensus-building among various stakeholders. This significant process, 

once completed, will allow policymakers to compare the outcomes of 

similar programs, no matter which agency they are in. It would also 

facilitate considerations of program consolidation, redirection of 

resources, and elimination of ineffective programs, where appropriate. In 

the interest of improving our ability to document the results of Federal 

investments, we also offer recommendations on addressing earmarks, and 

implementing the principles of the No Child Left Behind Act in 

Department of Defense schools. 

Develop Standards for Measuring Grantee Performance 

The Task Force recommends the development of uniform standards for 

measuring grantee performance for all Federal agencies that manage youthserving programs. While it outlines a process for developing and implementing 

standard measures, the Task Force understands this is an ambitious goal and will 

likely require a sustained effort over time, including pilot testing and incremental 

implementation. 

Implement Grantee-Level Performance Measurement Guidelines 

The Task Force recommends launching a major effort to work with applicants 

and programs over the next several years to strengthen the accountability and 

performance of organizations receiving Federal funds to operate disadvantaged 
Executive Summary 10 

youth programs. The Task Force believes an increased emphasis on performance 

measurement as both a program management tool and a means by which to 

communicate program impact will improve the effectiveness of youth-serving 

programs, while providing Federal agencies the necessary information to hold 

grantees accountable for results. 

Conduct Rigorous Oversight of Earmarked Grantees 

The Task Force opposes earmarks for youth programs because they 

significantly reduce accountability, and they exclude potentially higher quality 

projects that could otherwise successfully compete for funds. This weakens what 

should be a strong focus on proven, positive short-term and long-term results for 

children and youth. The Task Force recommends that each Department with 

earmarked youth programs use a vigorous, comprehensive oversight and 

accountability system to oversee these programs. 

Implement No Child Left Behind in Department of Defense Schools 

The President's landmark legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLB), provided a new focus on accountability for all of the Nation's 

children. School districts can no longer focus on average performance, 

they must now ensure that every subgroup, including disadvantaged 

students, is making significant progress toward proficiency. Thus, for the 

first time in our Nation's history, disadvantaged students will be of prime 

concern to school districts across America. This backdrop gives new 

leverage to Federal efforts to coordinate services for disadvantaged youth. 

The Task Force recommends that the Department of Defense consider 

implementing select, relevant provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act in 

Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools, in conjunction 

with the Department of Education. Specific recommendations for consideration 

include: bringing the DOD system into line with NCLB provisions regarding the 

pillars of Standards and Accountability and a Focus on What Works; ensuring 

that the DoDEA strategic plan focuses on improving student achievement, 

particularly in the core subjects of reading and language arts and math; working 

to become a model of international excellence by implementing instructional 

practices that are based on rigorous scientific research; and assessing current 

levels of parental input and design mechanisms to further increase parental 

participation within the context of the “Parent Empowerment” pillar of NCLB. 
Executive Summary 11 

Better Connections: 

Engaging Youth and Families 

Research has shown that in order to ensure their healthy development, 

adolescents need caring adults in their lives; opportunities to learn 

marketable skills and maintain good health; and opportunities to 

contribute meaningfully to their communities and society.7 Generally, 

American families and communities are doing a good job of addressing 

these youth needs and opportunities. We make several recommendations 

aimed at validating and building on the strengths that exist in most 

families and communities. The first recommendation is born from the 

knowledge that parents play a pivotal role in guiding their children’s 

development and should be supported in that role. The next two 

recommendations are aimed at providing opportunities for young people 

to contribute through service, recognizing the value of the assets they 

bring to their communities and to the Nation. 

Increase Parent Involvement in Federal Youth Programs 

The Task Force recommends that any Federal program that serves 

disadvantaged youth should endeavor, when appropriate, to involve parents as 

much as possible in the program. This means including parents in planning 

stages and in any advisory groups, as well as in the program itself. 

Design a Youth Service Initiative 

The Task Force recommends that a youth service initiative be designed that 

would allow older youth (college age) to display leadership by providing 

opportunities for them to serve children living in high poverty areas of the United 

States. 

Recruit Youth for Federal Grant Review Panels 

The Task Force recommends that college youth be recruited and included as 

participants on Federal panels that review youth program grants, where feasible. 

Give Priority to the Neediest Youth: 

Caring for Special Target Populations 

While the Federal government is spending billions of dollars to 

address the problems of youth, the problem is often that too many of these 

dollars are spread out among too many youth. Although these actions 
Executive Summary 12 

may appear to be preventive, in fact it typically leads to under-serving or 

never even engaging the youth who most need help—and who become 

society’s most serious problems. Thus, we often see evaluations of youth 

programs that say the programs do not show much impact. One reason 

for this might be that the youth that needed to change were either not 

engaged, or not engaged sufficiently. At an aggregate level, the result is 

that the public and policymakers never see the kinds of significant 

improvement they want to see in the things that concern them: juvenile 

crime, school performance, drug use, and so forth.8

Public money should be spent on public problems9 and targeted to 

where it is most needed, rather than on all youth, most of whom will grow 

up just fine without government help. With this view in mind, we begin a 

discussion that shall continue beyond the life of the Task Force regarding 

the identification of “special target populations” of youth. These special 

target populations would be those who represent areas of serious concern, 

and who carry disproportionately negative consequences for youth and 

their communities if not addressed. It is these groups named below, as 

well as others who will be identified in the future, who should be the 

primary targets of relevant disadvantaged youth programs. 

Target Youth in Public Care 

The Task Force recommends that the first designated special target 

populations be youth who are already in public institutions, and who create 

public expense. These are foster care youth (particularly those aging out of foster 

care) and juvenile justice youth. For both these groups, the Federal government 

and governments at other levels are serving in loco parentis, in place of the 

parents. 

Target Kids at High Risk 

The Task Force recommends that a second group of youth also be considered 

among the special target populations. This subgroup includes youth with a high 

number of factors putting them at risk for unproductive or publicly costly lives, 

such as children of incarcerated parents and migrant youth. 

The following recommendations represent a case study showing how 

the problems of a “special target population” could begin to be addressed. 

We emphasize that the recommendations below represent merely the first, 

early steps of this type of effort. Much more remains to be done, but we 

are excited about the possibilities that future cross-agency collaborative 

efforts hold for these groups of particularly needy young people. We also 
Executive Summary 13 

note that we anticipate that other special target populations will be 

identified in the future. 

Education of Foster Youth Demonstration Program 

The Task Force recommends the creation of a program designed to improve the 

quality of education for school-age youth in foster care. The program would be 

established at three levels: Federal, state, and local. It would involve the 

appointment of a point of contact at the Department of Education to assist in 

providing awareness of the barriers faced by foster care youth to improving their 

educational success, and a plan to encourage that state and local school districts 

establish a similar position in their education departments. Funding for this 

program could come from the existing sources available to State Education 

Agencies and Local Education Agencies for disadvantaged youth.10

Federal Interagency Committee to Focus on Education Needs 

of Foster Youth 

The Task Force recommends the establishment of a new, ongoing interagency 

committee which help improve Federal efforts to address the educational needs of 

youth in foster care. The committee should involve the appropriate representatives 

from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor 

(Employment and Training Administration), and the Department of Education, 

and should plan to meet at least on a quarterly basis to ensure that the best efforts 

are put forth on the Federal level on behalf of these children. 

Workforce Training and Education Services for Migrant Youth 

The Task Force recommends the creation of a joint venture between the 

Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of 

Agriculture to develop a model program to provide workforce training and basic 

education services to out-of-school migrant youth ages 16-21. 

This model would combine workforce development services, 

including job training activities, with basic education services designed for 

individuals with Limited English Proficiency, and would provide these 

youth with an integrated plan of services and activities designed to raise 

their educational skills and increase their employment opportunities.

Expand Mentoring Programs to Special Target Groups 

The Task Force recommends that the newly-created Interagency Working 

Group on Mentoring seek opportunities to expand mentoring programs to provide 

support to young people in foster care and migrant youth.

Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 15

1 

Introduction: 

Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 

he complexity of the problems faced by disadvantaged youth is 

matched only by the complexity of the traditional Federal response 

to those problems. Both are confusing, complicated, and costly. 

Ideally, we want the families and communities of young people to be 

able to supply all that they need—love, a secure childhood, housing, 

health care, a good education, discipline of character, a sense of personal 

responsibility, and a commitment to their communities and their country. 

Most young Americans are raised in this kind of environment, and they 

grow up to be healthy, responsible and productive citizens. 

But there are children who have the same dreams for their own 

futures, but whose daily realities make those dreams seem forever out of 

reach. The Federal government plays a significant role in helping to make 

up for those daily deficits for millions of disadvantaged youth.11 

“Our goal must be to make sure that all children have the opportunity 

to learn and succeed,” President Bush said in his National Child’s Day 

Proclamation for 2002. “To achieve this, we must use the resources of our 

families, communities, schools and government to ensure that no child is 

left behind.12” 

Because of his commitment to the Nation’s youth and to improving 

the effectiveness of Federal programs in general, the President created the 

White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth on December 23, 

2002.13 He directed the Task Force to develop for his consideration a 

comprehensive Federal response to the problems of youth failure, under 

existing authorities and programs, with a focus on enhanced agency 

accountability and effectiveness. 

T
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 16

The Task Force begins this report with our vision for a national youth 

policy framework. This is an outcome-focused approach designed to 

proclaim those things that we as a country want for disadvantaged youth 

and for all children. Namely, we want them to grow up: 

• Healthy and Safe 

• Ready for Work, College, and Military Service 

• Ready for Marriage, Family, and Parenting 

• Ready for Civic Engagement and Service 

Our national youth policy framework is designed to ensure that 

programs we invest in meet one or more of these four goals. 

Our charge was to speak specifically to the Federal government’s role 

in helping disadvantaged youth achieve these outcomes. Thus, for each of 

these four goals, we have laid out objectives, followed by some examples 

of the ways the Federal government plays a role in addressing these 

objectives. These are the basic objectives that should guide Federal 

programs when they address any or all of these goals. 

Goal 1: Grow Up Healthy and Safe 

While many trends in adolescent risk-taking are going in the right 

direction, risk-taking behaviors (illicit substance and tobacco use, violence 

and premature sexual relations) are still among the top causes of 

adolescent morbidity and mortality. Teens today are still taking far too 

many risks with their health and well-being. More than 2.6 million teens 

use illicit substances each month. More than 3 million youth, ages 12 to 17, 

are cigarette smokers, and everyday, more than 6,000 try smoking for the 

first time. About 14 percent of high school students smoke regularly. 29 

percent of youth, ages 12 to 20, reported drinking alcohol in the month 

prior to the survey. In addition, one-third of high school students report 

having sexual relations in the previous three months, while 46 percent of 

high-schoolers have experienced sexual relations, putting themselves at 

risk for pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and emotional trauma. 

Some 135,132 unmarried girls under the age of 18 gave birth in 2001, long 

before they were ready to be responsible, married parents.14

Whatever their reasons for doing so, adolescents who engage in these 

behaviors suffer. Some of these behaviors are against the law and have 

criminal justice consequences, and all have negative health consequences. 

The end result is the same: children who engage in high-risk behaviors 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 17

place themselves at long-term risk of having a variety of chronic illnesses, 

many of which can seriously impair quality of life, and can even end life 

prematurely. 

Federal youth risk prevention and treatment programs should: 

• Acknowledge that risk behaviors are interconnected—Risk 

behaviors are highly interconnected. First, the same primary risk 

factors lead adolescents to engage in a variety of negative 

behaviors, and conversely the same protective factors provide 

young people with the resolve to avoid risk-taking. Second, taking 

part in one risky behavior increases the likelihood that an 

adolescent will engage in another. For example, if a young person 

abuses alcohol, he or she is more likely to engage in other forms of 

risky behavior, such as sexual relations or delinquency. 

• Strengthen protective factors (such as the moral and social 

support of the family, school, faith-based and community 

resources)—Because of the related nature of risk factors, it is 

important that Federal programs address protective factors that 

help inoculate young people against all risk behaviors. Research 

has shown that the more children are connected to family, school, 

and community, the less likely they will engage in risk behaviors. 

Parents are especially important, as parent-child relations and 

parental supervision have been found to help children make wise 

choices and avoid risk-taking behavior. Federal programs should 

seek to strengthen these supports for youth. 

• Strengthen skills and competencies that promote responsible 

decision making, and improve academic, social and emotional 

outcomes—In addition to the importance of the outside supports, 

which some call “external assets”, building youth’s “internal 

assets” or strengths also provides them with protection against risk 

taking. Internal assets are such things as an adolescent’s desire to 

learn, his or her social, emotional, moral and cognitive 

competencies, and his or her value system. Adults must provide 

support and guidance to young people, but when it is time to make 

decisions, each adolescent must have the inner strength and 

character to make the responsible choices. Federal programs must 

include skill-building components. 

• Provide youth with consistent messages about the legal, 

emotional, and health consequences of engaging in high-risk 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 18

behaviors—To set a clear example and provide leadership, Federal 

programs need to communicate a consistent message that 

highlights the consequences of risk behaviors and avoids 

encouraging young people to even consider engaging in them. In 

the past, the messages about some behaviors have been mixed.

• Support youth and families with a range of integrated service 

options that address youth needs—Because every child is 

different, a range of integrated service options to address youth 

needs is not only prudent, but cost effective. For most children, 

existing family and community resources, along with prevention 

programs, are sufficient. For children who are more engaged in 

problem behaviors, treatment programs are needed, and they, too, 

need to vary based upon the needs of each child. 

The President has adopted initiatives that reflect these principles, 

especially the emphasis on sexual abstinence before marriage. As a part of 

the pending 1996 welfare reform reauthorization, the Administration is 

recommending that the Abstinence Education program, a feature of the 

original 1996 legislation, be reauthorized at the same level of funding. In 

addition, the President’s budget for the Department of Health and Human 

Services Community-Based abstinence education grants increased 

funding from $40 million to 2002 to $73 million in 2003, an 83 percent 

increase. This increase ensures that more communities across the country 

are able to deliver the consistent message that abstinence is the surest way 

to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy and STDs. In addition, the President 

has proposed continuing the current funding of $12 million to the 

Adolescent Family Life abstinence program, which reaches more than 

112,000 adolescents.15 

Goal 2: Ready for Work, College, and Military Service 

All American youth, regardless of whether or not they are 

disadvantaged, need to have a strong academic foundation upon which to 

build their future as they go on to college, work and military service. The 

Task Force believes that the elements of this foundation need to be 

provided throughout their academic careers, at all levels of schooling. 

Education in the United States is primarily a state and local 

responsibility. Local and state governments, not the Federal government, 

establish the Nation’s schools, develop curricula, and determine 

enrollment and graduation requirements. Through the Elementary and 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 19

Secondary Education Act, the Federal role is to support state and local 

efforts in embracing major reforms that help to set high expectations, raise 

academic standards for students, and ensure accountability for results. 

One example of that role is the Title I formula grant to the states, an $11.7 

billion Federal grant program which helps disadvantaged youth by 

assisting their school districts in low income urban and rural areas. 

When President Bush reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Act 

by signing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, he sought greater 

efficiency and effectiveness in meeting the needs of all children, including 

disadvantaged youth. “Too many of our neediest children,” he has 

repeated many times, “are being left behind.” The bipartisan legislation 

increases accountability for states, school districts, and schools; promises 

greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending lowperforming schools; allows more flexibility for state and local educational 

agencies in the use of Federal education dollars; and places a stronger 

emphasis on reading, especially for the youngest children. 

Because the President is committed to improving the performance of 

elementary and secondary schools, his Task Force on Disadvantaged 

Youth includes “ready for work, college, and military service” as a part of 

its vision for American young people. The Task Force believes, like the 

President, that all young people, especially those who are considered 

disadvantaged, need a core academic foundation that will lead to 

meaningful skills development and life-long employment. 

All youth in America will receive a core academic foundation leading to 

meaningful skills development and life-long employment opportunities 

through a continuum of services that improve: 

• Core academic skills at the kindergarten to eighth grade level—

All students should leave eighth grade equipped with the 

knowledge and skills to take them to the next level. Acquired 

proficiency in skills associated with the core academic subjects will 

assist them. The core academic subjects include English, Reading, 

Math, Science, Foreign languages, Civics and Government, 

Economics, Arts, History and Geography. No Child Left Behind 

has reinforced this commitment to knowledge in these areas by 

requiring local school districts in Title I programs to ensure their 

teachers hired to teach these subjects are highly qualified. Since 

President Bush took office, there has been a 39 percent increase in 

funding for the Improving Teacher Quality State Grant program 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 20

along with increased funding in other areas to ensure students 

have the best opportunities to improve these skills. 

• Core academic skills at the high school level with appropriate 

non-school workplace preparation—The progression of 

knowledge attainment in these subjects should continue into the 

secondary level of education. We should build on the foundation 

that began at the elementary level and improve adolescents’ skills. 

As a complement to these skills, youth need appropriate 

introductions to occupational skills training to keep up with the 

changing nature of the 21st Century economy. The business 

community has embraced No Child Left Behind as an economic 

and workforce development imperative. Graduates with improved 

academic and technical skills training have more opportunities in 

the workforce and cost businesses less money on training in basic 

skills such as reading and math. 

These dynamics are also shaping much of the President’s push for 

the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The 

President’s reauthorization initiative includes reforms to make the 

workforce investment system more flexible, accountable, and 

focused on results to ensure that only programs that are most 

effective at helping Americans find work are funded. 

The President’s changes to the WIA also target disadvantaged 

youth, especially out-of-school youth, with a Targeted State 

Formula program and Challenge Grants. The Targeted State 

Formula program would be used at the local level. Challenge 

Grants to cities and rural areas would be awarded on a competitive 

basis, with funds going to programs proven effective at serving 

youth. Grants would also be awarded on a discretionary basis to 

high-quality programs that lead to high academic achievement. 

• Post-secondary skills attainment through an array of options that 

includes higher education or occupational skills training. Most 

youth will continue on to higher education but a quarter of our 

youth seek to enter the workforce in jobs that need special skills 

training. All youth need to be prepared for the technological 

advances and global changes that pose challenges to the 

competitiveness of the American workforce. These advances call 

for our institutions of higher education to better prepare our youth 

to succeed after graduation.16 It also calls for better opportunities 

for those youth that are looking for alternative possibilities. 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 21 

Programs that train youth to be successful in the workforce need to 

connect with the corporate world to provide effective training and 

academic skills that make them marketable in the workplace. 

• Youths’ connection to their schools—A key to the success of 

students’ experiences in school is their sense of connection to their 

school. School connection is the belief by students that adults in the 

school care about their learning as well as about them as 

individuals. Research shows us that the critical requirements for 

feeling connected include students’ experiencing: high academic 

expectations and rigor coupled with support for learning; positive 

adult-student relationships; and safety, both physical and 

emotional.17

Increasing the number of students connected to school is likely to 

impact critical accountability measures, such as academic 

performance; incidents of fighting, bullying, or vandalism; and 

absenteeism/school completion rates. 

Strong scientific evidence demonstrates that increased student 

connection to school promotes educational motivation, classroom 

engagement, and improved school attendance. These three factors 

in turn increase academic achievement. Likewise, there is strong 

evidence that a student who feels connected to school is less likely 

to exhibit: disruptive behavior, school violence, substance and 

tobacco use, emotional distress, and premature initiation of sexual 

activity. These findings apply across racial, ethnic, and income 

groups.18

Based on current research evidence, the most effective strategies for 

increasing the likelihood that students will be connected to school 

include: 

• Implementing high standards and expectations, and 

providing academic support to all students; 

• Applying fair and consistent disciplinary policies that are 

collectively agreed upon and fairly enforced; 

• Creating trusting relationships among students, teachers, 

staff, administrators, and families; 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 22

• Hiring and supporting capable teachers skilled in content, 

teaching techniques, and classroom management to meet 

each learner’s needs; 

• Fostering high parent/family expectations for school 

performance and school completion; and 

• Ensuring that every student feels close to at least one 

supportive adult at school. 

Goal 3: Ready for Marriage, Family, and Parenting 

Part of growing up is learning to be a grown-up, preparing to be a 

good spouse and a good parent. Generally this preparation is the 

responsibility of parents. Most often they do it well, but sometimes they 

will need support in providing this preparation. In the occasional 

instances where parents are unable to prepare youth for these roles, the 

Federal government must take steps to ensure that young people have 

caring adults in their lives to provide nurturing and role modeling. This 

task also should be borne by other levels of government, as well as 

community and faith-based organizations. 

When Federal programs interact with youth, they should: 

• Seek to acknowledge, strengthen, and reinforce parental engagement 

in youths’ development and improve parent-child relationships—

Research has shown that healthy families with strong marriages and 

close parent-child relationships provide the strongest protection 

against adolescent risk-taking behaviors. According to “Reducing the 

Risk,”19 a publication from the National Longitudinal Study on 

Adolescent Health (Add Health), parents are central in shaping 

outcomes for young people. Controlling for the number of parents in a 

household, race, and economic status, the study found that children 

who report feeling connected to a parent are protected against many 

different kinds of risks: emotional distress and suicidal thoughts; 

cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use; violent behavior; and early 

sexual activity. This correlation holds true for both older and younger 

adolescents. 

Specifically, the study found that the keys to the healthy growth and 

development of teens include 1) parents’ physical presence in the 

home at key times during the day, 2) parental emotional 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 23

connectedness to their adolescent children; and 3) parental 

expectations of high academic performance of their children. These 

factors especially protected teens from premature sexual activity, 

substance use, and pregnancy. 

The President’s vision of strengthening marriages and families in 

America seeks to improve child well-being by increasing the number 

of two-parent families. The Administration’s proposal for TANF 

reauthorization encourages the formation and maintenance of healthy 

marriages, promotes responsible fatherhood, and strengthens the 

bonds between parents and their children. The fatherhood dimension 

of this proposal is significant. It encourages fathers to assume greater 

responsibility for their children, by supporting the activities of public 

and nonprofit community entities, including faith-based organizations, 

to support fathers as husbands, parents and breadwinners. Fatherhood 

grants will accomplish a variety of objectives including promoting 

responsible, caring, and effective parenting through counseling, 

mentoring, and parenting education, dissemination of educational 

materials and information on parenting skills, and the encouragement 

of positive father involvement, including the positive involvement of 

nonresident fathers. 

• Seek responsible, caring adults to support young people in need—

Unfortunately, not all young people have the support of loving 

parents. For this reason, Federal programs—to the degree that they 

address the problems of disadvantaged youth—need to help young 

people in need link up with responsible, caring adults. Research has 

shown that frequent and sustained contact with a trained mentor can 

significantly improve adolescent outcomes. 

The President has made clear his commitment to mentoring through 

his Mentoring Initiative, announced in the 2003 State of the Union 

address.20 This three year initiative has two components. The first 

seeks to link mentors with children less than 18 years of age with a 

parent in prison. The second provides mentors to middle school youth 

to improve their academic outcomes. 

• Prepare youths to pursue the ideal of a healthy, two-parent family 

through the development of character needed to become loving and 

responsible spouses and parents—Because healthy parent-child 

relations are important for every generation, young people who are 

navigating the transition to adulthood need to develop the personal 

qualities of heart and character so that they can become loving and 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 24

responsible spouses and parents themselves. Federal programs should 

encourage character development and respectful adolescent 

relationships characterized by abstinence. 

Goal 4: Ready for Civic Engagement and Service

From its earliest origins, America has flourished because of the 

willingness of its citizens to participate in democratic processes and 

institutions. It has been blessed again and again because citizens have 

stepped forward and served not only their communities but their Nation, 

without considering material reward. The values embedded in that spirit, 

and the benefits that flow from it have made us stronger, healthier, and 

more prosperous as a Nation. However, these qualities do not 

automatically appear and must be reinforced among ourselves and 

cultivated in our young people by teaching and by the examples set by 

every volunteer, every mentor, and everyone who cares enough about 

their community to give deeply of themselves. The Federal role in this 

involves the following goals: 

Federal programs that address youth civic engagement and service 

should: 

• Foster youths’ development into caring adults who have a clear sense 

of belonging and responsibility to their communities and the Nation 

through engagement in citizen service—Responsible citizenship in 

the United States begins with civic engagement at the local level and 

well-informed voting for public officials at all levels of government. 

This is the very heart of what it means to be an American. Yet, in the 

2000 election, less than one-third of the population between the ages of 

18 and 24 reported that they had voted. One key reason cited for not 

voting: people don’t believe their vote makes a difference. In addition, 

only 9 percent of high school seniors could identify how a democratic 

society benefits from the active participation of citizens.21 These 

sobering statistics demonstrate the imperative of a greater focus on 

readying youth, especially disadvantaged youth, for civic engagement. 

President Bush’s “We the People” initiative aims to reverse this 

troubling pattern. This initiative, run by the National Endowment for 

the Humanities, aims to cultivate an ethic of citizenship through 

enhanced civic education in the schools. The theory is that better 

history and civics education will lead naturally to higher levels of civic 

engagement, enabling young people to guard, nurture, and care for the 

Nation’s guiding principles and values. 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 25

Of course, responsible American citizenship means more than just 

voting or speaking at a town meeting. It means giving back to society 

through volunteerism and social service. In his 2003 State of the Union 

address, the President encouraged all Americans “to apply the 

compassion of America to the deepest problems of America.” 

Believing in the “wonder-working power, in the goodness and 

idealism of the American people,” the President has encouraged civic 

engagement and volunteerism.22

The good news is that, unlike voting, volunteering has become more 

common among college-bound high school students since 1984. More 

than 80 percent now say they volunteer; 53 percent on a regular basis.23

Such service among young people should be encouraged at an early 

age. The sooner young people become involved in addressing the 

needs of others, the sooner they develop a sense of civic responsibility 

and civic belonging, reinforcing the sense that they belong to 

something larger than themselves. 

To what degree disadvantaged youth fit the pattern among collegebound youngsters is not clear. Rates of volunteerism may be lower 

among disadvantaged young people. Nevertheless, disadvantaged 

youth can and do volunteer, often finding that community service 

allows them an opportunity to give back what others have given to 

them. They feel better about themselves—less like a victim and more 

like someone who has something of value to offer. 

There are many examples of Administration initiatives to foster greater 

levels of volunteerism by the general public. These include the Faithbased and Community Initiative and USA Freedom Corps, which 

includes: 

• Volunteer Network, a clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities; 

• Council on Service and Civic Participation, to encourage and 

recognize outstanding and dedicated volunteer activity (awards are 

given to individuals, families, schools, businesses, and community 

and faith-based organizations); 

• Citizen Corps, supporting local efforts to helping communities 

prevent, prepare for, and respond to crime, natural disasters, and 

terrorism. 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 26

The President has also expanded Learn and Serve—which integrates 

community service with academic and extracurricular activities of 

young people—to include a wider range of public agencies and 

nonprofit organizations, including faith-based groups. Additionally, 

he has called for amending the Higher Education Act to require every 

college and university to increase the percentage of Federal WorkStudy funds devoted to community service to 50 percent. 

The Task Force has identified 105 Federal programs in 10 Federal 

agencies or departments that involve young people, including 

disadvantaged youth, in programs that include community service 

goals or activities.24 These programs are wide ranging. The 

Corporation for National and Community Service, for example, 

sponsors a grant program under Learn and Serve America that 

encourages elementary and secondary schools and community 

organizations to create, develop, and offer service-learning 

opportunities for their students. 

Another program, in the Department of Education, specifically targets 

the involvement of disadvantaged youth through the 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers. This program enables rural and inner 

city public elementary and secondary schools (or consortia of schools) 

to plan, implement, or expand projects that benefit the educational, 

health, social service, cultural, and recreational needs of communities. 

 

• Support youths’ connection to their communities by building on 

their internal assets and creating opportunities—Federally funded 

state and community based programs should not only treat youth as 

recipients of services, but reach out to them as partners in program 

planning, design, and leadership. Youth have important talents to 

share and skills to learn that often fall outside of academic curricula. 

Many youth know well what will work best for them. When they feel 

ownership for a program, they are more likely to give commitment 

and energy. 

The experience of being listened to and respected as partners can build 

a young person’s self-efficacy and help develop the characteristics of 

responsible adult citizenship. Some Federal programs already support 

this approach. For example, Federal program announcements for 

funding runaway and homeless youth programs include program 

performance standards that encourage youth involvement in service 

design, program planning and organizational management.25 
Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth 27

Youth engagement and leadership need to be developed carefully—

with training, preparation, and realistic expectations. Youth 

involvement must be genuine, not token. A detailed guide to 

successful youth involvement has been published for the runaway and 

homeless youth programs but is applicable to virtually every program 

serving young people.26

Better Management 29 

2 

Better Management: 

Streamlining the Federal Response to 

Disadvantaged Youth

he Task Force developed a series of additional recommendations to 

address problematic management issues regarding youth 

programs. The recommendations in this section address some 

important issues that we discussed in our April, 2003 preliminary report, 

including problems with overlap and duplication, as well as mission 

fragmentation. 

In our April preliminary report, we reported that: 

• Most of the 72 million American youth ages birth to 17 are doing 

fine, but a number suffer from a variety of factors that place them at 

a disadvantage. 

• About 15 percent of American children live below the poverty 

level. 

• For some of them, the government serves in loco parentis, in the 

place of family. More than half a million children are living in 

foster care. Some have families who are either barely functioning or 

nonexistent; about 3 in 10 live with just one parent. About 1.5 

million children had parents in state and Federal prisons. In 2000, 

879,000 children were abused or neglected. 

• Some face difficult health problems. About 12 percent live in 

families whose dire circumstances qualify them to receive nutrition 

or food assistance. Some 15 percent of school-age children are 

seriously overweight. Some suffer from chronic illnesses. 

T
Better Management 30

• Some young people engage in risk-taking behaviors. More than 2.6 

million teens use illicit substances each month. More than 3 million 

youth ages 12 to 17 are current smokers, and everyday, more than 

6,000 try smoking for the first time. About 14 percent of high school 

students smoke frequently. One-third of high school students 

reported having sex in the previous three months, while 46 percent 

of high school students have had sexual intercourse, putting 

themselves at risk for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. 

Some 153,437 girls under the age of 18 gave birth in 2001, long 

before they were ready to be a responsible parent. 

• Some live in downtrodden or violent neighborhoods, leaving them 

vulnerable to crime. About 400,000 teens themselves commit 

violent crimes each year. Juveniles were involved in 16 percent of 

all violent crime index arrests and one-third of all property crime 

index arrests in 2000. One-quarter of all persons arrested for 

robbery that same year were under age 18. 

• Many are being left behind in school. Nearly 70 percent of inner 

city and rural 4th graders cannot read at even a basic level. Some 13 

percent of students are considered learning disabled. Almost 11 

percent drop out of school entirely. More than 5.5 million children 

received special education services, 2.7 million for a specific 

learning disability and almost half a million for emotional 

disturbance. Many speak limited or no English.27

From the Federal Youth Programs Survey28 we developed, we also 

found that: 

• There are 339 Federal programs serving disadvantaged youth in 12 

departments.29

• Federal involvement in issues surrounding disadvantaged youth 

has expanded significantly in the last four decades. 

• The Office of Management and Budget reports that Federal funding 

for disadvantaged youth in Fiscal Year 2003 totals $223.5 billion 

(see Appendix D). 

Overall management and coordination of disadvantaged youth 

programs is poor: 
Better Management 31 

• Many of the 339 programs are offering multiple kinds of services to 

a wide variety of youth subgroups. These services and target 

populations frequently overlap. 

• The current Federal response to disadvantaged youth is a perfect 

example of “mission fragmentation.” In situations like this, GAO 

recommends that programs with similar goals, target populations 

and services be coordinated, consolidated or streamlined as 

appropriate, to ensure that goals are consistent and that program 

efforts are mutually reinforcing. 

• Youth program statutes are often written quite broadly, allowing 

agencies to have considerable discretion in the activities they 

conduct and populations they serve. Agencies exercised that 

discretion aggressively and widely. As time goes on, agencies often 

expand their programs to add in the “issue du jour.” This type of 

“mission creep” leads to a haphazard response and a lack of the 

rationality that these serious and complex problems demand. These 

problems require that all youth-serving agencies have a clear and 

focused mission and a plan to ensure collaboration among Federal 

programs involved in addressing the same issue. 

Accountability and Research Pose Problems 

We have very little information to show for certain that the billions of 

dollars for youth programs are being spent wisely and effectively. Our 

review of youth-serving programs shows that a high percentage of 

Federal youth programs fared poorly in the three critical areas of 

evaluation and research: 

• OMB’s PART process: Only one of 28 youth-serving programs was 

rated “effective” by OMB during the Fiscal Year 2004 Performance 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process. Three were “moderately 

effective,” five were “adequate” and the remaining 68 percent were 

rated either “results not demonstrated” or “ineffective.” 

• The GPRA process: Less than half of the identified programs 

indicated that they were included in their Department’s 

Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) plans. This is 

potentially problematic because the purpose of GPRA is to provide 

objective information about the effectiveness and efficiency of 

Federal programs and spending, and thus increase the level of 

accountability to Congress and the American people. Thus, with no 
Better Management 32 

related goals, and more importantly, no performance measures, 

there can be no accountability under GPRA. 

• Program Evaluations: More than half of all of the 339 youth-related 

programs had not been evaluated within the last five years. Of the 

smaller number that was evaluated, 75 percent were evaluated 

independently, while the remainder were done mostly by the 

grantees themselves. The quality of the evaluations was low: only 

27 programs have been evaluated using the more scientifically 

reliable random assignment method. Only 70 programs reported 

using some form of “outcome” evaluation, rather than a process 

evaluation. 

To address these problems, we begin with a proposal for a 

Disadvantaged Youth Initiative, followed by recommendations on 

mission alignment, interagency coordination and improving the Federal 

grants system. 

Create a Disadvantaged Youth Initiative 

The Task Force identified the following issues which need to be 

addressed properly and as comprehensively as possible in order to 

increase the quality of Federal disadvantaged youth programs: 

• Reduce/eliminate overlap and duplication of services; 

• Focus policies and resources on Administration priorities; 

• Maximize the use of expertise that agencies already have; 

• Increase collaborative efforts; 

• Keep public health messages to youth consistent across agencies 

and programs; 

• Bring programs into the agency with whose mission they are most 

closely aligned; 

• Improve the quantity and quality of program evaluations; 

• Have a unified definition of “Best Practices;” 

• Develop a unified research agenda to identify best practices; 
Better Management 33 

• Encourage the development and use of similar performance 

measures for similar programs. 

To help ensure that disadvantaged youth grow up to be healthy, 

productive adults, and to maximize the return on the Federal investment, 

the Task Force proposes the creation of a Disadvantaged Youth Policy 

Initiative, to be coordinated through the Executive Office of the President, 

to do the following: 

1) Develop and coordinate policy, within existing policy structures, 

to address the needs of disadvantaged youth; 

2) Maximize interagency collaborations to utilize the significant 

expertise within specific Federal agencies; 

3) Coordinate Federal research so the government can fund programs 

that produce results that help disadvantaged youth; 

4) Find and elevate models of “what works” and help replicate them 

nationwide. 

MISSION ALIGNMENT 

Through the process of identifying and reviewing the 339 Federal 

youth programs, we encountered several programs which were located in 

departments whose mission did not provide a clear and compelling 

reason for locating them within that agency. Clearly, they belong in an 

agency whose mission more closely matches theirs, and our 

recommendations below reflect that sentiment. 

 

Move YouthBuild to the Department of Labor and better align Youth 

ChalleNGe with the Department of Labor 

The Task Force recommends that the Department of Labor (DOL) 

assume administrative responsibility for the YouthBuild program, 

currently administered by the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), and work with the Department of Defense on better 

aligning the Youth ChalleNGe program with other youth programs funded 

by DOL. Each program is, at its core, an employment and training 

program for disadvantaged youth, and will benefit from administrative 

oversight in DOL within the Employment and Training Administration 

(ETA), since the strategic goals and mission of that department and 

agency align directly with the goals and mission of each program. 
Better Management 34

The Department of Labor has more than thirty years of experience 

working with employment and training programs. Importantly, DOL 

currently administers the Nation’s One-Stop Career Center system, 

established under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). This 

system stands as a solid service delivery infrastructure to provide 

employment and training services to youth and adults. The One-Stop 

system has and continues to develop strong connections to education and 

training institutions and employers and is charged with being “in tune” 

with employer needs—understanding the skills employers seek, and 

knowing the high-demand occupations in local areas. 

DOL also currently administers the WIA formula grant youth 

programs and the Job Corps program; employment and training 

programs specifically targeting young people. Under WIA youth 

programs, youth receive assessments and services that provide them with 

the education, skills training and supportive services needed to 

successfully undertake postsecondary education or unsubsidized 

employment. These programs are also directly connected to the job 

market and employers. In addition, the Job Corps program has helped 

more than 1.5 million severely disadvantaged young people, ages 16-24, 

who have either dropped out of school or are in need of additional 

education and training. The program is a full-time, year-round residential 

program where youth split their time between the classroom, earning 

their GED or diploma, and learning a technical skill or trade. Much of the 

program’s success lies in its strict discipline and behavioral standards. 

YouthBuild is currently administered by HUD, and provides 

unemployed young people, ages 16-24, with work experience while they 

build affordable housing for homeless and low-income families in their 

own neighborhood. Young participants split their time between the 

construction site and the classroom, where they earn their GED or high 

school diploma, learn to be community leaders, and prepare for college. 

The program provides economically challenged young adults with the 

skills necessary to achieve economic self-sufficiency, leadership and 

commitment to community. Under WIA, YouthBuild is a mandatory 

partner in the One-Stop system. After over five years of operation under 

WIA, however, it is evident that a more direct linkage is needed between 

the YouthBuild program and the activities of the One-Stop Career Center 

system. 

The following story illustrates the value of this approach. Recently, a 

Rockford, Illinois, Job Corps program helped a local YouthBuild program 

that stood to lose 40 volunteers and as much as 20 percent of its funding 
Better Management 35

due to cuts in the national AmeriCorps program. As reported in the

August 5, 2003, Rockford Register Star, the local Job Corps volunteered to 

“pick up the slack” and share resources with the struggling YouthBuild 

project. At the same time, the programs would work “hand-in-hand,” 

with Job Corps benefiting when its graduating students could gain 

additional hands-on job skills volunteering for community projects with 

YouthBuild. The YouthBuild director praised Job Corps for its willingness 

to share “turf.” 

This collaboration made news because it is all too rare. Situating 

similar programs in a single department permits department leadership to 

override issues of turf forcing collaborations that sustain programs in 

crisis when program operators do not display the spirit embodied in the 

Rockford community.30 

Youth ChalleNGe is currently administered by DOD/Army National 

Guard and targets 16-18-year-old high school dropouts. The goals of this 

program are to enhance the life skills, educational levels and employment 

potential of at-risk youth through structured, quasi-military training. The 

first five months are a residential phase, which is followed by a year-long 

mentoring relationship with a trained mentor from the youth’s 

community. Youth ChalleNGe is not a mandatory partner in the One-Stop 

system. In many cases it operates completely separately from the OneStop system. The approach of the Youth ChalleNGe program is similar to 

the Job Corps program currently administered by DOL. The Youth 

ChalleNGe program and participants can benefit from stronger ties with 

the One-Stop system and Job Corps. 

DOL should assume administrative responsibility for the YouthBuild 

program, currently administered by HUD, and administrative oversight 

of the Youth ChalleNGe program, currently administered by DOD. The 

programs would retain their core mission and service delivery model 

while being merged administratively with other ETA-funded youth 

programs. In addition, a strong partnership between DOL and HUD 

would be maintained, and DOL and DOD will finalize details of how 

Youth ChalleNGe can be better aligned with DOL programs while 

maintaining the strong link with the National Guard through contracting 

or other means. This recommendation will result in improved services to 

young people and enhanced program outcomes by: 

• Administering each program in the agency where the strategic 

goals of the department and agency align directly with the core 

goals of each program as discussed below; 
Better Management 36

• Effectively using the One-Stop system’s specialized resources, 

expertise and market knowledge, particularly in connecting 

individuals to supportive services necessary to complete the 

program, and in today’s tight labor market, placing individuals in 

education, training or jobs with a market demand; and 

• Enhancing the One-Stop system through drawing on these two 

unique program models and integrating best practices from these 

models throughout the One-Stop system. 

While YouthBuild and Youth ChalleNGe have unique program 

components, the programs align with and can be enhanced by the DOL 

strategic goals of: 

• A Prepared Workforce: DOL’s outcome goals of increased 

employment, earnings and retention, as well as assistance to youth 

in the transition to work, are clearly in line with the programmatic 

goals of these programs; and

• A Competitive Workforce: The outcome goal of anticipating and 

addressing workforce gaps—including demand for new workers, 

replacement workers, and highly skilled workers.31

The program goals also align with and can be enhanced by ETA’s 

goals of: 

• Maximizing Partnerships with Other Programs: Using Federal 

dollars efficiently by maximizing collaboration with One-Stop 

partner programs and reducing duplication of effort across funding 

streams; and 

• Targeting Resources on Out-of-School Youth.32 

Integrating these funding streams into the one Federal agency that is 

responsible for delivering youth employment services will benefit the 

programs and their participants. Policies can be streamlined, and services 

can be expanded by leveraging program funds. More individuals can be 

served in a more effective and comprehensive manner, boosting program 

performance, and supporting a competitive and prepared workforce. 
Better Management 37 

Move the Gang Resistance, Education and Training Program to OJJDP 

The Task Force recommends that the Gang Resistance Education and 

Training Program, or “G.R.E.A.T.,” currently housed in the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF), be transferred within 

the Department of Justice (USDOJ) to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). 

This transfer would include technical assistance and other support 

resources, as well as the grants budget, and the basic content of the 

strategic plan. It will link G.R.E.A.T. into the many OJJDP programs to 

prevent gangs and violence and promote constructive behavior among 

young people. 

G.R.E.A.T. is a $16 million life skills competence program designed to 

provide students with the skills they need to avoid gang pressure. The 

program began in 1991 with the goal of helping prevent youth crime, 

violence and gang association while developing a positive relationship 

among law enforcement, families, and young people to create safer 

communities. It is authorized through the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 2002. However, the agency that 

houses this program, BATF, is fundamentally a regulatory and law 

enforcement organization “dedicated to reducing violent crime and 

protecting the public,” and charged with enforcing the Federal laws and 

regulations relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives and arson. 

On the other hand, OJJDP’s mission is fully in tune with that of the 

G.R.E.A.T. program. It is dedicated to delinquency prevention and youth 

development promotion, with programs such as Drug-Free Communities 

Support, Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), National Youth Network, 

SafeFutures, Safe Kids/Safe Streets, Strengthening America's Families, 

Gang-Free Schools and Communities, Safe Start, and Boys and Girls 

Clubs. 

OJJDP also maintains a strong focus on evaluation of programs and 

research into effective practices, for example, by funding the Center for 

the Study and Prevention of Violence. The Center provides technical 

assistance to a number of violence prevention programs across the Nation 

and publishes the widely recognized Blueprints for Violence Prevention, a 

set of model prevention and intervention programs that meet a strict 

scientific standard of program effectiveness.33 OJJDP addresses many 

areas relevant to G.R.E.A.T. and provides resources for substance abuse 

prevention, public education/information, community re-entry support 

for juvenile offenders, mentoring, and many other services. 
Better Management 38

OJJDP is led by an Administrator, under the leadership of the 

Assistant Attorney General, (OJP), who reports to the Associate Attorney 

General, under the Attorney General and the Deputy. The other OJP 

agencies share many of the prevention and community strengthening 

objectives of OJJDP, such as victim assistance, prevention of violence 

against women, in-school conflict resolution, community development, 

research, etc. In turn, OJP is alongside the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing (Cops in Schools), and the Community Relations Service 

(reduction of racial tension), which also report to the Associate Attorney 

General. 

With G.R.E.A.T. relocated, BATF can focus on its counter-terrorism 

and regulatory functions, many of which are particularly crucial post9/11. From its new home in OJJDP, G.R.E.A.T. can connect with the larger 

world of youth development and risk prevention activities in which 

OJJDP has traditionally engaged. This program clearly shows signs of 

success. As such, it deserves careful attention and possibly expansion and 

replication of its methods in other risk prevention, character education, 

and youth development areas. Synergy with other OJJDP programs could 

assure more students are reached and underserved communities included. 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

Interagency coordination should be accomplished around topic areas 

or special target populations. Where issue areas warrant the attention of 

multiple agencies, we recommend that an interagency group be created to 

ensure communication, coordination and collaboration. The Federal 

government should also help facilitate interagency collaboration at the 

state and local levels as well, particularly since these levels of government 

receive the bulk of the Federal funds for youth-serving programs. The 

following are two examples of recommendations which support this 

approach. This report includes additional recommendations regarding 

interagency coordination in Chapter 5. 

Improve Coordination of Mentoring Programs 

The Task Force recommends the creation of a Federal Interagency 

Workgroup on Mentoring to engage in a variety of activities identified 

below that would aid the coordination and collaboration of all mentoring 

programs and activities supported by Federal agencies. 
Better Management 39 

Research has shown that an ongoing relationship with a caring adult is 

a primary component of healthy adolescent development. Mentoring is a 

powerful tool that, when done properly, connects vulnerable youth with a 

responsible advocate who can help navigate safe pathways to adulthood. 

Research also shows that when at-risk youth are linked with a wellmatched, screened, and trained mentor, they are likely to improve their 

academic achievement while decreasing their involvement with the 

juvenile justice system.34

The President, therefore, has a comprehensive agenda of using 

mentoring as an important tool to ensure that no child is left behind. He 

has proposed, as part of his USA Freedom Corps, the placement of 

mentors in the lives of more than one million disadvantaged children who 

are transitioning from childhood to adolescence. His initiative, working in 

tandem with national youth service organizations as well as with local 

community and faith-based organizations, has two components: 

• A proposed $100 million per year program, administered by the 

Department of Education, to provide one million new mentors to 

disadvantaged middle school students.35 This component builds on 

the Mentoring for Success Act passed as an amendment to the 

Elementary and Secondary Act in 2001, which provided $17.5 

million to fund local mentoring programs in 2002 and 2003. It also 

reinforces No Child Left Behind by supporting strategies proven to 

enhance the academic performance of disadvantaged children. The 

strengths of this component are many: it is directed at school-based 

mentoring; it focuses on youth who are most at risk of educational 

failure; and it brings adults into the schools. 

• A $50 million per year program, administered by the Department 

of Health and Human Services, to provide 10,000 mentors for 

children whose parents are in prison. This furthers the goals of the 

Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which called for the 

expansion of services to strengthen families using community and 

faith-based groups. It is also intended to strengthen healthy and 

positive bonds between children and incarcerated parents and to 

cultivate mentors from within the child’s own extended family and 

community. A first round of grants is already underway based on 

an initial appropriation of nearly $10 million for Fiscal Year 200336. 

The President’s initiatives build upon existing mentoring activities 

already currently supported by 13 different Federal agencies. These 

agencies administer more than 120 different programs that provide 
Better Management 40

support fo r a variety of mentoring activities. In fact, mentoring is the 8th

most frequent activity identified among the 41 types of activity identified 

in the 339 Federal programs that serve youth. However, currently there is 

little coordination or collaboration among these various Federal programs, 

nor does any single agency have the responsibility of cultivating and 

advancing the expertise and knowledge of “best practices” with regards to 

mentoring. As a result: 

• Agencies are often unaware of the mentoring activities being 

engaged in by other agencies or within their own agency. This 

often results in duplication of efforts in some areas while other 

areas receive little or no services. 

• Research and evaluation of the same or similar programs is not 

coordinated, thereby resulting in costly duplication of effort and 

inconsistent findings. 

The new Interagency Work Group on Mentoring would include 

representatives from the departments of Justice, HHS, Education, Labor 

and the Corporation for National and Community Service. Functioning 

under the leadership of the USA Freedom Corps and the Disadvantaged 

Youth Initiative, the work group would: 

• Identify all of the mentoring programs and activities currently 

being engaged in and being planned for; 

• Map grantees receiving mentoring funds; 

• Identify areas where additional mentoring resources are needed; 

• Assess the current knowledge about what works in mentoring; 

• Propose a common definition of effectiveness; 

• Propose common data collection elements; 

• Identify gaps in current research; 

• Design an Interagency Mentoring Research Strategy; 

• Develop a process for identifying proven and promising practices; 
Better Management 41 

• Develop mechanisms for making the public and grantees in 

particular aware of best practices, research and evaluation findings. 

Support State and Local Community Planning Process 

 The Task Force recommends that the relevant agencies contribute existing 

funds to provide interagency support for state and local government efforts to 

assess youth-related policies, programs, funding streams, indicators, and data in 

order to create and implement strategic plans for coordinated investment of 

Federal, state, and local dollars to improve outcomes for youth. 

States and local communities have bureaucratic infrastructures that 

parallel those of Federal agencies. Each of these governmental entities has 

its own mission and budget that guide the allocation of funds to 

communities. The fragmentation of Federal youth policy is compounded 

by fragmented state spending which leaves local communities piecing 

together program dollars from a wide variety of funding streams, each 

with its own regulatory and reporting requirements. 

Over the years, states and local communities have tackled this issue by 

developing coordinating bodies (task forces, collaboratives, councils, etc.). 

Often, the creation of these groups was required in order to comply with 

the Federal statute. The majority of these groups tend to be focused on a 

specific outcome (e.g., a Governor’s Council on Literacy), a specific 

population (e.g., an Attorney General’s task force on children of 

incarcerated parents), or a specific type of service (such as substance abuse 

prevention services in the case of SAMHSA’s state incentive grants). 

While efforts such as these are often quite successful, states and localities 

must then struggle to align these coordinating bodies with each other. 

States and localities may be able to increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of their service delivery by incorporating a range of 

outcomes, populations and services into an overarching coordinated plan. 

Efforts to coordinate along specific lines such as those above could be 

handled as subsets of the overarching effort. This would ensure that these 

narrower coordinating efforts are aligned with each other and feed into an 

overarching state or local plan. Over the last five years, the HHS 

Administration for Children and Families has funded work in 13 states to 

ensure planning, innovation, and better collaboration at the state level and 

between the state and community levels, around issues and programs for 

youth development. Evaluation data and case study analysis are in the 

final stages for these projects and could provide useful lessons and models 

for state and local collaboration to improve outcomes for disadvantaged 

youth.37
Better Management 42

Using existing resources, the multiple Federal agencies that support 

youth programs would jointly fund demonstration grants to support state 

and local efforts to develop and implement a strategic prevention 

framework to guide future investments in disadvantaged youth. 

Participating states would receive a grant to support a state-level 

coordinator and a strategic mapping and plan development process. 

Federal staff would also provide technical assistance and guidance related 

to the availability of funding resources (grants.gov) and evidence-based 

practices (the What Works Clearinghouses). 

States would develop plans using a theoretical model designed to 

include: (1) the full age range from 0-17; (2) the full range of goals: 

physical health and safety, academic achievement and workforce 

preparation, healthy family/social relationships, and civic engagement 

and service; and (3) science-based models of public health and safety (e.g., 

universal, indicated and targeted interventions or an ecological 

framework that proposes individual, family school, community level 

interventions). 

Each state would assign a coordinator who would be responsible for 

regularly convening representatives from all relevant departments and 

agencies, as well as other key stakeholders, and helping these 

representatives to craft and implement a plan to be jointly adopted by the 

Secretaries or equivalent. The coordinator would also ensure that drafts of 

the plan are regularly reviewed by service providers, local leaders 

(including members of the faith community), parents and residents. When 

possible, this work would be undertaken by an existing collaborative body 

(council, task force, etc.) Existing collaborative bodies would be 

encouraged to pursue ways to expand their mandate and membership to 

allow them to tackle the full strategic framework articulated above. 

A report on the state mapping process would consist of the following 

elements: 

• Youth Indicators Report—how well youth are achieving in each 

area outlined in the framework above; 

• Youth Services, Supports and Opportunities Report—an 

assessment of the quantity and quality of the services, supports and 

opportunities available to young people in each area of the 

framework; 
Better Management 43 

• Youth Budget—mapping existing Federal, state and local dollars 

and programs to determine what resources are being allocated to 

each area of the framework; 

The state strategic plan would then include recommendations on how 

to reduce fragmentation and improve the effectiveness of efforts for 

disadvantaged youth. 

Recommendations would include: 

• Coordination strategies (to improve this and other collaborative 

efforts); 

• Communications strategies (to promote a positive vision of and for 

disadvantaged youth, and to link together into coherent messages 

the array of things young people need to know); 

• Funding strategies (to maximize Federal, state and local 

investments); 

• Capacity building strategies (to support practitioners and 

volunteers, organizations, and communities through technical 

assistance and other means aligned across departments and 

agencies); 

• Processes for selection and implementation of Evidence-Based 

Prevention programs; 

• Strategies for maintaining accountability for outcomes. 

In addition, each state would select one or two target pilot 

communities to conduct parallel planning processes, and provide them 

with the technical assistance, incentives, and leadership necessary to spark 

and sustain their efforts. The state coordinator would be responsible for 

convening these communities that are engaged in parallel planning 

processes, and for encouraging the alignment of frameworks and efforts 

between the state and local levels. 

Once the state and local plans are completed, the Federal government 

could convene Federal officials from across departments and agencies to 

review the plans, meet with the state and local representatives and 

entertain suggestions for ways the Federal government could streamline 
Better Management 44

its work and increase flexibility as needed for states to fully implement 

their plans. 

Subsequent Federal community prevention grant announcements 

could give priority to states that have established such coalitions and 

which have developed viable strategic planning frameworks and can 

show how additional funding will be used to support evidence-based 

practices that further these plans. Federal grant review processes might 

also reward applicants that demonstrate coordination and collaboration 

with other Federal grant programs and existing resources in their 

communities. 

IMPROVE THE FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM 

The current Federal grants process is in need of specific improvements 

to increase its value to these specific stakeholders: potential grantees, 

Federal program officers, and policymakers within the executive and 

legislative branches. This issue is critically important to those who care 

about disadvantaged youth, for the more they can maximize their 

effectiveness in using the resources of the Federal government, the more 

likely it is that there are going to be better outcomes for the youth who 

need help the most. 

The Task Force has developed a series of recommendations to improve 

this current system. Ideally, a searchable database of all past, present and 

future grant activity would be created, which could then become the 

comprehensive database on discretionary grant spending in the United 

States. This will require a series of steps, which should include the 

following: 

Modernize the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Task Force recommends that the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance format be revised and updated to fit the way grants are 

currently administered. This would enable potential grantees as well as 

policymakers to better track grant opportunities and related activities 

within youth-serving agencies. 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs (CFDA) is a 

government-wide compendium of all 1,499 Federal domestic assistance 

programs.38 This number includes the youth grants described in our April, 

2003 preliminary report. The CFDA is maintained by the General Services 
Better Management 45 

Administration (GSA), while OMB serves as an intermediary agency 

between the Federal agencies and GSA.39 The Catalog is published in hard 

copy and available in an online searchable database maintained by GSA. 

The Catalog is considered the basic reference source of Federal 

programs. It is intended to improve coordination and communication 

between the Federal government and state and local governments.40 Even 

with the e-grants initiative website (located at www.grants.gov), the 

Catalog continues to be utilized. Thus, it plays a critically important role 

in helping all potential grantees, including state and local governments, as 

well as nonprofits, universities, hospitals, faith-based and community 

groups, to identify Federal programs which meet specific objectives. 

Unfortunately, the CFDA system does not operate as well as it could 

today. The structure of the Catalog is partly out of date. While the system 

remains sufficient for regular, large block grants, the integrity of the 

system falls apart particularly under the weight of the hundreds of 

discretionary programs. 

Here is why: the Catalog is designed using a five digit numeric system, 

where each agency has its own first two digits, and then all the programs 

they operate are assigned the remaining three digits. For example, HHS 

has all the grants from 93.001 to 93.999, Education has all the grants from 

84.001 to 84.999, and so on. The problem with this system is that in many 

cases the departments have, over time, turned to an alphanumeric system 

in order to administrate their grants. There is nothing wrong with that, 

except the Catalog itself does not use the same numbers, and thus the 

numbering system has become obsolete. For example, the HHS Health 

Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) uses an alphanumeric 

system that can be problematic for those who are relying on the Catalog. 

Every year under their program entitled “93.110 Maternal and Child 

Health Federal Consolidated Programs” (popularly known as the 

SPRANS grants), HRSA offers multiple grant announcements under this 

single program, sometimes as many as several dozen. Thus, for example, 

the “Bright Futures Pediatric Implementation Cooperative Agreement 

Grant” used an alphanumeric marker, in this case, 93.110BI. However, 

that particular grant announcement name is not specifically mentioned 

anywhere in the Catalog’s description for 93.110, and the number 

“93.110BI” does not exist in the Catalog. This situation is repeated 

numerous times for several different agencies. This is particularly 

important because many grant programs offer numerous grant 

announcements which are issued in a single year. Thus, this problem 

places constant barriers in front of grant seekers. 
Better Management 46 

This happens every year with dozens of grant programs, most 

particularly in HHS and Education, which handle large numbers of 

grants. This can cause problems. Suppose a potential grantee or a 

policymaker has heard something about the “Bright Futures” program but 

does not know in which agency it is located. If they did a search on 

“Bright Futures” in the CFDA online, they would come up empty-handed. 

Likewise, a similar search at www.grants.gov would also yield no 

information. They would find that information if they knew enough to 

search at the grants information page on the HRSA website, but that 

would require a level of knowledge about the Federal grants process and 

far corners of the bureaucracy that the grant seeker might not have, and it 

certainly does not remove all the barriers to the grants process that can 

and should be removed. 

In order for it to function well, the Catalog system also needs the 

uniform and constant cooperation of the grant making agencies, but 

currently participation is spotty. Some agencies have decided to mostly 

ignore the CFDA system and to collapse almost all their grants into a 

single CFDA number. However, this information is not reflected in the 

CFDA description for that program number. Some agencies run literally 

dozens of grant programs through a single CFDA number, but by doing 

so they make it impossible for those who rely on the CFDA system to have 

an accurate picture of the grants for which they can apply in a location 

that is central for all Federal agencies. 

The CFDA remains a necessary tool for grant seekers and 

policymakers because, unlike other tools available, it provides the only 

ongoing directory of all grants, year round. Other sites list grants only 

during the application period, or for a limited time. In contrast. the CFDA 

allows grantees the often vitally useful time needed to plan ahead to 

respond when the grant announcement is issued by making the grant 

program information always available. Even though the grant 

announcement provides additional details that the CFDA might not offer, 

at least the basic information about that grant program is always 

available. In addition, while the individual departments and the 

components have by and large provided readily available grants data at 

their individual agency’s websites, there is still the need for the Catalog to 

provide a central system with a uniform numbering system in a central 

location.41 Finally, the Catalog also provides a greater picture of the 

activities of the myriad agencies in the Federal government. 
Better Management 47 

Create a Centrally Available and Improved Grants Database 

The Task Force recommends that the CFDA should be linked to 

various other databases which are currently available, and also made 

accessible through Grants.gov, the government-wide e-grants portal 

website. These include: 

• The Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS) and the 

Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR). Both contain very 

useful information concerning current and past grant activity 

that can orient a potential grantee as to what the government 

has been funding, in what amounts, and to whom the funds 

went. This information would enable a potential grantee to 

evaluate its competitive position vis-à-vis others. Unfortunately, 

FAADS is not fully searchable online and is often difficult to 

interpret, even for experienced users.42 In addition, FAADS does 

not take advantage of all it could offer. It does not provide 

uniform coding of grant recipients. Federal Award Identifier 

Numbers (FAIN) that are unique to each agency are provided 

instead. 

Improve the FAADS Database 

The Task Force recommends the following ways to improve FAADS: 

• Include the EIN (employer identification number) as well as the 

DUNS43 (Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., number) of each grant recipient. 

Both are unique identifiers and are required by statute and OMB 

policy to be submitted in applications for funding. 

• Provide the key to the Federal Award Identifier Numbers provided 

by each agency so that the code can be understood by all. 

• Convert the FAADS database from its current “flat-file” 

architecture to a modern, relational structure, which will then 

facilitate ad hoc query capability. 

This inclusion of these three features would allow all users to identify 

specific grantees and determine which agencies and programs provided 

them with funds, and for what purposes. Users would also be able to look 

within specific agencies and determine all the groups to whom they gave 

out their grants and for what purposes. 
Better Management 48

The most important features of the new grants database would be: 

• A sophisticated search engine that enables text searches across all 

of the five levels and according to specific criteria about 

administrative agency, performer, and award types. 

• Criteria broken down into useful sub-criteria such as budget 

function, type of recipient, location of recipient, place of 

performance, etc. Most specifically, the place of performance must 

refer not to the headquarters of the grantee, but to the actual 

geographic locations where the services will be offered, eventually 

including zip codes (see next recommendation). 

• Inclusion of all five administrative levels of government: from 

departments, offices, and programs, to individual projects and 

awards. 

These features would provide a user with a realistic snapshot of 

government grant activity in a given fiscal year. The database would 

provide the user with the actual structuring of all grant expenditures 

under a given theme across all levels of government (vertically—from an 

appropriation bill to an individual award, and horizontally—across all 

agencies of the Federal government that administer a given theme-based 

activity). It does not require the user to know the appropriate agency, 

office, CFDA category or budget code to retrieve data. Such a grant search 

system would enable effective, tailored queries about specific issue areas 

such as disadvantaged youth, because the system would text search across 

all possible dimensions of government activity and include detailed 

descriptions of particular awards that have been administered in a given 

period. 

As soon as the significant and useful grants.gov initiative becomes 

fully operable, the last obstacle to creating a government-wide grant 

database system will disappear. This initiative aims to centralize grant 

reporting and administration across all agencies—the most important step 

in creating the database described in a previous section. With centralized 

FAIN coding, a user will be able to search to the lowest level of detail. A 

detailed search on “Bright Futures” or a broad issue search on 

“disadvantaged youth” has the maximum chance of successful retrieval of 

relevant past, present and future grant opportunities. 
Better Management 49 

Create a Resource Mapping Function for the Database 

The Task Force recommends that grantees of all Federal youth-serving 

programs be required to provide the zip codes or Geographic Information 

System (GIS) codes for all areas where they are providing services. 

Federal agencies have a strong need to know where the funds from all 

their programs, as well as similar or compatible programs in other 

departments, are being spent and for what purposes. This would involve 

requiring all youth-serving grantees from all agencies to report in an 

identical manner as to exactly where they are spending the Federal funds 

they received. One simple way to accomplish this might be through the 

requirement that all grantees report where they are offering services by 

zip code. We note that we are not referring to the zip code of the 

headquarters of the grantee (which is data that is already available), but 

rather the zip code(s) where exactly the services are being delivered. This 

requirement could be waived for those few grantees who are offering 

services statewide or nationwide, as long as the database makes that clear 

to the user. 

This resource-mapping process, done across all agencies, would be 

enormously useful to policymakers by allowing them to identify those 

communities where there is a dearth of needed services, as well as those 

locations that might be receiving overlapping funding for identical 

services. Nonprofit service providers who wish to apply for funds could 

use such a database to inform themselves about the services already 

available or lacking in their target area. This would help them design a 

better program of services, and would help those who decide which 

applicants receive the grant funds where the best places would be for the 

use of limited funds. The foundation community would find this useful 

because it would show them where they could help leverage their funds 

alongside or in place of government funds. State and local governments 

would have an easier way to determine where discretionary Federal funds 

are being spent within their area, which would improve their funding 

decision-making process as well. This last benefit is significant since the 

majority of funds coming from the Federal government to help 

disadvantaged youth go directly to the states via block or formula grants. 

The states then make funding decisions within their own jurisdictions. 

Research Eligibility of Faith-Based Grant Applicants 

The Task Force recommends that the Department Centers for FaithBased and Community Initiatives review the data from our Federal Youth 
Better Management 50

Programs Survey relating to the applicant eligibility of faith-based 

groups. The goal of these reviews is to determine the reasons for the 

reported apparent ineligibility of faith-based groups compared to 

nonprofit organizations, as reported by approximately half the Federal 

youth program managers. The Department Centers should then take any 

steps that they may determine are necessary to follow up with program 

officers within their agencies to ensure that it is clear that faith-based 

applicants are equally eligible to apply. 

For our April preliminary report, the Task Force developed the Federal 

Youth Programs Survey, which was designed to identify all Federal 

programs affecting youth ages 5 to 17.44 In the survey, agency program 

managers were asked to identify which types of organizations were 

eligible to apply for these youth grants. The possible responses to this 

question were and the frequency of their responses were reported as 

shown in Figure 1. 

Surprisingly, faith-based organizations were reported to be eligible to 

apply for only approximately half the number of programs for which all 

nonprofits were eligible. Normally, faith-based organizations should be 

eligible to apply for the same grant programs for which other nonprofit 

groups can apply.

Figure 1: Eligible Grantees for Youth-Serving Programs 

Type of Organization Number of Programs 

Nonprofit organization 201 

State government agencies 189 

Local government agencies 157 

Tribal organizations 155 

Institutions of higher education 138 

Territories 133 

Faith-based organizations 106 

Local education agencies (LEAs) 104 

State education agencies (SEAs) 97 

Individuals 31 

Source: White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, Federal Youth 

Programs Survey, Fiscal Year 2002 programs. 

On January 29, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13198, 

which established a national effort designed to empower and expand the 

ability of faith-based entities to deliver social services in order to better 

meet the social needs in their communities. The initiative was intended to 

guarantee that faith-based social service providers be able to compete for 

Federal grants on a level playing field with other organizations. At the 

same time, the President also ordered the creation of Centers for Faith-
Better Management 51 

Based and Community Initiatives in five Federal departments: Justice, 

Labor, Education, Health & Human Services, and Housing & Urban 

Development. A subsequent Executive Order issued December 12, 2002, 

added offices in the Department of Agriculture and in the Agency for 

International Development. Each of these seven department offices, 

working closely with the White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Community Initiatives, is charged with eliminating regulatory, 

contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of 

faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social 

services. They are to identify barriers and propose initiatives to remove 

those barriers. They are also to propose demonstration programs with the 

aim of coordinating a comprehensive department effort to incorporate 

faith-based groups in department programs and initiatives “to the greatest 

extent possible.” 

In a second Executive Order also issued on December 12, 2002, the 

President reaffirmed his commitment to distributing Federal grants in the 

“most effective and efficient manner” possible so that no religious 

organization that is otherwise qualified to deliver social services be 

discriminated against in the awarding of Federal grants and programs.45

With this in mind, the Task Force believes that the Department Centers 

for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives are in the best position to 

evaluate the information provided by the agency program officers and to 

determine what steps need to be taken to follow-up. 

Better Accountability 53

3 

Better Accountability: 

Producing Results, Not Just Promises 

Government likes to begin things—to declare grand new programs and 

causes. But good beginnings are not the measure of success. What matters 

in the end is completion. Performance. Results. Not just making promises, 

but making good on promises.46

 President George W. Bush

he public policy world of youth programs suffers from a credibility 

gap. While the will exists among the public to help young people 

address the many difficult problems they face, there is a lack of 

consensus as to how to do it successfully. Unfortunately, the 

Federal government has been ineffective in closing that gap in the public’s 

mind.47

Through the last four decades, there has been growing Federal 

involvement and a rapidly increasing infusion of funds to address 

numerous problems of youth, including substance abuse, violence, teen 

pregnancy, hunger and nutrition, school failure, and workforce 

preparation. In Fiscal Year 2003 alone, the Federal government will spend 

$223.5 billion to help needy children and their families, focusing on these 

and related issues (see Appendix D). State and local governments and 

private groups will contribute billions more. 

As the President has noted, the focus needs to be on achieving results. 

Part of the responsibility for this lack of focus on results lies in the fact that 

the Federal government has often made funding decisions without clear 

evidence that what it is attempting to do will actually work. Thus, public 

faith in the efficacy of social programs to successfully address youth 

failure has eroded. They wonder, what really works? How can we know? 

This is important because, as Gary Walker of Public/Private Ventures has 

noted, “even the most perfect solution, if there were such a creature, needs 

to be recognized and believed in, in order to be adopted as durable 

T
Better Accountability 54 

policy.”48

This section of our report includes recommendations for how the 

Federal government can strengthen its role in research and evaluation of 

youth programs. With these recommendations, we insist that, from this 

point on, the Federal government commit to a coherent and 

comprehensive plan designed to identify with confidence and adopt 

those practices that will successfully help youth. 

One of the most significant roles the Federal government plays in the 

social services arena is in supporting research and program evaluation. 

These, along with performance measurement, are central to any effort 

designed to strengthen and improve Federally funded youth programs, 

while infusing a culture of accountability and responsibility throughout 

the administration and management of critical Federal investments. 

In general, evaluations estimate the impacts of programs by comparing 

the difference between the outcomes for individuals receiving a service or 

participating in a program to the outcomes for similar individuals who do 

not. In contrast, performance measures capture ongoing progress towards 

meeting program objectives. Ongoing (at least annual) program 

performance assessments should be supplemented with more in-depth, 

rigorous evaluation studies that measure the particular impact of a youth 

serving program and can attribute the impact to the program. 

While evaluation and performance measurement both include data 

collection and measurement of progress, evaluations use scientificallybased research methods to systematically investigate the effectiveness of 

programs by comparing the observed program outcomes with what 

would have happened in the absence of the program. Together, highquality evaluation and performance measurement can provide Federal 

agencies that oversee youth-serving programs with the tools to determine 

whether or not the intended intervention worked (evaluation) and 

whether the intervention is achieving its desired objectives on an ongoing 

basis (performance measurement) . 

The focus of the Task Force here was in two areas. First, we had broad 

consensus on the need to improve the Federal role in helping to 

understand “what works.” Second, we also recognized that, with a 

Federal investment in youth-serving programs of hundreds of billions of 

dollars annually, we needed to firmly hold programs accountable for 

achieving the goals and objectives they have set out for themselves. The 

Task Force recommendations reflect those two beliefs. 
Better Accountability 55 

UNDERSTANDING WHAT WORKS 

The Task Force has developed several recommendations aimed at 

improving the quality of the information we have about what works to 

improve youth outcomes. The first recommendation (in several parts) 

addresses our concern that we create a more consistent set of guidelines 

for assessing the quality of program evaluations across agencies. The 

second puts forth a suggested road map for guiding the direction of future 

Federally supported research on youth programs, and the third offers a 

suggestion on improving national survey data collection. 

Develop a Unified Protocol for Federal “What Works” Clearinghouses 

The Task Force recommends that a committee of the relevant Federal 

agencies develop a consistent approach to the assessment of youth 

program and policy evaluations, including the development of protocols. 

Random assignment experiments are considered the “gold standard” of 

evaluation because they can most clearly attribute outcomes to 

interventions. The Task Force strongly recognizes this gold standard and 

believes those evaluations should be given the greatest weight in shaping 

what we know about what works. Because individual agencies have 

different needs, the protocols need not be identical, just sufficiently 

consistent so that materials and findings can be shared among agencies 

with relative ease. 

Many Federal agencies have developed research-based efforts to 

identify youth programs that “work,” broadly called “‘What Works’ 

Clearinghouses.” For example, the Department of Education maintains the 

“What Works Clearinghouse,”49 the Department of Justice the “Blueprints 

for Violence Prevention” program,50 the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has the “National Registry of 

Effective Programs” (NREP)51 and the CDC supports the “Community 

Guide to Preventive Services“52 and the Prevention Evaluation Research 

Registry for Youth (PERRY)53. 

Whatever the name of such efforts, the idea is the same: social science 

findings should guide government decisions about which programs to 

support and at what funding levels, the content of technical assistance, 

and additional research that is needed. In fact, making government 

decisions more evidence-based should be a major priority in this area. 

Relatively few youth programs supported by the Federal government 

meet this test.54
Better Accountability 56 

Unfortunately for most “what works” efforts, many believe there is not 

a sufficiently large body of research (or evaluation) that has established 

the effectiveness of a relatively broad set of youth programs (or 

approaches) upon which important program choices can be based. Some 

studies of youth programs are not of sufficient rigor, and many of those 

that are have limited applicability that cannot be the sole bases of broad 

policy planning. Broad generalizations going beyond the findings on a 

particular program are unwarranted, but revision and redirection within 

that program may be supported by a strong study. The problem is that too 

few promising programs have been independently evaluated using 

rigorous designs. 

Jodie Roth and her colleagues describe the limitations of this research: 

“The review of the evaluation literature highlights the paucity of high 

quality outcome evaluations of programs fitting the youth development 

framework. As noted previously, little improvement in the state of 

program evaluation has occurred since the 1992 Carnegie Report... 

Nationally, strong interest in expanding adolescents’ access to youth 

development programs exists. However, the current mismatch between 

the enthusiasm for these programmatic efforts and the empirical evidence 

calls into question the effectiveness of such efforts.”55 Rob Hollister adds, 

“what do we know about what works—our answer has to be: not much.”56

As a result, the Task Force believes we must commit to increasing the 

number of high quality evaluation studies that employ random 

assignment, the most reliable evaluation method available. One way to 

encourage more attention to the most credible evidence is to provide 

guidance on criteria that determines what is “most credible” and why 

some studies do not rank as high-quality. The criteria need to be used in 

agency assessments of evidence concerning particular programs. The 

assessments should have fully and clearly articulated criteria, and the 

overall review process should be transparent and open so that others may 

understand judgments made in the assessment. The results of these efforts 

must be provided in a format that is accessible to program staff and policy 

makers. 

Federal agencies are beginning to develop such “what works” efforts. 

Reflecting their recent origins, most of these “what works” efforts are still 

in their formative stages, with individual agencies now grappling with 

how best to proceed. Reflecting the fact that they have been developed 

largely from within specific Federal agencies, they often lack common 

terminology and methodologies. To some extent, of course, such diversity 

is needed to reflect each agency’s specific needs, disciplinary framework, 
Better Accountability 57

and statutory and programmatic context. Nevertheless, greater 

commonality would facilitate the sharing of information among Federal 

agencies and with the public, and would allow Federal agencies to build 

on each other’s efforts. 

Below, we outline two steps in establishing a more unified Federal 

protocol: (1) identifying what types of programs and evaluations should 

be included in Federal “what works” clearinghouses (2) developing the 

process for assessing evaluations. 

Step 1. Agency protocols should identify the types of programs 

whose evaluations should be assessed and specify the evaluation 

methodologies that are acceptable. 

A first order question is what kinds of evaluations or research studies 

should be included in a “what works clearinghouse.” The short answer is: 

all the evaluations that would give a full picture of what is known about 

the effectiveness of youth programs. That means evaluations with 

sufficient scientific rigor, whether or not they show that a program or 

policy “works” or “does not work.” 

Each agency should develop a system for assessing the evaluations of 

the programs and policies under its jurisdiction and establishing a 

priority-setting system for deciding which evaluations to assess. For 

programs or policies that cross agencies, joint or coordinated efforts 

should be considered. 

Below we provide an overview of the types of evaluation 

methodologies that might be included in a protocol. 

Random assignment experiments. Unfortunately, many studies that 

seek to evaluate the effectiveness of youth programs do not have causal 

validity, that is, their design does not support causal inferences. 

Many social welfare programs look successful—to their own staffs as 

well as to outsiders—because their clients seem to be doing so well. A 

substantial proportion of trainees, for example, may have found jobs after 

having gone through a particular program. But did they get their jobs 

because of the program, or would they have gotten them anyway? 

In actuality, any number of factors, however, could have caused the 

observed result: The economy may have improved, making more jobs 

available (and perhaps increasing the demand for low-skilled workers); 
Better Accountability 58 

the participants may have been especially amenable to help (or not 

amenable); or they may have gotten their jobs because of the passage of 

time (and perhaps the normal process of maturation). Determining what 

would have happened in the absence of the program or policy is the 

central task of impact evaluation. To do so, researchers try to establish the 

“counterfactual,” that is, they try to see what happened to a similar group 

that was not subject to the program or policy. 

Most social scientists believe that experimental designs are the best 

way to measure a program or policy’s impact—because they can have 

high causal validity. Classical experimental design typically involves 

random assignment of individuals, families, or other units of analysis to a 

specific condition, i.e., either (1) a “program group,”57 whose members can 

take part in the program or are subject to the policy, or (2) a “control 

group,”58 whose members do not. The experience of the control group, 

thus, is meant to represent what would have happened absent the 

program or policy, that is, the counterfactual. 

If properly conducted, and with sample of sufficient size, random 

assignment should result in statistically comparable program and control 

groups, that is, groups whose aggregate characteristics (measurable and 

immeasurable) are comparable (within the limits of chance variation). This 

similarity means that the two groups are likely to be exposed to the same 

outside forces and to respond to those forces in similar ways, so that any 

subsequent differences in average outcomes can be attributed to the 

program or policy—to a known degree of statistical precision. This ability 

to rule out other causes gives randomized experiments a high degree of 

causal validity.59 

Because experimental designs ordinarily do not require complex 

statistical adjustments to eliminate differences between program and 

control groups, they gain a credibility (and accessibility) that gives their 

results substantial influence over policy. Policymakers can then focus on 

the implications of findings, rather than “become entangled in a 

protracted and often inconclusive scientific debate about whether the 

findings of a particular study are statistically valid.”60 For example, the 

evaluations of welfare-to-work programs conducted by Manpower 

Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) in the 1980s—which used 

experimental designs—are widely credited with having shaped the 

Family Support Act of 1988.61 So, too, in the 1990s, for the Abt Associates 

evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program.62 As a 

result, experimental designs are increasingly used to evaluate a wide 

range of social programs and policies.63
Better Accountability 59

The superior causal validity of randomized experiments has led most 

experts in program evaluation to call them the “gold standard” of 

evaluation. The Task Force strongly recognizes this gold standard and 

believes those evaluations should be given the greatest weight in 

shaping what we know about what works. 

Of course, the credibility of a particular randomized experiment 

depends on its being well implemented. Hence, the Task Force 

recommends that protocols examine (1) the quality of the randomization 

to ascertain the credibility of the impact estimates and (2) the evaluation’s 

generalizability to other circumstances. 

Nonexperimental evaluations. Another kind of evaluation is called 

“nonexperimental,” and sometimes “quasi-experiment.”64 In nonexperimental evaluations, the counterfactual is established by identifying 

a “comparison”65 group (for example, persons not participating in the 

program or from another site, another time, or a data set) whose members 

are not subject to the program or policy but are nevertheless thought to be 

similar to those in the program group. 

The most common nonexperimental designs compare program 

participants before and after a program or policy change (pre-post 

comparison) or program participants to nonparticipants, to individuals 

from other geographic areas (comparison sites),66 to individuals from 

different time periods, and to individuals drawn from secondary data sets. 

Aggregate data is often used to compare changes in outcomes over time or 

across geographic areas. 

The major disadvantage of nonexperimental evaluations is that they 

have uncertain causal validity, at best. Put simply, the members of the 

comparison groups may differ substantially in some unmeasured or 

undetectable ways from those who have been exposed to the particular 

program or policy. Typically, nonexperimental designs employ statistical 

analyses to control for such differences, but how well they do so is open to 

debate. As Rob Hollister cautions: “Without random assignment there is 

always the chance that there will be a concentration within the program 

participant group of those with characteristics that affect the outcome 

(e.g., the program participants may be more motivated than those who are 

in the comparison group). To the extent that those characteristics are 

measured it is possible to control for their effects with statistical models. It 

is the unmeasured, or unmeasurable, characteristics (like motivation) which 

create the bias problem.”(italics provided by the author)67 
Better Accountability 60 

Researchers deal with selection bias through careful regression 

analysis that statistically controls for a variety of background variables. 

Examples of common background characteristics include age, sex, income, 

education, and family status. But even in the best circumstances, such 

methods cannot capture all of the differences between the two groups, 

because no data set has information on all the characteristics that may 

affect the outcomes being examined. All studies are missing some 

variables of interest. As a result, there is always some uncertainty 

regarding the causal validity of nonexperimental evaluations. 

Selection is an especially difficult problem in the evaluation of youth 

programs. The decision a young person makes to participate is voluntary. 

So by definition, only the motivated apply, and that motivation cannot be 

reliably modeled by nonexperimental techniques. This voluntary selection 

by the participant is further complicated by selection of participants by 

program operators creating a process that cannot be reliably duplicated at 

this time using nonexperimental methods. 

Consequently, some literature reviews, meta-analyses, and “what 

works” efforts completely exclude nonexperimental evaluations from 

their assessments.68 This is problematic for several reasons. First, there are 

relatively few experimental evaluations of youth programs,69 so that 

relying solely on them would provide less information about promising 

programs or approaches. In addition, there are cases in which studies 

labeled as randomized experiments often, on closer examination, turn out 

to be something less.70 Second, because of ethical issues, randomized 

experiments ordinarily cannot be used to evaluate full-coverage 

programs, while nonexperimental ones can. Randomized experiments that 

involve denying a service to someone who is otherwise entitled to it 

cannot be conducted.71 Third, when coupled with randomized 

experiments, nonexperimental evaluations can provide supportive and 

enriching information about the program or policy being evaluated. 

Therefore, the protocol should explicitly address whether 

nonexperimental evaluations will be assessed—and under what 

conditions and with what limitations. 

Programs or policies that “do not work.” Some literature reviews and 

“what works” efforts appear to include only those programs or policies 

that seem to work, and they exclude evaluations that show no statistically 

significant effects, small effects, negative effects, or effects that do not last. 
Better Accountability 61

For example, one assessment of the evidence on the impact of youth 

development programming included only those evaluations that showed 

“evidence of behavioral outcomes.”72 Rob Hollister laments that “this 

means that well designed evaluations that found no statistically significant 

impact were not reported. I believe the exclusion of evaluations where 

there was no statistically significant impact was a mistake, as it is 

important for us to learn what doesn’t work as well as what does work.”73

The Task Force agrees. 

For example, if there were ten studies of a particular approach to youth 

training and only one study found that the program “worked” (based on a 

10 percent level of statistical significance), including only that finding in a 

review of “what works” would give the approach too much credibility 

because just by chance, one in ten studies are likely to show significant 

effects.74 In other words, it is important to know whether a particular 

program or policy that has been tested “worked” in ten studies out of ten, 

or just one out of ten. Including just those studies with positive effects 

obscures this point. 

Even evaluations that find no effect or a negative effect can offer 

important lessons. Was the program poorly implemented? Did 

control/comparison group members have easy access to similar services? 

Were there defects in the evaluation that could affect the findings? Were 

there effects for some subgroups, even if there are no statistically 

significant effects overall? Answers to these questions can lead to 

refinements and further testing. Before ruling out a particular approach, it 

is also important to determine whether similar findings have come up in 

replications. If so, the research can point to program approaches or 

policies that should not be replicated. This information can be critically 

important to policymakers and practitioners, as they examine ways to 

improve their policies. 

Meta-analyses. Another means of assessing the effects of a program or 

policy is a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical procedure for 

combining the results from individual studies, even those with conflicting 

findings and different evaluation approaches, into a single study with an 

integrated set of findings.75 It can lead to stronger findings of effects, 

because it often combines evaluations with small samples and thereby 

increases the statistical power of the analysis. 

Meta-analysis is frequently used in medical research, where 

interventions and outcome variables tend to be clearly defined, but where 

clinical trials often involve relatively small samples. As a result, some 
Better Accountability 62 

successful treatments may not appear to be effective, because their 

evaluation samples were too small to detect anything but the biggest 

impacts. (This is known as a Type II error, erroneously accepting a finding 

of no effect.) Even if they have statistically significant effects, they may 

have such wide confidence intervals, that the possible range of 

effectiveness is very large and different studies may have very different 

findings. The added statistical power that comes with a meta-analysis can 

transform a series of evaluations with no statistically significant effects 

into an overall finding with a statistically significant effect and, because 

the confidence intervals become smaller, the overall result trend tends to 

look more precise. 

A meta-analysis involves several steps. First, the purpose of the 

analysis and the questions to be addressed are determined. Second, the 

evaluations that address the purpose are identified. Third, the data from 

each evaluation are collected and coded. This includes information on the 

outcomes to be examined, as well as the characteristics of the evaluations 

and programs themselves. Fourth, the outcomes are transformed into a 

common metric—an effect size—so that they can be compared across 

evaluations. (An effect size is the standardized difference between 

program and control/comparison group mean outcomes.) Finally, the 

data are statistically combined to determine overall program effects. 

Second, the programs in a meta-analysis often have different design 

features, often are aimed at different target groups, and often are carried 

out in different environments, making it more difficult to discern which 

aspects of the programs studied are responsible for their effects. This may 

be particularly true with most social programs, where the 

implementation, services provided, and other program characteristics can 

vary tremendously from program to program. Proponents of the metaanalysis approach argue that the analysis can take these differences into 

account by including them in the statistical model, but this adds another 

layer of uncertainty and subjectivity to the process. 

Despite these shortcomings, meta-analysis is very important tool when 

done carefully. As described above, randomized trials seldom are strictly 

statistically representative, and thus large numbers of trials are necessary 

to achieve reasonably generalizable results. Meta-analysis is an important 

method for synthesizing trials, because, if done with care and 

transparency, it represents a more objective way of summarizing studies 

than more qualitative approaches. 
Better Accountability 63

Step 2. Agency protocols should establish a formal process of 

evaluation that specifies the criteria for assessment and the levels of 

evidence available. The process should have written guidelines and 

data collection instruments, and it should be open, transparent and 

subject to outside review. 

Evaluations can go wrong in many ways. Some have such obvious 

faults that almost anyone can detect them. Other flaws can be detected—

and properly assessed—only by experts with long experience and high 

levels of judgment. Hence, the proposed protocol recommends an 

intensive inquiry into the quality of the evaluation. 

Criteria for assessments. In recent years, various evaluations have 

sought to determine the effectiveness of particular youth programs. Many 

of these evaluations provide important information about the impact of 

such programs, but most also have serious flaws that sharply limit their 

usefulness. Hence, the proper use of these evaluations requires 

distinguishing relevant and valid findings from those that are not. 

Whether an evaluation uses an experimental or nonexperimental 

design, a host of questions must be answered before deciding that its 

findings should be accepted. This inquiry should be based on the 

generally accepted criteria for judging evaluations.76 See Appendix A for 

suggested criteria. 

Specified levels of evidence. Given the wide range in the quality of 

evaluations, and the limited number in many important areas of youth 

policy, the assessment process needs to distinguish among levels of 

evidence and, based on the level of evidence, indicate the appropriate use 

of the findings. The categories might be, for example, “strongly supported 

by research,” “somewhat supported by the research,” “no research on the 

subject,” “somewhat negated by the research,” and “strongly negated by 

the research.” There might also be additional categories like “supported 

by theory and available data” and “negated by theory and available data.” 

A formal process. The assessment process needs to be 

institutionalized, with standard procedures to encourage unbiased 

treatment. This includes clear guidelines about collecting and interpreting 

data concerning the research, ordinarily pursuant to written instruments. 

(To the extent feasible, the information or documents to be collected 

should include the evaluation’s sampling plan, data collection plan, 

evaluation plan, all interim and final reports (including appendices), and 

any other publications by the evaluators themselves or by other 
Better Accountability 64 

commentators writing about the evaluation.) There should also be 

provision for the systematic sharing of information among agencies. 

The Department of Education’s “What Works” Clearinghouse, for 

example, follows a standardized process. Each year, it selects general 

“topic areas,” or categories that it would like to evaluate during the 

coming year (e.g., “Programs for Increasing Adult Literacy” or 

“Curriculum-Based Interventions for Increasing K-12 Math 

Achievement”).77 It then accepts nominations of interventions and 

evaluations to be reviewed that fall under the topic areas. The Evidence 

Report Team then evaluates each intervention using the Study Design and 

Implementation Assessment Device (Study DIAD) and then the Cumulative 

Research Assessment Device (CREAD), and writes an Evidence Report 

synthesizing this information.78

Open and transparent. The assessment process needs to be open and 

transparent to outsiders, with the presentation of detailed data about the 

research and the reasons for the assessment given. 

Thus, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Consensus 

Development Conference (CDC) Program convenes conferences to discuss 

“controversial issues in medicine important to health care providers, 

patients, and the general public.”79 These conferences include a two-day 

session, open to the public, with presentations of research by scientific 

experts and a period of questions and comments by the attendees. The 

end result of the conference is a “consensus statement that advances 

understanding of the technology or issue in question... and that will be 

useful to health professionals and the public.”80 The results of this report 

are released to the public during a press conference, and are then made 

available in web and print versions. 

Outside review. The process should be subject to review by outside 

experts, post-publication debate, and revision. The principal investigator 

of any evaluation assessed should have the opportunity to submit 

materials or comments. 

As part of NIH’s Consensus Development Conference, the information 

presented by scientific experts is reviewed and evaluated by a panel of 

between nine and sixteen members from outside NIH, ranging from other 

scientists in the field to health professionals.81 The panel then drafts the 

consensus statement based on the research presented, presents it to 

conference attendees for comment, and revises the statement prior to 

release of the findings. Final panel revisions continue following the 
Better Accountability 65

conference, and the statement is published by NIH’s Office of Medical 

Applications of Research (OMAR) and often by a medical journal.82

Build a Rigorous and Unified Disadvantaged Youth Research Agenda

The Task Force recommends that a cross-agency research agenda based 

on large, randomized field trials be created and implemented to assess the 

effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for disadvantaged 

youth. The design of these field trials must be based on comprehensive, 

systematic reviews of previous trials, and supported within existing 

program resources. 

Although some programs for disadvantaged youth have been 

evaluated, the evaluations have been conducted quite independently with 

little attempt to draw more general lessons about what makes a program 

effective or not. As mentioned earlier, many programs have not been the 

subjects of high quality evaluations, with too many evaluations being 

under-funded, poorly designed and rarely based on random assignment. 

A comprehensive and unified research agenda that can yield credible 

knowledge about how to improve outcomes for disadvantaged youth 

must begin with a thorough and systematic assessment of the programs 

that have been evaluated with random assignment 

The following describes a series of actions that should be taken to 

pursue the goal of a unified Federal research agenda: 

1. Create a comprehensive catalog of high quality randomized trials that 

have been conducted for disadvantaged youth. In order for the catalog 

to be comprehensive, not only programs like Job Corps whose sole 

target population is disadvantaged youth should be included, but also 

many other programs where disadvantaged youth have been a large 

enough sub-population to analyze separately. For example, David 

Olds’ Nurse Home Visiting program in Elmira had many large 

significant effects, but only for young, never married low-income 

mothers, i.e., disadvantaged youth83. In addition, determine what trials 

are currently underway to avoid duplicating their efforts. 

2. Catalog what systematic reviews have already been conducted to 

synthesize subsets of these trials. Systematic reviews should be based 

on a well-specified protocol that includes a thorough and 

comprehensive search for all randomized trials, clear standards for 

inclusion and exclusion of studies, and transparent methods for coding 

and synthesizing the included studies. Where possible, meta-analysis 
Better Accountability 66 

or other formal, quantitative methods should be used to conduct the 

synthesis, but where this is not possible, transparent and objective 

narrative methods should be employed. 

3. Determine what further systematic reviews need to be conducted in 

order to maximize the knowledge we can extract from existing 

randomized trials. After conducting these reviews, a comprehensive 

effort should be made to identify gaps in what is known. In addition, 

hypotheses should be generated not only through examining the 

systematic reviews of experimental findings, but also by looking at 

other research and theory. For example, one could examine the 

success/failure of more targeted versus more comprehensive 

interventions, or whether programs that create relationships between 

disadvantaged youth and significant adults (through formal mentors 

or otherwise) are likely to be effective. 

4. Use the above results and other information to formulate key 

questions to be addressed in further experiments. These experiments 

could include replication of approaches that the evidence suggested 

were effective, program and research designs specifically formulated 

to answer unanswered questions, or other approaches that could shed 

light on broad issues of what makes a program for disadvantaged 

youth effective. 

5. As part of these experiments, an effort should be made to develop a 

reasonably uniform set of research sample characteristic measurements 

and outcome measures that could be used across the experiments. 

These would augment measures that were needed to assess the 

particular intervention, e.g., in a drug treatment program there would 

presumably be more intensive measurement of participation in the 

treatment and assessment of subsequent substance abuse. It would be 

important to develop a broad set of measures given that past 

experiments suggest that critical impacts may occur in areas not 

directly related to the treatment. Both strengths and risk factors should 

be measured. 

6. Develop a set of strategies to engage program partners in conducting 

the experiments. These could range from tying Federal program funds 

to cooperation with experimental evaluation to setting requirements 

for experimental evaluation into statute and providing funding for 

them as part of program authorizations. The Chaffee Independent 

Living evaluation would be one place to look84. 
Better Accountability 67

7. Do all of the above in the context of a cross-agency team, all of whom 

are individuals committed to conducting rigorous evaluations, 

including experimental evaluations. 

Improve Data Collected on the Well-being of Families 

The Task Force recommends that the Federal government seek 

opportunities to improve the quality of data collected on families in the 

national data collection systems in order to better monitor the well-being 

of families, track problems, identify how populations are changing, and 

provide direction with agenda-setting. 

In the past several years, national survey data and research have 

reinforced the now popular adage that “parents matter.” Children who 

are raised in two-parent families are at less risk for poor health and 

economic outcomes. Beyond family structure, nurturing parent-child 

relationships have been shown to be tremendously protective against 

adolescent risk-taking behaviors. While we are increasing our 

understanding of the roles parents play in their children’s lives, we have 

limited nationally representative data documenting family structure and 

functioning. 

National indicator data is important if we are to assess the well-being 

of our country’s population. Indicators distill large amounts of 

information and data into usable statistical values that, taken together, 

provide information on the population of interest. As a result, indicators 

are a useful way to track problems, identify how populations are changing 

and affected and provide direction with agenda-setting. This is true with 

all kinds of indicators, economic as well as social. We gather a number of 

economic indicators, but we have few indicators that monitor the wellbeing of our families. 

In following the development of a family, we first should seek to 

improve the data on couple formation. In December 2001, the Federal 

Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics sponsored a conference 

entitled Counting Couples to explore improving the measurement and 

collection of information about couples. This conference resulted in 

numerous recommendations for data on marriage, divorce, remarriage 

and cohabitation. Several of these recommendations are being pursued by 

divisions within HHS. Currently, the HHS Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Administration for Children and 

Families and the National Center for Health Statistics have a joint effort to 
Better Accountability 68 

analyze alternatives for developing a complete and systematic approach 

to generating data on marriage and divorce. 

Having documented national rates of marriage, the next step is to 

better understand the internal and external functioning of families once 

they have been formed. ASPE is supporting work to improve indicators of 

family connection. This project is expanding current work in the area of 

indicator development to consider measures such as family living 

arrangements, as well as measures that provide greater social context such 

as religiosity, family functioning, community interaction and 

volunteerism. The result of this project will be a chart book of 25 data 

elements currently being collected on the family, as well as papers 

exploring options for new measures. Examples of papers are analyses of 

measures of family time and cultural variations in family connection. 

The Task Force recommends that the Federal statistical agencies seek 

to explore ways to integrate new family measures (such as family 

structure, formation and functioning) in their national surveys. 

HOLDING PROGRAMS ACCOUNTABLE FOR RESULTS 

 Providing funds to grantees in order to support proven interventions 

does not in itself guarantee results. Youth programs must implement 

these programs correctly and must monitor service delivery and program 

outcomes. Currently, similar youth programs rarely have similar 

performance measures in their Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) plans, and nearly half do not measure performance measures at 

all.85 

In this section we present recommendations for developing and 

implementing common youth program performance standards and 

measures. We suggest that these serve as a starting point for discussion 

and consensus-building among various stakeholders. This process, once 

completed, will allow policymakers to compare the outcomes of similar 

programs, no matter which agency they are in. It would also facilitate 

considerations of program consolidation, redirection of resources, and 

elimination of ineffective programs, where appropriate. In the interest of 

improving our ability to document the results of Federal investments, we 

also offer recommendations on addressing earmarks, and implementing 

the principles of the No Child Left Behind Act in Department of Defense 

schools. 
Better Accountability 69

Develop Standards for Measuring Grantee Performance 

The Task Force recommends the development of uniform standards for 

measuring grantee performance for all Federal agencies that manage 

youth-serving programs. While it outlines a process for developing and 

implementing standard measures, the Task Force understands this is an 

ambitious goal and will likely require a sustained effort over time, 

including pilot testing and incremental implementation. 

In developing examples of common GPRA-type performance 

measures, the Task Force focused on the following ten service areas: 

• Alcohol abuse 

• Drug abuse 

• Tobacco use 

• Violence/crime (e.g., juvenile delinquency and school violence) 

• Sexual risk behavior 

• Academic performance 

• Community service 

• Substance abuse treatment 

• Self-sufficiency skills 

• Mental health 

The Task Force sought to identify key performance measures 

applicable to multiple Federal programs, including programs in different 

Federal agencies. This recommendation does not identify nationwide 

measures for use in assessing and tracking the overall condition of 

disadvantaged youth in the United States. However, many of the 

performance measures that appear relevant to comparing outcomes of 

individual programs are variations of measures appropriate for tracking 

nationwide status. In such instances, the national data can be used as 

benchmarks against which to compare the findings from individual 

programs. However, when national measures are considered, it is 

important to remember that questions about risk-taking behaviors that are 

asked anonymously in national surveys may be inappropriate in a 

program setting. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2004 budget adopted a set of common 

performance measures for the major Federal job training programs. Seven 

programs identified the following measures for job training programs for 

youth and lifelong learning: (1) placement in employment or education, 

(2) attainment of a degree or certificate, (3) literacy and numeracy gains, 

and (4) program efficiency. With common terms and definitions across 
Better Accountability 70 

programs, states and local areas managing multiple programs will be able 

to use a simplified format and measurement system for reporting 

performance. 

We provide recommendations for establishing a process to identify 

additional common performance measures, while achieving agreement 

among various Federal agencies on the resulting set of common measures. 

It is also important to note that many central areas of concern for 

disadvantaged youth are not included in the areas addressed below. 

These include such areas as family financial well-being, physical health, 

parental guidance/family support, abuse, foster care and living/housing 

conditions and employment. Instead, our emphasis has been on outcome

measures, but we have also included a small number of output measures, 

particularly “number of clients served,” and efficiency measures (defined 

as the ratio of cost in dollars or employee-time to amount of output—or 

the much truer measure of efficiency, the ratio of cost to the amount of 

outcome). Outputs, however, it should be noted, provide little, if any, 

information on the results of the service. 

Figure 2: Definitions Used in This Report 

• Input: Resources (expenditures or employee time) used to produce 

outputs and outcomes. 

• Output: Products and services delivered. Outputs are completed 

products of internal activity: the amount of work done within the agency 

or program or by its grantees or contractors (such as number of 

prevention classes or counseling sessions provided). 

• Outcome: An event, occurrence, or condition that is outside the activity 

or program itself and is of direct importance to program customers or the 

public generally. Service quality is also included under this category. 

• Intermediate Outcome: An outcome that is expected to lead to a desired 

end but is not an end in itself (such as service response time, which is of 

concern to the customer making a call or requesting a service, but does 

not tell anything directly about the success of the call or request). A 

program may have multiple intermediate outcomes. 

• End Outcome: The end result that is sought (such as reduced incidence of 

disease or substance abuse, or improved academic performance). A 

program may have more than one end outcome. 
Better Accountability 71

• Outcome Indicator: An outcome indicator is a numerical measure of the 

amount or frequency of a particular outcome. 

• Performance Indicator: A quantifiable measurement for one aspect of 

performance (e.g., output or outcome) under consideration. 

The next section discusses the potential major uses for performance 

measures. The following section identifies a number of problems and 

issues in selecting common measures. We then present suggestions for 

specific measures as a starting point for debate among the various 

stakeholders. The final section provides recommendations on a process for 

obtaining agreement on a common set of performance measures, 

including the identification of additional measures and long-run 

institutionalization of the process. 

Potential Uses for Common Performance Measures 

The overall purpose is to use the information obtained on the common 

set of performance measures to help improve the quality of life for 

disadvantaged children. More specifically, comparative data on the 

measures will hopefully help both program managers and Federal 

officials with broader responsibilities do the following: 

• Identify which programs are being successful in improving the 

lives of disadvantaged youth, encouraging those types of 

programs; 

• Provide information on service delivery characteristics associated 

with greater levels of success, or conversely associated with low 

success; 

• Identify specific youth problem areas that need special attention; 

• Identify less successful programs that warrant attention, such as 

program modifications, reduced funding, etc.; 

• Provide an improved basis for setting Federal targets for the 

measures; 

• Help make budget choices among programs. When costs can be 

related to outcomes, the relative cost effectiveness of programs can 

be better assessed. However, performance and cost data by 
Better Accountability 72 

themselves are seldom sufficient for making budget decisions. 

Depending on the circumstances, for example, the best decision on 

a program with unsuccessful outcomes might be to add funds. 

Similarly, the best decision on a program with highly successful 

outcomes might be to reduce its funding. 

• Identify the need for coordination and cooperation among certain 

programs and help encourage such cooperation; 

• Identify instances where consolidation of programs is appropriate; 

• Motivate individual programs and their staffs to improve, whether 

to catch up or stay ahead of other programs; 

• Provide more information to the public regarding progress in these 

youth programs. 

Potential Limitations and Issues with Common Measures 

The concept of regularly reporting data on a common set of measures 

that provides accurate and fair comparisons across programs that have 

similar objectives is very attractive. While the concept also appears at first 

to be easy to implement, many problems and issues exist that can make 

effective implementation quite difficult. Following are a variety of 

problems and issues, with suggestions for how to alleviate or address 

them: 

1. The definition of a “program.” Which “programs” should be asked 

to use the common measures? No formal definition exists to our 

knowledge. The set of programs identified in Appendix III of the 

Task Force’s April, 2003 Preliminary Report could be used as a 

good a starting point. 

2. Different programs will frequently have at least somewhat different 

client groups, making accurate comparisons difficult. Program 

clients may differ on such characteristics as age, gender, 

race/ethnicity, problem type and history. One possible way to 

alleviate this problem is to group such programs by client 

characteristics to allow more valid comparisons. Ask programs to 

provide breakouts by such characteristics, in addition to providing 

aggregate data. 
Better Accountability 73

3. The term “disadvantaged youth” will need to be defined more 

precisely, not an easy task. 

4. Programs already collecting data on performance measures may be 

measuring the same basic outcome in different ways. Requiring 

these programs to change their measurements will cause a break in 

their time series for the data, as well as add cost to conducting the 

new measurement. The selection of common measures should not 

constrain programs from using whatever measures they find 

useful. The need is only to identify a small set of measures for 

which the definitions and data collection are reasonably 

standardized. 

5. Some of the most important measures may require new data 

collection procedures. In particular, to assess the success of many 

programs seeking to help disadvantaged youth, these programs are 

likely to need to follow up on former clients at some period of time, 

such as 12 months later. Some precedent exists for such follow-ups, 

such as the Department of Labor’s requirements for such followups on youth and adult clients of job training programs and HHS 

requirement for post-service follow ups for some substance abuse 

treatment programs. (Obtaining such feedback should become a 

regular part of program management.) 

6. The data to be collected often will need to come from state or local 

government agencies. This complicates implementation considerably. In these instances, state and local governments should be 

asked for their input, and, preferably, be included as a partner in 

the data collection, analysis and dissemination process. 

7. Much of the data on youth outcomes are “national” in scope rather 

than being linked to specific Federal programs. These national data 

(even if broken out by state) provide very important national 

aggregates. However, they say little if anything about the 

effectiveness of individual Federal programs. Seek performance 

measures that provide feedback on the particular clients of 

individual programs. Where this is not practical, emphasize the 

joint ownership by many programs of the aggregate outcome 

measure. Encourage the notion that programs sharing the same 

outcome measures are partners in a performance partnership. 

8. The tendency to want to separate one’s own agency from results 

that do not look good, rather than considering common outcomes 
Better Accountability 74 

measures as a joint partnership among those agencies that 

contribute to the outcome. Outcome data uses that encourage 

constructive program improvement should be emphasized. Avoid 

assigning blame to programs or individuals, at least until 

explanations have been sought, including identification of 

contributory external factors, as well as internal factors. 

Candidates for Common Core Measures 

This section presents a number of suggested cross-cutting performance 

measures applicable to most, if not all, service areas. The first set of these 

measures addresses output and efficiency; the other addresses outcomes. 

Output and Efficiency Measures 

 The following are a small number of suggested cross-cutting 

performance measures that measure outputs and efficiency but not 

outcomes: Such output and efficiency measures are useful but say nothing 

about the results of the services. They should not be used in place of 

outcome measures. 

1. Number of clients served. This is an output measure. This measure is 

common to most, if not all, youth programs. How many youth did the 

program attempt to help? 

Although this measure says nothing about the outcomes of the service, 

it has other important uses. The data provides perspective about the 

number of clients that individual programs are attempting to help. 

This measurement is also needed as the denominator for both 

efficiency measures and for outcome measures that are expressed as 

percent of clients with successful outcomes. This measure will likely be 

widely acceptable to programs providing services, since it is familiar 

and many, if not most, programs are likely to have data on the number 

of clients served. 

If this measure and the following two measures are used, ground rules 

are desirable as to the minimum amount of service provided to an 

individual client before that client should be included in the 

measurement. (For example, should youth who came in the door of a 

program only to pick up a pamphlet, or who only called to learn the 

location of the program but never came in, or who only participated in 

one event, be included in the counts?) Another issue is determining 
Better Accountability 75

whether the measurements should be of the number of different clients

rather than the number of visits or services received. 

The caution in the use of the measure “number of clients served” is 

that too much emphasis on it as a performance measure can lead 

programs to focus on quantity rather than quality of programs’ service. 

2. Cost per client served. This measures “efficiency.” Efficiency measures 

are generally defined as the ratio of the amount of input used to 

achieve a particular amount of output. Because of the limitation (noted 

above) in the meaningfulness of the denominator of this ratio (number 

of clients served), this measure should be used cautiously. 

Another caution: both of these first two measures can encourage 

programs to inflate the number of clients served in order to show up 

better on these two measures. This underscores the need to establish 

ground rules as to minimum amounts of services before the client is 

counted, as discussed above 

3. Cost per client that improved. This is also an efficiency measure. 

However, this one provides a considerably better perspective on true 

efficiency. This measure, in fact, can also be called a “cost 

effectiveness” measure. 

To implement this potentially highly desirable measure, however, the 

program needs to be able to measure in a reasonably reliable way both 

the number of clients that improved and the costs of producing that 

result. Measures that attempt to assess the number of clients improved 

are included in the next section on outcome measures. 

Outcome Measures 

Outcome measures can be categorized as to whether they are 

“intermediate” or “end” outcomes. End outcomes are related to the 

primary objectives of the Federal programs and are the most important. In 

effect, they indicate the extent to which the condition of disadvantaged 

clients has improved or reached a desired level within the constraints of 

the program. Intermediate outcomes measure the occurrence of events 

that are expected to lead to the end outcomes. For example, an HIVprevention program for youth might show such intermediate outcomes as 

improvements in knowledge and attitudes. Such improvements are 

expected to lead to such end outcomes as being free of HIV/AIDS 

infection. 
Better Accountability 76 

Note that for the following outcome measures, when a measure 

contains the word “youth,” the intention is that the measure covers only, 

or at least primarily, disadvantaged youth. 

For the disadvantaged youth programs, a few outcome measures 

apply to many programs and across most, if not all, service areas, and are 

not unique to a single service area. These are the following: 

1. Percent of clients satisfied with the service provided. This is 

probably best considered an intermediate outcome measure. While 

the youth may be satisfied with the service they received, this does 

not indicate whether the youth’s condition improved. This measure 

applies to programs that have specific identifiable clients. 

If this measure is included, for comparison purposes, it is necessary 

that the programs to be compared use the same, or at least similar, 

wording in the satisfaction question and administer the survey at 

the same approximate time relative to the time the client left 

service. (For example, clients might be asked a month after they 

completed the service, in a representative survey of clients, 

“Overall, how would you rate the service you received: excellent, 

good, fair, or poor?” The common core measure might be the 

percent that responded “excellent” or “good.”) The question 

wording might need some tailoring to particular programs. 

2. Percent of clients who completed the program. This is a low-level 

intermediate outcome measure. This measure is applicable to 

programs that are structured to “enroll” youth for a specified time 

period or for a particular number of sessions—such as prevention 

or treatment programs. Completion of voluntary programs reflects 

the program’s success in retaining clients through the end of the 

program, increasing the likelihood that clients will subsequently 

improve their condition. One advantage of this as an intermediate 

outcome measure is that it is likely to be perceived as noncontroversial to most programs. 

3. Percent of disadvantaged youth with a need for help that received 

help. This would appear to be a useful intermediate outcome 

measure. However, it may be particularly difficult to measure for 

some programs. 
Better Accountability 77

4. Percent of clients whose condition improved, or reached a prespecified level. This is a generic measure. It applies to many, 

probably most, programs for disadvantaged youth 

There are two measurements that may be used together or 

separately. Each of these versions can be measured at various 

points in time after service has been provided. Determining the 

variations to be used as common measures is a major and 

controversial decision. This is due to the difficulties in tracking the 

clients after they leave the service. 

a. Measure the after-service condition level of the client. This 

provides the performance measure “Percent of clients whose 

condition has reached a pre-specified level.” The condition 

might be measured right at the end of the service or after a 

given interval of time after service, such as one year after 

completion of service. (The client’s condition after a reasonable 

period of time after service has been completed is highly 

preferable, particularly for programs that seeks to improve the 

condition of its clients in a sustained way, and not only initially. 

However, obtaining this post-service data is more difficult.) 

b. Measure the amount of change from when the client came in for 

service until the follow-up time after service has been 

completed. This provides the performance measure “Percent of 

clients whose condition improved by at least a pre-specified 

amount from the time the client began receiving the program’s 

services.” 

c. Measure both of the above. Each of the above options measures 

something of importance that the other does not. For example, 

the client might have improved significantly but the client’s 

final condition might not have been up to the target level. 

Conversely, the client may not have improved much but just 

enough to reach the targeted level. 

Specific End Outcome Measures: Appendix B identifies candidate 

performance measures in selected service areas. For each measure, it 

provides the original source of the data for those measures for which the 

source was able to be identified. It also provides additional measures for 

consideration. Appendix C lists the source materials and other materials 

that were reviewed in developing Appendix B. 
Better Accountability 78 

Develop Additional Common Performance Measures and 

Institutionalize the Process 

Below, the Task Force identifies a set of proposed steps for selecting 

measures, and outlines a process for regularly collecting, analyzing, and 

reporting on a set of common performance measures for disadvantaged 

youth. The Task Force believes this should be a sustained effort, and not 

merely a one-time activity to identify common measures and then left up 

to current regular processes for the performance measurement data to be 

obtained and reported. 

The following basic steps appear to be key elements, each of which is 

discussed below: 

• Coordinate and oversee this effort; 

• Select an initial set of common performance measures; and 

• Develop and maintain a process for sustaining the effort. 

Coordination and Oversight of the Common Measures Effort 

Major choices of approach to coordination and oversight appear to be 

between a centralized (more top-down) and more decentralized (more 

grass roots) approach. The centralized approach would involve 

assembling a relatively small number of persons, such as Federal 

employees and experts in disadvantaged youth, who would decide, in a 

relatively small number of meetings and other interactions, on the 

common performance measures. The centralized approach has the 

advantage of producing the set of performance measures much sooner. 

The primary disadvantage is that it may be perceived as not being 

sufficiently inclusive of various stakeholders. 

It is possible, due to the scope and complexity of programs seeking to 

help disadvantaged youth, that an approach more related to the 

decentralized approach could be used. This would involve the creation of 

an overall coordinating group to establish and coordinate the work of 

multiple working groups, one for each category of youth services. In 

addition to representatives from key Federal agencies, each working 

group could include representatives of stakeholders representing the 

levels at which programs are delivered—in effect, representatives of the 

grantees and subgrantees who provide services. These include 

representatives from state and local government agencies, national 
Better Accountability 79

associations of professionals in the service area, nonprofit organizations, 

and faith-based organizations. 

The decentralized approach would involve bringing together many 

people from many perspectives, probably using a number of working 

groups (such as one for each program area)—to hammer out the common 

measures. The term “working group” is used here, although terms such as 

committee or task force might be used. 

At least two states (New Mexico and Minnesota) have been or are 

planning to, use some form of what they are calling “interagency 

coordinating groups” to identify common measures. (In New Mexico this 

effort is being encouraged by the Legislature, which is considering 

legislation for them.) 

Selecting Initial Set of Common Performance Measures 

Once the working group has been formed, its initial task should be to 

reach agreement on an initial set of program areas and common, crosscutting, performance measures. The common measures identified in this 

report (see Appendix B) could be a starting point for this set, at least for 

the service areas examined for this report. However, even for these areas 

the group undoubtedly will want to delete some measures, modify some, 

and add others. 

Another key consideration is the number of measures to include in the 

common set. Multiple performance measures for a given service area are 

inevitable and desirable in order to cover the complexities and different 

perspectives provide by the multiple measures. Agencies and their 

programs will be motivated to focus on those measures that have the 

greatest visibility. Service performance characteristics not included among 

the common measures may be neglected. 

At the same time, it is desirable to keep the set of common measures 

manageable in size, to avoid overwhelming those using the cross-cutting 

performance reports and also the service providers with excessive burden 

of collecting and reporting data. Clearly, a balance must be drawn, based 

on the judgment of participants. 

The working group should also categorize candidate measures as to 

whether each is an output, efficiency, intermediate outcome, or end 

outcome measure. While different people can disagree over the categories 

for some measures, this is a useful step in order to help place into 
Better Accountability 80 

perspective the relative importance of each measure. The groups might 

find it useful to develop “logic models” (“outcome sequence” charts) 

which ask the program to identify the result to which each measure is 

expected to lead. 

Outcome-Data Breakouts. Although the main focus of the group’s 

efforts will be on developing common measures, the group should also 

select key breakout categories by which the performance data should be 

reported. Performance information for disadvantaged youth will be 

considerably more useful if the data are broken out by key client 

characteristics, such as age group, gender, race/ethnicity, and physical or 

mental disability type and severity. Such breakouts are helpful in 

identifying youth groups that need special attention. Breakouts can help 

agencies identify which other agencies and programs are serving similar 

client groups. Breakouts also will enable fairer comparisons, since 

comparisons based on aggregate data may obscure differences in client 

groups served. For example, some programs may have served client 

groups that had considerably more difficulties than others. Inevitably, 

programs whose outcomes appear worse than other programs will say 

“But my clients are different.” The use of breakouts can help reduce this 

concern. 

The groups should identify the breakouts, if any, that would be useful 

for each measure. For each breakout, the groups will need to develop 

specific definitions for each breakout, such as the age group ranges or 

race/ethnicity categories, to enable comparisons across agencies and to 

permit aggregations of the data. 

Obtain feedback. Once the group develops a candidate list of initial 

common measures and breakout categories, the list could be circulated for 

feedback to each affected agency. Each agency would be responsible for 

developing its own process for obtaining feedback, particularly in terms of 

identifying whose feedback should be sought. 

The group also should seek input from key stakeholders or groups 

representing key stakeholders who are not part of the process before 

finalizing the initial set of measures. It is beyond the scope of this report to 

identify such groups, but some candidates to consider include 

Congressional committees, representatives of state and local service 

agencies that are likely to be involved in the collection of the data, and 

organizations with an interest in disadvantaged youth services.86
Better Accountability 81

Develop and Maintain a Process for Sustaining the Effort 

Once the initial indicators have been selected, a number of additional 

major steps are needed: 

• Collecting, analyzing, and reporting of data on common measures; 

• Setting targets for common measures; 

• Encouraging coordination and cooperation (or even 

“partnerships”) among agencies with similar programs or those 

serving roughly the same clients—including, where appropriate, 

development of action plans; 

• Encouraging use of common measures for performance 

management; 

• Reviewing and improving the measures/process on a regular basis 

(preferably at least annually). 

These tasks assume require identifying a more or less permanent entity 

(within existing structures) has been selected to coordinate, provide 

continuity, and sustain the effort. 

Implement Grantee-Level Performance Measurement Guidelines 

The Task Force recommends launching a major effort to work with 

applicants and programs over the next several years to strengthen the 

accountability and performance of organizations receiving Federal funds 

to operate disadvantaged youth programs. The Task Force believes an 

increased emphasis on the importance of performance measurement as 

both a program management tool and a means by which to communicate 

program impact will improve the effectiveness of youth-serving programs, 

while providing Federal agencies the necessary information to hold 

grantees accountable for results. 

Grantee-level performance measurement is central to the effectiveness 

and accountability of Federally funded disadvantaged youth programs. 

These efforts help articulate program goals and results, while providing 

program managers information to help assess the performance of 

grantees. 
Better Accountability 82 

The approach outlined below is intended to be a tool to determine the 

need the program will address and the impact the program will have. The 

measures then provide indicators as to whether the program is having the 

intended effect. 

A Federally funded disadvantaged youth program will: 

• Develop output, intermediate-outcome, and end-outcome 

measures; 

• Propose measures that capture the primary human service 

activities of Federally funded youth serving programs, 

• Participate in negotiating these measures as part of any grant 

award; 

• Develop a system for collecting and organizing this performance 

data on an ongoing basis; and, 

• Include the results in progress and final reports. 

Grantees will likely have a variety of performance measures that 

reflect unique characteristics of their program and target populations. 

With respect to those reported to the appropriate Federal agency, grantees 

should be sure to specify performance measures that provide adequate 

coverage for all primary human service activities. Each primary service 

activity should include several output, intermediate-outcome, and endoutcome indicators. 

Grantees seeking continuation grants, that is, those seeking funds for 

the second or third year of a multi-year grant, would be expected to 

provide performance measures, unless the program model makes it 

unable to do so. In such cases, the grantee should provide alternative 

measures of performance consistent with these guidelines. 

The Task Force fully recognizes that these performance measures will 

reflect individual program goals and circumstances, and we expect that 

there will be a wide spectrum of different performance measures across all 

grantees. Moreover, we recognize that performance measures alone do not 

reflect the full scope and impact of disadvantaged youth programs. As a 

result, these measures (and reported results) should be considered to be 

one of several important elements taken under consideration when 

making funding decisions. 
Better Accountability 83

During implementation of a grant, we anticipate that performance 

measures may need to be adjusted based on grantee experience. As a 

general philosophy, changes to negotiated performance measures should 

be infrequent. Grantees and the appropriate Federal agency will negotiate 

measures that permit organizations to report actual results against 

established measures at the appropriate time. A process for changing 

performance measures is not intended to become a vehicle for altering 

measures that would not otherwise be met. In general, grantees will not 

request changes to performance measures when they should simply 

report on actual results when compared to an original target. However, it 

is also understood that, after grant award, organizations may experience 

significant changes in organizational or program circumstances that may 

require changes to performance measures. A grantee’s record of meeting 

targets established in their performance measures should be a 

determining factor in future funding. 

In general, performance measures are intended to be a useful tool for 

program managers to define and communicate the need that their program 

will address and the impact that the program will have. The measures 

provide indicators as to whether the program is having the intended 

effect. 

Defining performance measures is just one step in the program design 

phase. Youth serving grantees should be required to utilize a standard 

framework (called a “logic model”) to help think through each of the 

different primary human service activities, identify the likely result of 

those activities, and determine how to measure those results. 

For each major youth-serving activity, grantees need to think through 

what the likely outputs, intermediate-outcomes, and end-outcomes might 

be. It is important to note that assigning a measure to these categories is 

not a science. Youth serving grantees should use this categorization as a 

way to help organize their thinking and recognize that there is not a 

“right” or “wrong” answer as each grantee will have its own set of 

circumstances. 

Youth-serving grantees should be required to select several outputs, 

intermediate- and end-outcomes for each primary human service activity. 

Each performance measure should include the following information: 

• The result the grantee expects to achieve; 

• How the grantee plans to achieve this result; 
Better Accountability 84 

• The data and instruments the grantee will use to measure the 

result; and 

• A target (over time) the grantee expects to meet, including a 

baseline figure for every performance measure from prior years. 

Youth-serving grantees have a variety of high-quality public resources 

available to help them meet this new requirement. We recommend that 

current and prospective youth serving grantees use any of the following 

resources in developing their performance measures: 

• W. W. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook, 

www.wkkf.org/pubs/Pub770.pdf

• Measuring Volunteering: A Practical Toolkit, 

www.independentsector.org/research/toolkit/default.html

• Online Evaluation Resource Library, www.oeri.sri.com

• Evaluation Toolkit: A User’s Guide to Evaluation for National Service 

Program, www.projectstar.org/star

• Center for Accountability and Performance

www.aspanet.org/cap/index.html

• Outcome Measurement Resource Toolkit, United Way of America,

www.national.unitedway.org/outcomes

• The Results & Performance Accountability Implementation Guide,

www.raguide.org/Default.htm

We also encourage grantees, when needed, to seek the help of local or 

regional professionals to perform and oversee performance measurement 

activities, including the development of a plan that encompasses the 

collection of and reporting on outcome data that will be used to improve 

program quality. 

Conduct Rigorous Oversight of Earmarked Grantees 

The Task Force opposes earmarks for youth programs because they 

significantly reduce accountability, and they exclude potentially higher 

quality projects that could otherwise successfully compete for funds. This 

weakens what should be a strong focus on proven, positive short-term 
Better Accountability 85

and long-term results for children and youth. The Task Force recommends 

that each Department with earmarked youth programs use a vigorous, 

comprehensive oversight and accountability system to oversee these 

programs.87

In our preliminary report of April, 2003 we stated: 

Congressional earmarking of funds for disadvantaged youth 

programs creates an especially problematic situation. It eliminates 

what linkages there should be between accountability measures 

and funding decisions. Earmarked programs do not receive the 

oversight that enables agencies to make sure they are actually 

helping youth, achieving their goals, and making wise use of 

limited funds. The earmark process also keeps Federal agencies, 

charged with implementing the statutes, from making funding 

decisions based on a coordinated, identified need to address a 

specific problem.88

To give us a complete picture of the earmark situation with regard to 

youth programs, we asked five of the main youth-serving agencies to 

provide us with a list of all the earmarks that appear in their youth 

programs for Fiscal Year 2003. We asked for the name of the recipient 

organization, the amount earmarked, the source of the earmark (e.g., 

appropriations committee report, etc.), as well as a description of how the 

funds will be used. The agencies reported a total of 304 earmarks for a 

total of $206.2 million in Fiscal Year 2003 (Figure 3; see Appendix H for 

details).

Figure 3: Youth Program Earmarks, Fiscal Year 2003 

Agency Number of 

earmarks 

Amount, 

Fiscal Year 2003 

Department of Justice 160 $147,340,711 

Department of Health 

and Human Services 

88 $29,764,447 

Corporation for National 

and Community Service 

2 $15,000,000 

Department of Education 42 $10,385,000 

Department of Labor 12 $3,775,000 

Totals 304 $206,265,158 

There are a number of reasons why the Task Force strongly 

recommends against the use of earmarks in youth programs: 
Better Accountability 86 

• Earmarks might fund programs that sound good but actually do 

harm to youth. For example, in the 1970s, inmates serving life 

sentences at a New Jersey prison began a program to “scare” or 

deter at-risk or delinquent children from a future life of crime. The 

program, known as “Scared Straight,” featured as its main 

component an aggressive presentation by inmates to juveniles 

visiting the prison facility. A TV documentary on the program 

aired in 1979 provided evidence that 16 of the 17 delinquents 

remained law-abiding for three months after attending Scared 

Straight, and claimed a 94 percent success rate.89 Other data 

provided in the film indicated success rates that varied between 80 

and 90 percent. The program received considerable and favorable 

media attention and was soon replicated in over 30 jurisdictions 

nationwide, resulting in special Congressional hearings on the 

program. 

There was one major problem with this widely hailed program: it 

actually harmed the youth who participated in it. A recent review 

of nine randomized controlled trials (the highest level of program 

evaluation) of Scared Straight and related programs found that 

these programs either did not affect, or in some cases actually 

caused a small increase in, subsequent criminal activity by program 

participants.90

• Earmarks might fund programs that duplicate services that are 

already available. 

• Earmarks might leave some especially needy communities and 

successful programs—that are less politically powerful—out in the 

cold. 

• Earmarks undermine the promise that taxpayer dollars go to the 

best programs because earmark grantees do not compete for their 

funds. 

• Earmarks completely tie the hands of experts whom the Federal 

government pays to determine the greatest needs and the most 

potentially successful methods to meet those needs. For example. 

the DOJ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

operates an important juvenile delinquency prevention program 

which receives millions of dollars annually. The staff in that agency 

are knowledgeable about this field, including knowing where the 

needs are great, what the research in the field is showing works 
Better Accountability 87

well, and what the future research needs are. Unfortunately, all the 

funds that they would normally be able to use to further 

knowledge in this area is tied up in congressional earmarks. In fact, 

Congress earmarks more funds for that program than it actually 

provides through the appropriations process. (The agency adjusts 

for this by slight reductions in some of the earmarks, in order to 

provide funds to all groups named in the legislation.) 

• The system of having a large number of earmarks turns state and 

local governments into bystanders to the public policies 

implemented in their communities.91

Figure 4 highlights significant and problematic differences between 

regular grants and earmarked grants: 

Figure 4: Comparison of Regular Grants and Earmarked Grants 

Issue Regular grants Earmarked Grants 

Competitive 

grant 

review 

process 

Grantees must participate in a 

rigorous, competitive grant 

application process, which is 

carefully designed and often 

peer/expert reviewed. 

Grantees bypass the competitive 

grant review process altogether. 

Many such grantees are 

advantaged year after year. For 

instance, 41% of DOJ earmarks 

and 20% of HHS earmarks received 

funding both in 2002 and again in 

2003. (These do not represent 

multi-year grants but are repeating 

single year awards.) 

Alignment 

with the 

agencies’ 

statutory and 

strategic 

mission 

They are the only means for 

carrying out some agencies’ 

primary missions, and the criteria 

for selection reflects both the 

judgment of political leadership 

and the experience of 

professional civil servants, all of 

whom are mindful of 

Congressionally-legislated 

requirements for achieving 

results, such as the Government 

Performance and Results Act. 

They may be incidental to strategic 

goals or even represent a poor 

match with an agency’s capacities 

and experience, not to mention the 

intent of the statute. They are 

sometimes shifted to another 

bureau, but a proper fit may not 

always be achieved. The 

Department of Labor requires a 

fundable proposal that meets the 

legal requirements of the funding 

source. 

A key aspect 

of grantmaking is 

available to 

public view 

Criteria for grants competitions 

are published as program 

announcements for all to see. 

Some programs are required to 

publish annual program priorities 

in the Federal Register for public 

comment. 

There is very little transparency in 

the earmarking process, particularly 

since many are inserted “at the last 

minute” in conference reports rather 

than in statutes passed by 

Congressional vote. 

Responsiveness to 

requests and 

oversight 

Because they are multi-year 

grants (usually 3-5 years), they 

are more attentive to the 

Though some earmarks are 

advantaged again and again (see 

“competitive process” issue above), 
Better Accountability 88 

requirements 

of Federal 

program 

staff. 

information requests and other 

accountability-related demands 

made on them by the Federal 

program staff, since they want to 

be eligible to receive more funds 

in the future. Moreover, multi-year 

grants are more efficient than 

single year funding because the 

application and funding process is 

labor-intensive for both grantee 

and government. It is also likely 

that projects need more than one 

or two years to be effectively 

established and produce results, 

not to mention undergo 

evaluations and follow-up studies. 

there is also a problem with onetimers. Because they are often for a 

single year (e.g., 80% of HHS 2003 

earmarks), compliance and followup pressure is often difficult to 

maintain because the Federal 

money is no longer flowing as an 

incentive to follow the reporting 

rules. In any case, the remaining 

earmarks, those funded for more 

than one year, are really getting a 

series of single year grants, which 

is administratively inefficient (see 

statement at left). Moreover, some 

of these are being newly funded for 

different, often short-term projects, 

thus bringing in a whole new cast of 

characters. 

Reporting 

requirements 

They are required to regularly 

report their progress and other 

data throughout the life of the 

grant as a condition of receiving 

funds. 

Reports may be requested, and 

earmark grantees usually 

cooperate, but there is little 

incentive or leverage for 

compliance. Some simply dismiss 

Federal oversight with impunity 

Accountability for 

results 

Many agencies are requiring 

applicants to propose specific, 

measurable outcomes and report 

on their achievement. Such 

proposals become part of the 

grounds for winning the award 

and their achievement becomes 

part of the grantee’s track record. 

When significant shortfalls occur 

or threaten, agencies may devote 

considerable energy to technical 

assistance to help projects 

recover. Agencies are also 

working to build their (regular) 

grantees’ capacities for data 

collection and performance 

reporting. 

The agencies which have made the 

most progress in holding regular 

grantees to outcome achievement 

are trying to do the same with 

earmarks, but face the barriers of 

willingness and capacity. Because 

earmarks may be small and lack 

management skills, as well as 

program experience, they may not 

have access to relevant data or the 

skills to collect or analyze such 

data, not to mention lacking key 

capacities for good management 

and programmatic success. 

Clearly, as Figure 4 shows, there are real and important differences 

between regular and earmarked grantees on key accountability issues. 

Neither system is perfect, but even the current system, with all its flaws, is 

an improvement over one where earmarked grantees are able to bypass 

careful selection and accountability processes. 

In expressing these strong concerns about the widespread use of 

earmarks for youth programs, the Task Force does not presume that the 

current process functions administratively as well as it should. This is 

particularly true in the critically important area of program evaluation 
Better Accountability 89

and accountability. We have pointed out many of the current system’s 

weaknesses in this report and made recommendations to repair and 

improve it. But in comparing the two approaches, even this current 

system is better than the earmark process of doling out funds for youth 

programs to well-connected organizations. In that system, all the 

necessary information about that program is not widely available. Even 

the current practices of oversight and accountability, as weak as they are 

prior to the implementation of our recommendations, are tossed aside 

completely. 

In one way, the widespread use of funding home district projects via 

the earmark process has enabled many Members of Congress to express 

their support for the youth in their communities. This is laudable. 

Members of Congress certainly know their districts, but their wisdom is 

often restricted because they do not have access to the larger picture of the 

needs of disadvantaged youth in communities all across this country. We 

are strongly concerned that this system has so many inherent weaknesses 

that it has the potential to do more harm than good. 

Addressing the difficulties that earmarks cause now has a sense of 

urgency, because of their growth. A study by the Heritage Foundation 

found that: 

Between Fiscal Year 1985 and Fiscal Year 1999, the growth in 

annual earmarks increased substantially faster—between 25 to 

1,000 times faster in most cases—than inflation-adjusted Federal 

domestic discretionary spending. Moreover, although the increase 

in the number of earmarks has risen since 1985, the growth appears 

to be accelerating: The number of earmarks in five of the 13 

appropriations bills doubled between Fiscal Year 1998 and Fiscal 

Year 1999. Although project-specific earmarks represent only a 

fraction of the spending in most domestic discretionary programs, 

if their use continues to grow at the current rate, congressionallymandated earmarks could account for a majority of the spending in 

several budgetary accounts.92

Very few of the major youth-related organizations with offices here in 

the Nation’s Capital complain loudly about the earmark process, since a 

many of them have figured out how to take advantage of that process for 

themselves and/or their affiliates. 
Better Accountability 90 

Recognizing that it will likely take several years to phase-out the habit 

of earmarked youth programs, the Task Force recommends the use of 

these Guidelines for Oversight and Accountability of Earmarked Grants: 

1. Within the annual budget and performance plan, each 

department/agency shall describe its policies for management, 

oversight, audit, and reporting requirements for all earmarked 

grants. This plan should include a summary of earmark grantee 

self-nominated performance measures and the results for each 

grantee’s progress towards meeting the numerical targets 

established in the performance measures. 

2. Agencies should be particularly careful to note when necessary 

data is missing or when the grantee’s conclusions are not 

supported by the data. 

3. Agencies should provide their own evaluation of the quality and 

value of the performance measures. 

4. Agencies should provide their own evaluation of any other aspect 

of the program (management, budget, outcomes) that will be useful 

for policymakers. 

Implement No Child Left Behind in Department of Defense Schools 

The Task Force recommends that the Department of Defense consider 

implementing select relevant provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act 

in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools, in 

conjunction with the Department of Education. Specific recommendations 

for consideration are delineated below. 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the most sweeping reform of 

Federal education policy in a generation. It is designed to implement the 

President’s agenda to improve America’s public schools by 1) ensuring 

accountability for results, 2) providing flexibility in the use of Federal 

funds, 3) focusing on proven educational methods, and 4) expanding 

education choice for parents. This legislation is intended to address the 

serious problems facing our Nation’s schools in adequately preparing 

young people for postsecondary education and meaningful adult lives. 

While it does appear that the DoDEA schools are moving in the right 

direction in improving student achievement, there is cause for any 
Better Accountability 91

optimism to be guarded. Data from the 1998 and 2002 National 

Assessments of Education Progress (NAEP) show mixed results: 

• Students in DoDEA schools performed at or slightly above the 

national average in reading in grades 4 and 8. 

• However, in 2002, 66 percent of 4th graders and 63 percent of 8th

graders did not achieve proficiency in reading. 

• Between 1998 and 2002, the percentage of 8th graders achieving 

proficiency in reading dropped slightly from 39 percent to 37 

percent. 

We can do better, both as a Nation and for the children of our military 

families around the world. While NCLB does not require DoDEA schools 

to implement the law, it does provide a mechanism for the secretaries of 

Education and Defense to jointly determine the extent to which NCLB 

should apply to DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools face the same problems 

related to student achievement as their colleagues across the country. 

Therefore, there is reason to implement select provisions of NCLB in 

DoDEA schools. 

Which provisions of NCLB are currently being implemented in 

DoDEA schools? 

• DoDEA schools have developed a set of system-wide curriculum 

standards based on the content standards produced by the 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Council 

of Teachers of English, the International Reading Association, the 

National Research Council's National Science Education Standards 

and the National Council for Teachers of Social Studies. However, 

it is not clear whether the standards-based curriculum is being 

implemented consistently across all DoDEA schools. 

• NCLB calls for a qualified teacher in every classroom. A 2001 GAO 

study found that virtually all teachers in DoDEA schools are 

certified in the subjects or grades they teach. In addition, 

approximately two-thirds of teachers in DoDEA schools have 

advanced degrees compared to about 46 percent of public school 

teachers generally. 

• DoDEA schools currently test their students annually, using the 

TerraNova exam, a nationally normed test, in grades 3-11. On this 
Better Accountability 92 

measure, students in DoDEA schools have consistently scored 

above the national average in every subject and at every grade 

level93. 

• Preliminary data from several external studies confirm that DoDEA 

students are at or near the top of all states in achievement on a 

range of standardized assessments.94 95 96 

• In order to compare DoDEA schools with other schools in the 

Nation, a sample of students are also tested using the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). As the scores in 

Figure 5 indicate, both NAEP scores and proficiency levels for 

DoDEA exceed the national average. Furthermore, as NCLB 

demands, the DoDEA schools are also making annual progress: 

Figure 5: NAEP scores in reading for 1998 and 2002 

(scale score 0-500). 

Grade 

year 

Year 

of 

test 

DDESS 

school 

average 

DoDDS 

school 

average 

National 

average 

DDESS 

percent at or 

above 

proficient 

DoDDS 

percent at or 

above 

proficient 

National 

percent at 

or above 

proficient 

4 1998 219 221 213 32 33 28 

4 2002 225 224 217 34 33 30 

8 1998 268 269 261 39 37 30 

8 2002 272 273 263 37 40 31 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 200397. 

Note: DDESS denotes scores for students in the United States; DoDDS denotes scores 

for students overseas. 

Although the NAEP scores above indicate that DoDEA schools are 

close to national averages, no school or nation should be satisfied with a 

30 percent to 40 percent level of proficiency in its students. DoDEA 

students could achieve at a higher level, and implementation of select 

provisions of NCLB will ensure that DoDEA schools continue to improve 

on their current levels of academic achievement. At the same time, NCLB 

implementation should support the unique DoDEA practices that have led 

to its success thus far. 

How will further implementation of NCLB improve these existing 

levels of achievement? 

1. The Department of Education should assist DoDEA administrators in 

assessing the applicability of each specific NCLB provision and develop 

an implementation plan based on this assessment. 
Better Accountability 93

An assessment of the extent to which DoDEA practices are consistent 

with NCLB requirements should be conducted that focuses on each of the 

four NCLB “pillars”: standards and accountability; flexibility in the use of 

Federal dollars; increased parental choice; and a stronger emphasis on 

effective practices that are supported by research. This document covers 

the broad points, but the fine details of implementation deserve a closer 

look. 

2. At a minimum, DoDEA schools should bring their system into line 

with NCLB provisions in terms of the pillars of standards and 

accountability and a focus on “what works.” DoDEA schools should: 

• Clearly define a measure and standard of Adequate Yearly 

Progress as NCLB requires. As NAEP scores indicate that DoDEA 

schools are achieving at levels of proficiency that are between 30-40 

percent, an adequate standard will be critical to ensuring that all 

students are proficient within 12 years as NCLB requires. 

• Continue with the practices they have already implemented 

including: a system-wide standards-based curriculum, annual 

standardized testing, commitment to teacher quality, use of NAEP 

scores, and evidence of annual progress. 

• In concert with the Department of Education, examine the systemwide content standards for rigor and ensure that assessment tools 

are aligned to these standards. 

3. The Department of Defense should ensure that its strategic plan 

focuses on improving student achievement, particularly in the core 

subjects of reading and language arts and math. 

While students in Department of Defense schools are performing at 

levels consistent with student performance across the Nation, there is 

significant room for improvement, particularly in the areas of reading and 

math where far too many students are below grade level. 

4. DoDEA schools should become a model of international excellence 

by implementing instructional practices that are based on rigorous 

scientific research. 

DoDEA has potentially effective practices that may be useful for 

dissemination to the states. However, it is a relatively isolated system that 

has limited communication with other systems, and its practices may or 
Better Accountability 94 

may not be validated by the rigorous scientific-research standard that is a 

hallmark of NCLB. In this sense, implementation of this pillar of NCLB 

has a clear benefit: it will hold success measures of DoDEA programs to 

the same rigorous, scientific standards to which programs in other 

systems are held, and allow for a two-way dissemination of effective 

practices that will be beneficial for DoDEA and all other systems. 

5. The Department of Education should consider initiating formal 

research on the distinctive effective practices of DoDEA schools, 

particularly with respect to the achievement of students of color, and 

disseminate them to the states. 

In two external studies, the authors found that African-American and 

Latino students from DoDEA schools ranked first in the Nation on 

disaggregated NAEP scores and that, in general, minority students in 

DoDEA schools are performing at a significantly higher level than are 

minority students elsewhere in the Nation.98 This is critical because a 

central component of the NCLB legislation is to narrow the achievement 

gap between white and minority students. As the fourth pillar of the 

NCLB legislation focuses on “doing “what works”,” DoDEA schools 

should serve as a national model for effective practices that promote the 

academic success of minority students. 

6. The DoDEA administration should assess current levels of parental 

input and design mechanisms to further increase parental participation 

within the context of the “Parent Empowerment” pillar of NCLB. 

As a result of the fact that school choice is limited at schools on 

military bases, a large part of this pillar is inapplicable to DoDEA schools. 

One way in which DoDEA schools could implement this pillar is to 

augment their existing efforts to involve parents in school decisionmaking and in their students’ academic careers. Some of the DoDEA’s 

major successes are built on its emphasis on parent and family 

involvement in every student’s education. One area in which the DoDEA 

schools could benefit from NCLB is by providing parents and students 

with information about how their school and district are performing in 

improving student achievement. This could be done by providing parents 

with annual information, either through a “report card” or some other 

vehicle, about the achievement levels at the school, the rates of annual 

progress on standardized measures, and efforts to ensure that there is a 

qualified teacher in every classroom. 
Better Connections 95

4 

Better Connections: 

Engaging Youth and Families 

esearch has shown that in order to ensure their healthy 

development, adolescents need caring adults in their lives; 

opportunities to learn marketable skills and maintain good health; 

and opportunities to contribute meaningfully to their communities 

and society.99 Generally, American families and communities are doing a 

good job of addressing these youth needs and opportunities. In the next 

chapter we will make recommendations for improving the supports for 

youth who, for a variety of reasons, are not in nurturing families or 

communities. In this chapter, however, we make several 

recommendations aimed simply at validating and building on the 

strengths that exist in most families and communities. The first 

recommendation is born from the knowledge that parents play a pivotal 

role in guiding their children’s development and should be supported in 

that role. The second two recommendations provide opportunities for 

young people to contribute through service, recognizing the value of the 

assets they bring to their communities and to the Nation. 

Increase Parent Involvement in Youth Programs 

The Task Force recommends that any Federal program that serves 

youth should endeavor, when appropriate, to involve parents as much as 

possible in the program. This means including parents in the planning 

stages and in any advisory groups, as well as in the program itself. 

Conventional wisdom has held that one of the hallmarks of 

adolescence is the decline of parental influence as peer influence increases. 

Whether this was ever the case is unclear. Current research has shown 

that parental influence remains both a strong and central influence in the 

lives of young people, even as peer influences increase. 

In August, 2003, USA Today reported that American teens 

preferentially choose spending time with their parents over others.100 In 

R
Better Connections 96 

the same month’s edition of the Journal of Adolescent Health,

101 the editorial 

and a number of articles about empirical studies reaffirm the centrality of 

parents in the lives of teens. And, repeatedly, polls show that parents are 

the adults young people admire most. Likewise, research has shown that 

when young people feel connected to at least one parent, they are less 

likely to report emotional distress, violence involvement, suicidal 

thoughts or attempts, cigarette/alcohol/other drug use, and early sexual 

debut. Clearly, parents count. But what is it that leads to young people 

experiencing this connection with parents? 

One element of parent-child connectedness relates to parental 

characteristics. Parents who are warm, have an open communication style, 

can listen as well as share their thoughts and beliefs, create an 

environment that fosters connection; but parent-teen connections are built 

on more than an affective style. Parental monitoring is key—knowing 

their children’s friends, their friends’ parents, and their teachers. Also 

critical are setting clear expectations, such as behavioral and school 

expectations; and monitoring both behavior and performance. Parents 

need to know honestly what their children are doing socially and how they 

are doing academically. 

While behavioral monitoring matters, so too does psychological 

autonomy. Parents need to realize that their children are not an extension 

of themselves, but rather separate individuals with thoughts, opinions, 

and beliefs. Children need to be accorded the respect parents grant to 

others. 

So, too, there is emerging evidence that certain parenting styles create 

a more positive relationship between parents and their children than do 

others. Specifically, an authoritative parenting style sets clear boundaries 

for behavior, is respectful of the child, and negotiates rules (but not at the 

time of an infraction). In such an environment, children have a voice, but 

do not control the family. 

The evidence is clear that young people who report feeling connected 

to at least one parent do better across every outcome studied. Parents do 

matter in the lives of teens; and when positive connections are fostered, 

young people flourish. 

Federal programs should acknowledge the vital role parents play in 

their children’s lives by encouraging their participation whenever possible 

in programs and services their children receive. Schools, nonprofit 

agencies and other entities that provide services to children and youth 
Better Connections 97

should welcome parents and seek opportunities to strengthen their roles 

in their children’s lives. 

The Task Force recommends that a continuum of parental involvement 

components be established as guidance for new programs. This could be a 

menu of parenting components grantees can choose to implement as part 

of their program development. These components should include, but not 

be limited to the following: 

• a parent advisory committee to help in program development and 

parent recruitment;

• dissemination of proven public education messages on the 

importance of parents knowing what their children are doing 

socially and how they are doing academically;

• parent/child counseling and/or support groups to enhance 

communication skills;

• parent/child recreational and civic activities;

• parent support groups built around particular development issues 

children may be facing, e.g., Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder (ADHD), other health-related issues, school performance, 

risk taking behaviors;

• parenting classes and support groups for parents whose children 

are in foster care or the juvenile justice system (a possible 

component of mentoring programs).

Design a Youth Service Initiative 

The Task Force recommends that a youth service initiative be designed 

which would allow older youth (college age) to display leadership by 

providing opportunities for them to serve children living in high poverty 

areas of the United States. 

Through campus organizations, local community initiatives, and 

national programs such as Habitat for Humanity and AmeriCorps, college 

students and other young Americans are responding in numerous ways to 

President Bush’s call to build a culture of service. These young people are 

broadening their perspective and transforming their careers through 
Better Connections 98 

living for the sake of their fellow citizens and investing their time and 

talents to revitalize lower-income communities. 

AmeriCorps*VISTA has created an intensive, ten-week Summer 

Associates program for students who work with VISTA nonprofit 

sponsors to organize and recruit youth volunteers. This program could 

provide the infrastructure for this initiative. Full-time members and 

Summer Associates over 18 years of age, recruited through VISTA 

nonprofit sponsors, provide program development and volunteer 

coordination support to local community leaders and volunteers in the 

program (approximately 6,000 members nationwide). The student 

volunteers assist local residents in implementing local self-help projects 

ranging from senior citizen initiatives to housing rehabilitation and 

provision of indoor plumbing to remote areas of Appalachia and the rural 

south. 

The Volunteers in Service to America (AmeriCorps*VISTA) program, 

which has nearly four decades of local capacity-building experience, could 

provide member resources and administrative leadership. Localized 

projects could be developed by a consortium of nonprofit organizations 

that could host youth service participants as part of their 

AmeriCorps*VISTA Summer Associates program. Youth could be offered 

an eight to ten week structured experience in service through existing 

community based organizations that could provide local host sponsorship 

for housing and project leadership. 

The Youth Service Corps experience can also be promoted in 

universities by AmeriCorps Recruitment to encourage field experiences in 

education. Recruitment also assists by receiving and forwarding online 

student applications to the appropriate Corporation for National and 

Community Service (CNCS) state offices and VISTA project sponsors, or 

through another application process developed specifically for this 

program. 

Recruit Youth for Federal Grant Review Panels 

The Task Force recommends that college youth be recruited and 

included as participants on Federal panels that review youth program 

grants, where feasible. 

Federal social programs designed to serve youth often require the use 

of a competitive grant process to review and rate the many applications 

from groups seeking Federal funding. The review process of these 
Better Connections 99

discretionary grant applications involves multidisciplinary teams of 

reviewers meeting together to receive training, work in teams and review 

anywhere from dozens to hundreds of applications. 

If monitored closely and supplied with the proper training, the grant 

review process can be very rewarding for the reviewers in terms of 

instruction, exposure to innovative, cutting edge programs, and seeing the 

difference between applications prepared with due diligence and those 

that fall short. Reviewers gain skills in connecting theoretical research 

with practice, teamwork and consensus decision making. Due to the 

dynamics of academic, program and policy orientations, team members 

are often engaged in discussions at the program level that are analogous 

to larger policy questions and are at times described as the cross-walk 

between policy, research and practice. Grant reviewer panels typically 

consist of from four to ten individuals, depending on the type of review 

being conducted.102 Participants are usually from a variety of disciplines 

and backgrounds relevant to the program area, and this diversity of 

experiences enriches the process and final outcome. 

This exposure and its instructive value are precisely why youth should 

be involved in this process. Youth would benefit from learning about the 

reviews and programs, while the adults would benefit from having an 

individual from the proposed targeted age group involved in the decisionmaking process. Federal program staff closely oversee this process and are 

available throughout the review process to offer youth and adult panelists 

additional advice and guidance as needed. 

Obviously, because of the differences in age and experience, the 

inclusion of youth along with adults on Federal grant review panels 

presents some challenges. We believe these include: placing youth in a 

situation that results in a successful experience; training youth reviewers 

to be competent and confident about the subject matter; keeping their 

interest; and breaking down inhibitions of the professional adult coreviewers. Fortunately, these challenges also have solutions: 

Recruitment and Selection of Youth as Panelists: 

• Youth with at least sophomore standing and up through graduate 

studies, and who are enrolled in a related field of study, should be 

recruited from American colleges and universities. College 

students who are serving internships in Federal executive branch 

offices would be a useful source of participants, particularly since 
Better Connections 100 

the bulk of grant reviews take place during late spring and 

summer, when the number of interns is at its highest. 

• Students can come from a wide variety of academic disciplines. 

These include, but are not limited to, public policy, social work, 

political science, psychology, sociology, education, criminal justice, 

philosophy, public administration, business, and journalism. Youth 

who have completed programs that address the subject of the grant 

and then attended college in a related field could make especially 

valuable contributions. 

• Generally desired qualifications include the ability to: 

- Evaluate and apply criteria related to program requirements. 

- Read and analyze applications (e.g., for strengths and 

weaknesses). 

- Write clearly, accurately, concisely, and effectively. 

- Communicate effectively. 

- Contribute to an effective group process by being 

cooperative, constructive, and flexible. 

- Maintain strict confidentiality. 

• In the same manner as adults who apply to be considered as grant 

reviewers, youth shall be required to apply via the Internet and 

complete the same application process required of all reviewers. 

• Each of the four main youth-serving agencies (departments of 

Education, Health and Human Services, Labor and Justice) should 

include “college youth” in the official call for qualified grant 

reviewers, where feasible. 

Ensuring a Successful Experience 

• Interested youth should be made aware of the rigors involved in 

the grant review process, which involves a rigorous reading 

schedule of an estimated 500 pages. This requires a significant 

degree of effort on their part in order to ensure a successful 

experience, and that should be made clear. 

• Quality grant reviewer training shall be conducted for all 

reviewers, including youth. 

• Youth shall be provided with logistical information prior to the 

review, including a copy of the program announcement. 
Better Connections 101

• Youth shall be compensated at the same rate as adults. 

The HHS Family and Youth Services Bureau conducted a pilot effort of 

this recommendation to test its feasibility during its summer 2003 grant 

reviews. This agency oversees the various programs that serve runaway 

and homeless youth. In this pilot, a youth was placed on each team of four 

reviewers. The Bureau reported that everyone was surprised as to the 

comfort level achieved through training and support. They noted that the 

adult grant reviewers were very impressed with the inclusion of youth on 

each review team. They commented that they appreciated most the 

unique views and the energy that youth brought to the process. There 

were no negative evaluations of the experience received from either youth 

or adults.103

Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 103 

5 

Give Priority to the Neediest Youth: 

Caring for Special Target Populations 

hile the Federal government is spending billions of dollars to 

address the problems of youth, the problem is often that too 

many of these dollars are spread out among too many youth 

who already have access to the resources they need to grow up 

successfully. Although these actions may appear to be preventive, in fact 

they typically lead to under-serving or never even engaging the youth 

who most need help—and who become society’s most serious problems. 

Thus, we often see evaluations of youth programs do not show much 

impact. One reason for this might be that the youth that needed to change 

were either not engaged, or not engaged sufficiently. At an aggregate 

level, the result is that the public and policymakers never see the kinds of 

significant change they want to see in the things that concern them: 

juvenile crime, school performance, drug use, and so forth.104

Public money should be spent on public problems, rather than on 

grand plans to benefit all youth, most of whom will grow up just fine 

without government help.105 Thus, we begin a discussion which shall 

continue beyond the life of the Task Force regarding the identification of 

“special target populations” of youth. These special target populations 

would be those who represent areas of serious concern, and who carry 

disproportionately negative consequences for youth and their 

communities if not addressed. It is these groups named below, as well as 

others who will be identified in the future, who should be the primary 

targets of relevant disadvantaged youth programs. 

Target Youth in Public Care 

The Task Force recommends that the first designated special target 

populations represent youth who are already in public institutions, and 

who create public expense. These are youth in foster care (particularly 

those aging out of foster care), and juvenile justice youth. For both these 

W
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 104

groups, the Federal government and governments at other levels are 

serving in loco parentis, in place of the parents. 

There are about 542,000 youth in foster care. While about half will be in 

the foster care system for about 11 months (a long time for a child), onethird will remain for more than three years. The median age of these 

children is 10.6 years old, with 38 percent African American, 37 percent 

white, and 17 percent Hispanic. Half will be placed in foster family homes 

with non-relatives, one quarter with relatives, 18 percent in group homes 

and institutions, and 10 percent in other forms of placement.106 

Foster youth face a number of problems and often without responsible, 

caring adults looking out for them and their best interests on a consistent 

basis. In school, they are among those most likely to be left behind. About 

70 percent of them are school age,107 and their school work often suffers 

for a whole range of reasons, including unstable, often violent homes, 

frequent placement changes while in foster care, a very high rate of 

disabilities, and existing difficulties with school work, for which they 

receive insufficient help. They score lower on standardized tests,108 have 

higher absentee and tardy rates, are more likely to drop out of school, and 

are three times more likely to be referred for special education and related 

services.109 

Foster youth are also at greater risk for health problems and risk 

behaviors. Living in foster care before the age of 15 increases the odds of 

juvenile delinquency.110 They have a high level of disability. They also 

initiate sexual intercourse at an earlier age, and report a greater number of 

partners, both of which place them at greater risk for sexually transmitted 

diseases and pregnancy.111 

The outlook can be particularly dim for those youth who age out of 

foster care. Somewhere between 18,000 and 20,000 youth age 16 and older 

transition out of the foster care system annually.112 They need help with 

finishing high school or applying to college, getting the health care they 

need, finding new housing on their own, getting a job, and more. The 

Federal Foster Care Independence Act offers some resources to help with 

these problems, and the data from those efforts is beginning to come in. A 

recent report from Child Trends, Inc., notes that without the extended 

support most families provide young adults, youth leaving foster care face 

enormous challenges in building successful lives. "They are less well 

prepared educationally, have a harder time embarking on a productive 

career, are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and are more likely to 

be involved in the legal system."113 Studies of youth who have left foster 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 105

care have shown they are more likely than those in the general population 

to not finish high school, be unemployed, and be dependent on public 

assistance. Many end up in prison, homeless, or as parents at an early 

age.114 

Sadly, there are about 106,000 American young people in the juvenile 

justice system, either in detention, correctional or shelter facilities. Risk 

behaviors such as drug use and violence, which often are the reason they 

are in “the system,” are rampant. Studies show that juvenile delinquency 

is also highly correlated with sexual promiscuity, which is further 

correlated with substance abuse.115

Illiteracy and school failure are serious and widespread: detained and 

committed youth score below their expected grade levels across subject 

areas. Such youth, when of high school age, typically score between 

grades 5-7 and 5-6 in reading and written language, respectively. 

Similarly, these youth score between grades 5-9 in math. An estimated 38 

percent of incarcerated youth also qualify for speech and language 

services.116 Approximately 75 percent of these youth fail one or more 

courses, while 40 to 50 percent are retained in grade. In one study, over a 

three-year period, 40 percent of youth who entered correctional facilities 

had earned no high school credits. In one examination of incarcerated 

female teenagers, nearly half had been expelled from school and a 

disproportionate number had learning disabilities.117 Other studies also 

demonstrate correlations between delinquency and lower levels of 

academic aspirations,118 lower levels of academic achievement,119 with 

higher rates of dropping out of high school,120 and with higher levels of 

aggressive behavior on the school playground.121 Despite these 

unsuccessful histories, many youth report having a positive attitude 

toward school and realize its importance.122 This offers some hope of 

potentially averting a disaster, since about 75 percent of offenders at the 

adult level are illiterate. 

Target Youth at High Risk 

The Task Force recommends that a second group of youth also be 

considered among the special target populations. This subgroup includes 

youth with a high number of factors putting them at risk for unproductive 

and publicly costly lives,123 such as children of incarcerated parents and 

migrant youth. 

The President has already taken the lead on addressing the needs of 

children of incarcerated parents, announcing a three-year, $150 million 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 106

initiative during his 2003 State of the Union address to bring mentors to 

the children of prisoners. Government would help by funding the 

enormous task of supporting the training and recruiting of mentors. 

The Department of Health and Human Services notes that children of 

incarcerated parents are seven times more likely to become involved in 

the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems.124 Parental arrest and 

confinement often lead to stress, trauma, stigmatization, and separation 

problems which may be compounded by existing poverty, violence, 

substance abuse, high-crime environments, child abuse and neglect, 

multiple caregivers and/or prior separations. These children are more 

likely to develop attachment disorders and often exhibit broad varieties of 

behavioral, emotional, health, and educational difficulties. Many children 

of incarcerated parents are angry and lash out at others, resulting in 

confrontations with law enforcement. Lacking the support of families, 

schools, and other community institutions, they often do not develop 

values and social skills leading to the formation of successful 

relationships. 

HHS reports that between 1991 and 1999, the number of children with 

a parent in a Federal or state correctional facility increased by more than 

100 percent, from approximately 900,000 to approximately 2,000,000.125

According to the national data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 

2001, 3.5 million parents were supervised by the correctional system. Prior 

to incarceration, 64 percent of female prisoners and 44 percent of male 

prisoners in state facilities lived with their children. With the parent gone, 

these children often have to leave their home as well. During 

incarceration, nearly 90 percent of children of incarcerated fathers lived 

with their mothers and 79 percent of children of incarcerated mothers 

lived with a grandparent or other relative, according to HHS. 

Although research has indicated that parents in prison and children 

should visit one another, less than 50 percent of prisoners receive visits 

from their children. In a number of cases, the caregiver may not want the 

child to visit the inmate, and prisons are often located far away from the 

urban areas where most children of prisoners live. According to the 

Bureau of Prisons, there is evidence to suggest that inmates who are 

connected to their children and families are more likely to avoid negative 

incidents and have reduced sentences. 

The migrant youth population cannot be described by a single profile 

or description. There are a number of youth that work in the fields to raise 

money for families that are located in the United States or abroad. Of these 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 107

youth, there are approximately 126,000 children between the ages of 14 

and 17 that work on America’s farms.126 These adolescents comprise about 

seven percent of all farm workers.127 

Another group within this population does not work in the fields but 

instead tries to benefit from the education system in the United States. 

However, they have a difficult time due to many different barriers, 

including mobility, language, and culture. The U.S. Department of 

Education estimates that the school completion rate for migrant students 

is approximately 50 percent. Once these youth reach secondary school 

age, they drop out for a multitude of reasons. Some need to stay home to 

take care of younger siblings while their parents are in the fields, many 

find it too difficult to maintain the credits necessary to graduate because 

they are moving from state to state where requirements are different, and 

some need to contribute to their families’ income. The different migrant 

populations face different problems, but many are caused by the same 

factors. 

There is also a population of migrant youth that work in the fields and 

have been described as de facto emancipated minors.128 They lack adult 

guardianship and live in households with individuals other than family 

members.129 Most of these youth are foreign-born and recent arrivals to 

the United States. Seventy-five percent of these foreign-born youth arrived 

in the United States between the ages of 14 and 17, and 58 percent were 

between the ages of 16 and 17.130 On average they work fewer weeks (14 

weeks a year) compared to their adult counterparts, who average 25 

weeks a year. They make minimum wage or sometimes less and live 

below the poverty level. Their English skills are limited and, for some, this 

is their first experience working in agriculture. Due to their age they are 

vulnerable to hazardous work conditions and inappropriate work 

assignments. These youth live in crowded housing, usually with many 

adult males (80 percent of farm workers are men), who tend to introduce 

these youth to unhealthy habits, such as drinking and smoking. 

Migrant youth who do attend school have difficulties staying at their 

grade level for many reasons, one of which is because they follow their 

parents to the next employment location. Many were born in the United 

States but their parents were not; 81 percent of farm workers were foreignborn, and 95 percent of those were from Mexico.131 Language and culture 

barriers make it difficult for parents to be involved in ensuring their 

children are succeeding in school and avoiding risk behaviors. The 

families of these youth live below the poverty level and are frequently 

facing periods of unemployment. For the past decade, the median income 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 108

of individual farm workers has remained less than $7,500 per year, while 

that of farm worker families has remained less than $10,000.132 As these 

youth reach the secondary level, it becomes more difficult for them to 

remain in school. Many times they need to contribute to their family 

incomes, and most have had so many interruptions to their schooling that 

keeping track of their records has made school completion increasingly 

difficult. 

Due to their poor living conditions and the level of poverty, many 

migrant youth face health issues. Health insurance is not typically 

provided for farm workers, as only five percent report they are covered.133

Even though needs-based services may be available, especially since the 

majority of migrant farm workers live below the poverty line, only 17 

percent reported using them.134 Migrant youth have difficulties receiving 

health services for accidents that happen off-site from the fields as well as 

for preventive measures. The infant mortality rate is 25 percent higher 

than the national average, and poor nutrition causes health issues and 

poor physical development.135 Childcare is difficult to manage for the 

migrant farm workers, and unfortunately, young children at times must 

accompany their parents in the field. Seven percent of parents with 

children from birth to five reported bringing their children into the field 

with them while they worked.136 This potentially exposes these children to 

pesticides and other dangerous conditions. One report conducted by a 

Migrant Health Program found that 48 percent of children had worked in 

fields still wet with pesticides; 36 percent had been sprayed either directly 

or by drift; and 34 percent of the children’s homes had been sprayed by 

pesticides in the process of spraying nearby fields.137 This potential health 

risk, accompanied with living in unsanitary overcrowded housing with no 

access to health benefits, creates another difficult barrier for these 

vulnerable youth 

Special Target Populations: A Case Study 

The concept behind special target populations is that these groups 

would be considered high priority groups when determining where to 

target resources within relevant discretionary programs. In addition, and 

most importantly, these groups would be the subject of interagency 

working groups (IWGs) that would assemble the relevant Federal 

agencies that currently address each population. The goal of these newlycreated IWGs would be to find ways to identify and successfully address 

the most pressing needs of each group through new collaborative efforts, 

as well as through research (as needed), the targeting of available 

resources, and the pursuit of additional funds and/or legislation for new 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 109

initiatives as they are identified. This notion of targeting would also help 

us define a more manageable problem, for which concrete outcomes could 

be established, monitored and reported. 

The Task Force took advantage of the assembled agencies involved 

and chose to focus our ideas for new initiatives around foster youth and 

migrant youth as a type of “case study” of what can be done using the 

special target population model. We emphasize that the 

recommendations below represent merely the first, early steps of this 

type of effort. Much more remains to be done, but we are excited about 

the possibilities that future collaborative efforts hold for these groups 

of particularly needy young people. We also note that we anticipate that 

other special target populations will be identified in the future.

Education of Foster Youth Demonstration Program 

The Task Force recommends the creation of a program designed to 

improve the quality of education for school-age youth in foster care. The 

program would be established at three levels: Federal, state, and local. It 

would involve the appointment of a point of contact at the Department of 

Education to assist in providing awareness of the barriers faced by foster 

care youth to improving their educational success, and a plan to 

encourage state and local school districts to establish a similar position 

in their education departments. Funding for this program could come from 

the existing sources available to State Education Agencies (SEAs) and 

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) for disadvantaged youth.138

Change is a difficult fact of life for the more than 500,000 children in 

foster care across the country.139 Its impact on their personal lives is often 

difficult, and that impact is felt in their school lives for the approximately 

70 percent of foster children who are school age (350,000 youth, 6 to 18 

years of age).140 43 percent will remain in the child welfare system for two 

or more years.141 Many will not stay in the same placement; they must 

move frequently and usually with only a few hours notice. Foster care 

youth repeatedly face disruptions in their life which affects the continuity 

of their education. The trauma caused by factors that remove these 

children from their families, coupled with their high mobility and 

inconsistent education, creates an educational nightmare for this 

population of youth. These experiences cause many factors leading to 

educational failure.142

Studies have shown that in general, children in foster care are doing 

poorly in our educational system and are too often not provided the 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 110

opportunity to reach their full potential. The Casey Family Programs 

reported in Improving Special Education for Children with Disabilities in Foster 

Care that foster children have: 

• Higher rates of grade retention; 

• Lower academic skills as measured by standardized tests; 

• Higher absentee and tardy rates; and 

• Higher dropout rates.143

Changing schools and frequent absences due to court dates and 

mandatory meetings make it difficult for these students to stay at grade 

level. It is reported that more than 30 percent of foster care students are 

below grade level in reading and math.144 Many of these students may be 

eligible for supplemental educational services provided under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act as reauthorized by the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).145 However, parents are most often the 

catalysts for finding the right provider and ensuring their children are 

receiving these services. Yet without the support of a parent or other 

educational advocate, children in foster care may miss their opportunity 

to receive these services. 

Special education presents yet another set of problematic issues for 

foster care youth. They are three times more likely to be referred for 

special education and related services.146 Many of these children are overidentified for services due to behavioral problems (often not surprising, 

given their problems at home), but equally disturbing is the fact that many 

of these children are under-identified or not receiving services due to 

many factors, including their mobility. 

The governing legislation for special education issues, the Individuals 

with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), grants every child the right to a 

free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

147

The special education system provides parents the opportunity to 

advocate for their children. In cases where the parents have lost their 

rights, the law allows for surrogate parents to advocate on behalf of 

children. The surrogate parent represents the child in all matters relating 

to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child. 

The criteria for selecting a surrogate parent is determined by state law. 

However, the regulations establish that a surrogate needs to have 

“knowledge and skills that ensure adequate representation,” cannot have 

a conflict of interest with their representation of the child in education 

issues, and cannot be an employee of the State Educational Agency or 

Local Educational Agency.148 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 111 

The role of foster parents in this process is tricky because many foster 

parents are a short term placement, and it is important for advocates to 

follow the child through high school and ensure IDEA services are being 

provided at each stage of their education. This is a difficult issue for states 

because the alternative may be an individual chosen to represent the child 

that may not know all of the history and special needs of that particular 

child. Another problem with foster care youth receiving special education 

services is that when children move to new schools their records tend to 

get lost or the transfer is delayed, which prolongs the time before they can 

begin to receive the necessary services to help them succeed in school. 

Finally, the lack of knowledge regarding IDEA by those individuals 

making educational decisions, such as caseworkers, foster parents, and the 

courts, also prevents them from taking advantage of special education 

services. 

As the No Child Left Behind Act begins to improve the education of 

children within our country and uses student test scores to assess whether 

schools are educating our youth, the importance of addressing the 

education needs of children within the foster care system becomes 

increasingly more apparent. 

Federal advocate for the education of foster youth: Currently, there is 

no point of contact at the U.S. Department of Education charged with 

looking specifically at these issues and coordinating with other Federal 

agencies to provide assistance to the states and localities. The 

Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health 

and Human Services provides many of the programs that support foster 

care youth, but when dealing with problems in the education system, 

there is no one assigned to assist them with their questions. 

The establishment of a position at the Department of Education with 

the responsibility to represent the needs of children in foster care and look 

for ways to address their barriers would be an asset to states, agencies, 

school districts, and the children in foster care they are serving. The 

purpose of this position would be to coordinate with other offices in the 

Department of Education to address the needs of foster care youth and 

provide more awareness to assist with their educational success. This 

officer would also serve as a liaison to other agencies, such as HHS. The 

officer in this position could work with other agencies to discuss these 

issues in providing better services to this community. 

Encourage SEAs and LEAs to significantly improve the quality of 

education received by the foster care youth within their communities.
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 112

States and local communities bear the primary responsibility of 

addressing children’s educational needs. Some states have recognized this 

need and have begun the process of trying to improve the services 

provided to youth in care. For example, the Foster Youth Services 

program is a California State Initiative created to address the needs of 

foster children residing in Licensed Children Institutes or group homes. 

Some of the program’s components provide for an Educational Liaison to 

assist group homes and local school districts in meeting the needs of foster 

youth and an inter-agency collaboration effort. Their system encompasses 

many more aspects that are improving outcomes for their youth in care. In 

Florida, the School Board of Broward County created an interagency 

agreement to improve information sharing between systems, improving 

services through collaboration. One of the methods included in the 

agreement is trying to ensure transportation issues do not prevent a child 

from staying in their school, even though their placement may be in 

another district. These are just some examples of states and local 

communities trying to improve the educational opportunities for these 

youth. Although steps are being taken, more can be done to find the best 

approaches for providing better and more comprehensive services for our 

youth in care. 

States and local education agencies would be encouraged to use 

practices that are already improving outcomes for youth in care and to 

incorporate policies that would address their needs and provide more 

support for implementing effective programs. States and local education 

agencies would be given an opportunity to improve the services offered 

and evaluate those methods to ensure that the most effective practices are 

available for other states and local communities to model. 

State Education Agency Demonstration Program: State 

demonstration projects would allow a state to assign an officer at the State 

Education Agency to help develop policies and programs to address the 

education needs of children in foster care. These demonstration programs 

would include an evaluation component to ensure that effective practices 

serve as models that other states throughout the Nation might modify and 

implement. 

Program Elements: 

• Staffing: Identify a staff position in the education agency with fulltime responsibility and organizational authority for coordinating 

interagency meetings between agencies that deal with issues of 

youth in foster care. The individual should have credentials, 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 113

training, and experience needed for leadership and coordination of 

proposed activities; knowledge and experience in working with 

schools and child welfare personnel; and communication skills 

necessary to effectively promote and facilitate proposed plans and 

activities. 

• Partnerships and Planning: Develop and implement a state plan 

that addresses the education barriers (stated under proposal 

objectives) facing youth in foster care. The plan should be 

developed in collaboration with the state child welfare agency and 

any other agency with policies that affect this population, including 

but not limited to non-governmental agencies, teachers, foster 

parents, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), judicial 

staff, institutions of higher education, and other coalitions or 

groups. This plan should emphasize safety and education as 

priorities for these youth. Finally, the plan should leverage 

resources already available at the state and local level and avoid 

duplication. 

Program activities should: 

• Coordinate interagency collaboration and facilitate training 

between the education, child welfare, and judicial systems. 

• Review the state and local policies for providing placement and 

school continuity for children in foster care. Work to develop a 

policy that meets this need. 

• Review state and local policies for identifying youth in foster care 

who need special education services. Develop a plan for better 

coordination between child advocates during IEP meetings and for 

transition plans and independent living plans. Also review the state 

and local policies with regard to surrogate parents. Incorporate 

practices that would allow for a new approach to providing 

surrogates for children in foster care. 

• Develop training opportunities and technical assistance to be 

provided for LEAs, teachers, foster parents, child welfare workers 

and judicial staff on the education needs of foster youth. 

• Develop a program to provide youth in foster care with a better 

awareness of their post-secondary options or vocational education 

opportunities. 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 114

• Develop a system for securing, maintaining, and transferring 

education records of youth in foster care. This system should look 

at current successful projects being implemented in states and 

expand on their progress. 

• Provide an evaluation by State Education Agencies that includes 

but is not limited to: the strengths and weaknesses of the 

coordination efforts; how their policies have assisted local 

education agencies in providing better special education services to 

youth in care; how many foster care youth were transitioning out of 

care and seeking opportunities for higher education or vocational 

training based on programs implemented to provide better 

awareness and assistance to pursue those goals; providing 

information as to whether there is a correlation between the 

improved programs offered through the state and improved test 

scores; and a thorough explanation and critique of the system 

implemented for tracking student’s records and credits. 

Local Education Agency Demonstration Program: The LEA Foster 

Youth demonstration project should leverage resources and avoid 

duplication at the local levels. It would also include an evaluation 

component to ensure that effective practices and policies can be models 

for other LEAs. 

Program Elements: 

• Staffing: Identify and establish a position in the local education 

agency with full-time responsibility and organizational authority 

for management and supervision of proposed activities. The 

individual should have the necessary credentials, training, and 

experience needed for leadership and coordination of proposed 

activities; knowledge and experience working with the school, 

child welfare and judicial systems; and communication skills 

necessary to effectively promote and facilitate proposed plans and 

activities. This individual should also have knowledge and 

experience dealing with IDEA and the development and 

coordination of IEP plans for youth with disabilities. 

• Monitoring of local school district and relevant state policies and 

programs and developing an action plan that would coordinate the 

efforts of all three systems. The action plan would establish a 

system for that school district to improve the educational outcomes 

for their students that are part of the child welfare system. 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 115

• Partnerships and Planning: Grantees would be expected to develop 

and implement a district-wide plan to address the educational 

needs of children in foster care, and: 

1. Work with the child welfare system and the education system to 

make education a priority for youth in foster care. 

2. Develop a program for assuring that the educational needs of 

children are addressed and made a priority during court 

hearings for students within their school district. 

3. Create a system for allowing students in the child welfare 

system to remain in the same school—or establishing a protocol 

for determining transfers on a case-by-case basis. 

4. Review the policy for transferring records and implement a 

system to ensure records are transferred expeditiously. 

5. Develop a system that better tracks the records and credits 

obtained by foster care youth. 

6. Develop requirements for an IEP meeting and the participation 

of the child welfare worker, surrogate parent, foster parent, 

CASA worker (if applicable), student, and school personnel. 

7. Facilitate training opportunities for teachers, administrators, 

case workers, foster parents, surrogate parents and judicial 

personnel to educate them on the educational needs of youth in 

foster care. 

8. Develop a program for welcoming and providing support for 

students within the school district that have recently been 

placed in foster care or have transferred to their school because 

of their foster care situation. This plan may incorporate a new 

mentoring program. 

9. Develop a program to introduce and encourage high school 

students in the foster care program to pursue higher education 

objectives or vocational education goals. 

• Evaluation: Local Education Agencies that receive funding would 

provide an evaluation that includes but is not limited to: the 

strengths and weaknesses of the coordination efforts; providing 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 116

information as whether these programs improved student’s test 

scores, their abilities to receive special education services and the 

LEAs ability to maintain school continuity for students; and a 

thorough explanation and critique of the system implemented for 

tracking student’s records and credits. 

Federal Interagency Committee to Focus on Education Needs 

of Foster Youth 

The Task Force recommends the establishment of a new, ongoing 

interagency committee which will help improve Federal efforts to address 

the educational needs of youth in foster care. The committee should 

involve the appropriate representatives from the HHS Administration for 

Children and Families, the Department of Labor, and the Department of 

Education, and should plan to meet at least on a quarterly basis to ensure 

that the best efforts are made at the Federal level on behalf of these 

children. 

The lives of children in foster care intersect many different systems: the 

child welfare agency, the courts, and schools. Two of these three systems, 

the courts and child welfare agencies, work together on a regular basis to 

address the needs of youth in foster care and to make the systems more 

successful in providing services. For example, caseworkers have a 

mandatory obligation to inform judges as to the placement of the child, 

efforts made by the parents, and details of the reunification or adoption 

process. An important aspect of helping these children overcome a life 

that has been so disrupted is to guarantee that their educational needs are 

being met, along with trying to provide them with a stable home and 

family. 

But caseworkers and courts already have numerous responsibilities 

placed on them, making it difficult to focus effectively on the child’s 

education. Caseworkers and the courts have little training with respect to 

the education system. The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act 

(IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) provide many services 

that affect children in foster care, who tend to perform lower than their 

peers in math and reading and either need special education services or 

are placed in special education classes unnecessarily. When children 

change schools, health and education records often are not transferred 

expeditiously and sometimes are even lost. Individual education plans 

may be stalled in their implementation or not recognized at all.149 This and 

many other problems cause additional barriers to providing these children 

with a quality education. However, educational outcomes for foster care 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 117 

youth could improve if all three systems collaborate to find better ways to 

support each other and the services they provide to foster care youth. 

The Secretaries of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services 

should appoint representatives from their respective departments to a 

Federal interagency committee. Representatives should be from the HHS 

Administration for Children and Families, the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, the Office of Post Secondary Education, the Office 

of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, the Office of Vocational 

and Adult Education, the Employment and Training Administration, the 

Office of Disability Employment Policy, and any other offices deemed 

appropriate. This interagency committee would be coordinated by the 

new officer appointed at the Department of Education to address 

education issues facing foster care youth. The purpose of this group 

would be to discuss the barriers preventing foster care youth from 

receiving a quality education and make education a priority in their lives. 

The following steps should be taken: 

• Address disabilities and special education needs: Discuss how to 

better identify those that need services; who should be included in 

creating the Individual Education Plan; who should be the 

advocate to ensure the plans are being implemented. Provide better 

guidance to the surrogate parent as an advocate; and address any 

other issues that may be presented through the reauthorization of 

the IDEA. 

• Provide technical assistance and training regarding the needs of 

foster care youth to those serving this population through the child 

welfare, court, and education system. Identify states and localities 

that have implemented systems that are models for other localities 

and are making improvements in how foster care youth are being 

educated. 

• Develop ideas for states and localities for a more efficient method 

for transferring student records. 

• Develop a plan to assist foster care youth in their transition into 

post-secondary education, vocational, and job training programs. 

Disseminate information on current Federal programs that would 

assist in this transition and develop resources that would address 

the gaps in their transition planning. 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 118

• Conduct periodic meetings with youth in the foster care system to 

help the interagency committee get firsthand views of the 

difficulties they are facing within the system. 

• Address the mobility problem among youth in foster care, and 

discuss how provisions within the McKinney-Vento Homeless 

Assistance Act or other methods to ensure educational continuity 

could help these youth to stay in their original school even after 

new placements. 

Workforce Training and Education Services for Migrant Youth 

The Task Force recommends the creation of a joint venture between the 

Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department 

of Agriculture to develop a model program to provide workforce training 

and placement services, and basic education services for high school 

completion to out-of-school migrant and seasonal farm worker youth 

ages 16-21.

There are many different groups of migrant youth with differing social 

and educational needs. The exact numbers of the adolescent migrant 

population is very difficult to track. A 2001 study on migrant adolescents 

conducted for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

estimated that of the nearly two million migrants and seasonal farm 

laborers, about 7 percent are between the ages of 14 and 17. Among these 

adolescents is a large and growing proportion of single males. Some are 

recent immigrants, while others may be school dropouts It is difficult to 

count dropout migrant youth due to their continuous mobility.150 

Currently, there is a gap in the services provided to assist out-of-school 

migrant youth, ages 16-21. The Employment and Training Administration 

(ETA) at the Department of Labor, the Office of Migrant Education at the 

Department of Education, and the Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service at the Department of Agriculture have an interest in 

working together in order to address the needs of this population. To fill 

in this gap in services to migrant out-of-school youth, these departments 

would work together to develop a pilot program. The model would 

combine workforce development services, including job training activities, 

with basic education services designed for out-of-school migrant youth, 

including whose with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and would 

provide these youth with an integrated plan of services and activities 

designed to raise their educational skills and increase their employment 

opportunities. 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 119

Expand Mentoring Programs to Special Target Groups 

The Task Force recommends that the newly-created Interagency 

Working Group on Mentoring seek opportunities to expand mentoring 

programs to provide support to young people in foster care and migrant 

youth. 

The Federal government offers a wide array of mentoring services to 

disadvantaged youth. However, these services do not always reach the 

most vulnerable youth. As mentioned previously, migrant youth and 

youth in the foster care systems all may be in need of particular services 

but may not have the adult support that is necessary to successfully to 

pursue such assistance. 

In the case of mentoring programs, it is particularly important to target 

young people who for one reason or another may need an additional 

caring adult in their lives. As disadvantaged youth navigate the various 

public systems that impact their lives (e.g., child welfare, juvenile justice, 

education), they can be greatly helped by an adult who really knows them 

and their needs and who can give them guidance while advocating on 

their behalf. 

Mentors for Foster Care Youth. Children in the foster care system 

have suffered significant emotional losses as a result of the circumstances 

that lead to their removal from their families of origin. Whether it be 

through abuse or neglect, these children have often been betrayed by the 

adults they counted on the most. Yet in spite of the maltreatment they 

may have endured, many are even more traumatized by the separation 

from the only family they have ever known. This complex emotional 

dilemma can be further compounded by numerous moves within the 

child welfare system that do not allow them to form the long-term 

attachments necessary for healthy emotional development. Such life 

experiences make children in foster care especially good candidates for 

caring and committed mentors. In particular, they would benefit from 

mentors who have received the specialized training and support 

necessary to provide for consistent, long-term relationships for children in 

care. 

Mentors could be assigned to foster care children at two different 

developmental points. First, mentors might be assigned to children (ages 

5-17) when they first enter the child welfare system. These mentors might 

play the role of big brother/big sister and provide a continuous caring 

presence to bridge any changes in foster homes and caseworkers. 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 120

A second, particularly vulnerable time for children in the child welfare 

system, is when they are aging out of care. The transition to adulthood 

(age 18 for foster youth) is a difficult period for most adolescents. While 

adolescence is a time of separation and individuation, teens are 

tremendously dependent on the adults in their lives to help make 

successful transitions to adulthood. For foster children, becoming an adult 

may reflect a permanent separation from the only source of support they 

have known: the child welfare system. In some cases, children with foster 

families are able to maintain this support, but often aging out of foster 

care at 18 means aging out of a family. 

A mentor might help a young person make this transition by helping 

sort through the variety of decisions they face as they move to 

independence. For some, college may be an option. If so, they will need 

help with numerous obstacles: applications are complicated; the choice of 

the right school can be overwhelming; and even getting situated on 

campus can be disorienting. There are opportunities for financial 

assistance, but many youth are not aware of this assistance, and the 

financial aid packets can be daunting even for adults to complete. 

For the foster care youth for whom college is not an immediate option, 

a mentor can help with finding appropriate vocational training, housing, 

and jobs. An adult with a strong employment history of his or her own 

can help provide work readiness skills and provide the support that is 

needed as a young person experiences the ups and downs of entering the 

labor market. 

Mentors for Migrant Youth. The migrant youth population cannot be 

characterized as one homogenous group. They arrive in this country many 

different ways and stay for many different reasons. Some move north 

from Mexico at the very young age of 13 to find work as farm workers 

harvesting whichever crop is in season. Others come with family and 

move as crop seasons end.

Both of these groups of youth face different types of barriers. Some 

need the guidance of an older adult to assist them through their pursuit of 

a better life and to steer them away from risk behaviors. Others have 

family and support but need a responsible peer or adult to assist them 

with things such as educational goals and career paths. No matter what 

the situation is for the migrant youth, this population of youth would 

benefit from a specially-trained mentor. 
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth 121

Bi-national migrant youth face many pressures. They range in age 

from 13 to 22 and have entered the country in the search for money to 

support themselves and their families. Approximately 7 percent of all 

Seasonal Agriculture Services farm workers are between the ages of 14 

and 17.151 A majority of these youth come to this country as a group. They 

find themselves living in small quarters with many people and being 

introduced to destructive behavior. They are not in school and are 

vulnerable youth being introduced to a difficult way of life. A responsible 

adult mentor could provide the necessary guidance to assist them through 

their situation and onto a productive path. 

Many migrant youth live with their families who are farm laborers and 

move frequently to harvest the next crop. These youth have supportive 

parents who want the best educational opportunities for their children. 

However, there are still many obstacles to their educational success. They 

frequently change schools and are at a higher risk of school failure. They 

tend to enter in the middle of a semester or quarter, subjecting them to 

new hallways, subjects, teaching styles, and peers. Many times the 

obstacles to satisfying requirements for graduation become too 

challenging, and their need to make financial contributions to their 

families diverts them from education to seeking employment. 

Migrant parents often have limited knowledge of formal schooling and 

the intricacies of our educational system. Migrant students find 

themselves trying to navigate the system on their own without advocates 

to assist in acclimating them to their new school settings and the 

unfamiliar culture. These obstacles are even more difficult to overcome for 

the limited English proficiency students. Providing a mentor could be the 

little extra assistance they need to be successful. A mentor could be an 

older migrant student who is now familiar with the system, a teacher, or a 

community resident. Mentors could provide the encouragement, tutoring, 

and assistance these students need to complete their education and pursue 

additional educational goals and aspirations. 

Endnotes 123 

ENDNOTES 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1Statement by the President/Executive Memorandum, “White House 

Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth,” December 23, 2002. www.whitehouse.gov 

/news/releases/2002/12/20021223.html

2A D&B® D-U-N-S® Number is a unique nine-digit sequence and is used 

as the standard for all Federal government electronic commerce transactions to 

help streamline and reduce Federal procurement costs. 

3“The President’s Management Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002,” page 3, 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf

4Gary Walker, “The Policy Climate for Early Adolescent Initiatives,” 

Public/Private Ventures, January 2001, found at http://www.ppv.org/pdffiles/ 

policyclimate.pdf. 

5Ibid. 

6White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, Preliminary Report on 

Findings for the Federal Response to Disadvantaged Youth, April 30, 2003. 

7 Eric Erikson, Childhood and Society, New York, N.Y., Norton, 1963, and 

Identity: Youth and Crisis, (same publisher), 1968, cited by National Research 

Council, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, in "Community Programs to 

Promote Youth Development”, 2002, page 70. 

8Gary Walker, President, Public/Private Ventures, letter to Margaret 

Spellings, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, March 4, 2003. 

9 Ibid. 

10 SEAs and LEAs can use Title I, IDEA and often, Education for 

Homeless Children and Youth funds for these kinds of activities. 

CHAPTER 1 

11For the purposes of the work of the Task Force, the following definition 

of “disadvantaged” was developed: “Youth who, because of certain 

characteristics, circumstances, experiences or insufficiencies, encounter financial, 

legal, social, educational, emotional and/or health problems and may have 

significant difficulties growing into adults who are responsible citizens, 

productive workers, involved members of communities, and good parents.” 
Endnotes 124

 12President George W. Bush, “National Child's Day 2002, A 

Proclamation,” June 5, 2002. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/ 

20020605-3.html

13“Statement by the President,” December 23, 2002, op cit. 

14Data sources include various publications of the U.S. Census Bureau, 

the National Center for Health Statistics (Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention), “2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health” (Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration) and “Trends in the Well-Being of 

America’s Children and Youth, 2002,” (Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation). The latter three agencies are part of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services). 

15Office of Management and Budget, “The President’s Budget, Fiscal Year 

2003.” NOTE: References throughout this report to the President’s Budget or the 

Administration’s legislative proposals, may be reviewed at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb. Specific program legislation may be reviewed at 

http://thomas.loc.gov. 

16Institutions of higher education include community colleges. 

17The section on school connections reflects the consensus statement from 

the Wingspread Conference on School Connections, June 2003, sponsored by the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the University of Minnesota, 

Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health. “The Wingspread 

Declaration on School Connections” is based on the research emanating from the 

“National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health,” (ongoing). 

18Ibid. 

19Robert W. Blum and Peggy Mann Rinehart, “Reducing the Risks: 

Connections That Make a Difference in the Lives of Youth,” University of 

Minnesota, Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health, a monograph 

based on the first analysis of Add Health data, “Protecting adolescents from 

harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health,” 

published in the September 10, 1997, issue of the Journal of the American Medical

Association, written by: Michael D. Resnick, Ph.D., Peters S. Bearman, Ph.D., 

Robert Wm. Blum, M.D., Ph.D., Add Health Project Group: Karl E. Bauman, 

Ph.D., Kathleen M. Harris, Ph.D., Jo Jones, Ph.D., Joyce Tabor; Minnesota 

Analysis Group: Trish Beuhring, Ph.D., Renee E. Sieving, Ph.D., Marcia Shew, 

M.D., M.P.H., Marjorie Ireland, Ph.D., Linda H. Bearinger, Ph.D., M.S., J. Richard 

Udry, Ph.D., Principal Investigator. 

20President George W. Bush, State of the Union, 2003, www.whitehouse. 

gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html. 
Endnotes 125 

 21The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and 

Engagement, “Youth Civic Engagement: Basic Facts and Trends,” January 9, 

2002. 

22President George W. Bush, op cit. 

23Ibid. 

24White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, op cit., unpublished 

analysis of survey data. 

25U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, “FY 2003 Runaway and Homeless Youth Program 

Funding Announcement,” page 75, found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/fysb/rhyfund-anncmt.htm. 

26U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth, “Putting 

Real Youth Participation Into Practice,” The Exchange, July, 2002. 

CHAPTER 2 

27See list of data sources at endnote 12, Chapter One. 

28White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, op cit., Appendix I. 

29In our April, 2003 preliminary report, the Task Force identified 335 

youth-serving programs. In the interim period, we identified four additional 

programs, all within the Department of Defense. For a listing of all youth-serving 

programs we identified, see the Appendices of that report. 

30Tina Shah, Rockford Register Star, August 5, 2002, www.rrstar.com/ 

localnews/your_community/rockford/20030805-15746.shtml. 

31U.S. Department of Labor, “Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 1999 2004,” 

http://www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/main.htm. 

32Ibid. 

33Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, “Blueprints for 

Violence Prevention,” University of Colorado, http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/ 

blueprints/index.html. 

34McGill, D.E., Mihalic, S.F., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1998), “Blueprints for 

Violence Prevention, Book Two: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America,” Boulder, 
Endnotes 126

 

CO, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. www.colorado.edu/

cspv/blueprints/model/programs/BBBS.html

35The proposal in the President’s Budget is for this program to be $100 

million, which does not reflect the final appropriation. 

36The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2003. 

37Family and Youth Services Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, State Youth Development Collaboration Projects, 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/State-YD-Collb.htm.

38The number of grant programs often changes annually. 

3931 U.S.C. Section 6104. 

40 www.cfda.gov, also http://aspe.hhs.gov/cfda/intro.htm#overview. 

41The agencies’ grant websites normally list information about specific 

grants for only a limited time period. 

42FAADS is available at http://www.faads.gov. It is searchable only by 

fiscal quarter. The data can be searched for a full fiscal year only through the CDROM version, available for sale. 

43See endnote 2, Executive Summary. 

44White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, loc. cit. 

45Executive Orders are available online by date at www.whitehouse.gov/

news/orders/. 

CHAPTER 3 

46“The President’s Management Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002,” page 3, 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf

47 Gary Walker, op. cit., January 2001. 

48 Ibid. 

49U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse, “About the 

WWC,” available from: http://www.w-w-c.org/about.html, accessed August 5, 

2003. 
Endnotes 127 

 50Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, “Blueprints for 

Violence Prevention Overview,” University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, available 

from: www. colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html, accessed June 30, 2003. 

51U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration, “SAMHSA Model Programs: Effective 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Programs for Every Community,” available 

from: http://www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov, accessed August 19, 2003. 

52The Community Guide is being developed by a, non-Federal Task Force 

on Community Preventive Services (Task Force), appointed by the Director of 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This group was convened 

in 1996 by the Department of Health and Human Services to provide leadership 

in the evaluation of community, population, and health care system strategies to 

address a variety of public health and health promotion topics such as physical 

activity. See http://www.thecommunityguide.org

53Prevention Evaluation Research Registry for Youth (PERRY)

A comprehensive database of research on adolescent risk behaviors, PERRY 

includes both school-based and community-based studies and organizes them 

according to topic and research methods. PERRY currently contains citations on 

sexual risk reduction and violence prevention. In the future, other topical areas 

will be added, and PERRY will be made available to the public. PERRY supports 

searches on topics of interest, and provides a foundation for conducting 

summaries of the research literature. Such summaries are useful in informing 

current policy and practice and in identifying gaps in the research literature. One 

such summary is "School-based Programs to Reduce Sexual Risk Behaviors: A 

Review of Effectiveness," Public Health Reports, May-June 1994, Vol . 109, No. 3, 

339-359. 

54The White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, “The Federal 

Response to Disadvantaged Youth: April, 2003 Preliminary Report” (Washington, D.C.: April, 2003), pp. 32-36, stating: “6 of the 28 youth programs (21 

percent) rated were scored as ‘ineffective’ by the OMB PART system. Thirteen 

youth-related programs were rated as ‘results not demonstrated.’ Five were 

ranked as ‘adequate.’ Three were rated as ‘moderately effective.’ Only a single 

youth program (Consolidated Health Centers, which addresses disadvantaged 

youth as only one part of the population it serves) was given the highest rating, 

‘effective.’” 

55Quoted in Rob Hollister, “The Growth in After-School Programs and 

Their Impact” (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, February 2003), p. 

12, http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/sawhill/20030225. pdf, accessed 

August 21, 2003. 

56Hollister, op. cit., p. 12. 
Endnotes 128

 57We use the term “program group” because it seems to encompass all the 

other variations on the same concept, including “experimental,” “treatment,” 

and “intervention” groups—as long as they have been randomly assigned to the 

group. We do not use “experimental” group because in an evaluation of an 

ongoing program, the term would erroneously suggest that something new is 

being tested. In addition, the term would not apply in the case of a 

nonexperimental evaluation. Similarly, we do not use the terms “treatment” or 

“intervention” group, because the program or policy being tested may not be 

perceived as a “treatment” or “intervention” by those participating in an ongoing 

program. 

58The terms “control” group and “comparison” group are sometimes 

used interchangeably. However, to emphasize the difference between 

randomized experiments and nonexperimental evaluations, we limit the use of 

“control” group to the nonprogram groups created by random assignment. We 

are careful to call the nonprogram groups in nonexperimental evaluations 

“comparison” groups. 

59The ability of an evaluation to establish a cause-and-effect relationship 

between an outcome and a program or policy being evaluated is usually called 

“internal validity.” This paper, however, adopts a variant of a revised term 

proposed by Donald Campbell: “causal validity.” Campbell’s full description of 

term was “local molar causal validity.” See Donald T. Campbell, “Relabeling 

internal and external validity for applied social scientists,” in W. M. K. Trochim 

(editor), Advances in quasi-experimental design: New directions for program evaluation

(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986), pp. 66-77. 

60Gary Burtless, “The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and 

Policy Research,” Journal of Economic Perspectives vol. 9, no. 2, Spring 1995, p. 69. 

61Erica Baum, “When the Witch Doctors Agree: The Family Support Act 

and Social Science Research,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management vol. 10, 

Fall 1991, pp. 603-615. 

62Larry L. Orr, Howard S. Bloom, Stephen H. Bell, Winston Lin, George 

Cave, Fred Doolittle, “The National JTPA Study: Impacts, Benefits, and Costs of 

Title II-A,” (Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates Inc., Mar. 1994). 

63David Greenberg and Mark Shroder, Digest of Social Experiments

(Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997). 

64Evaluations that do not involve random assignment are often called 

“quasi-experiments” since they often involve the comparison of the outcomes of 

program participants to those of a similar “comparison” group of 

nonparticipants. Unfortunately, using the term “quasi-experiment” tends to 

obscure the problem of uncertain causal validity inherent in all nonexperimental 
Endnotes 129 

 

approaches. Hence, like an increasing number of commentators, we do not use 

the term “quasi-experiment” but rather use the term “nonexperimental” to cover 

both micro- and macro-econometric evaluations. 

65See footnote 9, supra. 

66Sometimes the comparisons across geographic areas also follow 

individuals over time. 

67Hollister, op. cit., p. 8. 

68See, e.g., Matthew Stagner, Jennifer Ehrle, and Jane Reardon-Anderson, 

“Systematic Review of the Impact of Mandatory Work Policies on Family 

Structure,” (Washington, D.C.,: The Urban Institute, February 24, 2003). 

69For a summary of the major evaluations of youth programs, see Rob 

Hollister, op. cit., p. 10. See also Peter Benson and Rebecca N. Saito, “The 

Scientific Foundations of Youth Development,” Youth Development: Issues, 

Challenges and Directions, Fall 2000, available from: http://www.ppv.org

/pdffiles/ydv/ydv_4.pdf, accessed August 25, 2003; Richard M. Catalano, Lisa 

Berglund, Jeanne A. M. Ryan, Heather S. Lonczak, and J. David Hawkins, Positive 

Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive 

Youth Development Programs, Social Development Research Group (Seattle, WA: 

Social Development Research Group, University of Washington, November 13, 

1998), available from: http://aspe.hhs.gov/ hsp/PositiveYouthDev99/, accessed 

August 25, 2003; Mark Dynarski, Suzanne James-Burdumy, Wendy Mansfield, 

Daniel Mayer, Mary Moore, John Mullens, and Tim Silva, A Broader View: The 

National Evaluation of the 21st Century Learning Centers Program, Design Report: 

Volume 1 (Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., March 2, 2001, 

available from: http://www.mathematica- mpr.com/PDFs/broadviewvol1.pdf, 

accessed August 25, 2003; Jacquelynne S. Eccles and Janice Templeton, 

“Community-Based Programs for Youth: Lessons Learned from General 

Developmental Research and From Experimental and Quasi-experimental 

Evaluations,” Urban Seminar on Children’s Health and Safety, John F. Kennedy 

School of Government, Harvard University, 2001; Olatokunbo S. Fashola, 

“Review of Extended-Day and After-School Programs and Their Effectiveness,” 

Report 24, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns 

Hopkins University, 1998; and Jodie Roth, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Lawrence 

Murray, and William Foster, “Promoting Healthy Adolescents: Synthesis of 

Youth Development Program Evaluations,” Journal of Research on Adolescence, vol. 

8, no. 4, 1998, pp. 423-459. See generally Peter H. Rossi, Howard E. Freeman, and 

Mark W. Lipsey, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach 6, 6th ed. (Newbury, CA: 

SAGE Publications, Inc., 1998). 

70For example, a random assignment evaluation of the Memphis 

Extended-Day Tutoring Program was apparently subverted when children 
Endnotes 130

 

assigned to the program group who did not attend the program (or had low 

attendance rates) were added to the control group. Rob Hollister observes, 

“Adding to the control group members of the group initially assigned to the 

program group but selected out because of non-attendance, or some other 

reason, seriously undermines the strength of the initial random assignment in 

avoiding selection bias.” 

71 In the late 1980s, for example, the state of Texas implemented a random 

assignment evaluation to test the impact of twelve-month transitional child care 

and Medicaid benefits. When the study began, the program group was receiving 

a benefit (the transitional services) that was otherwise unavailable. Hence, 

denying the same benefit to the control group did not raise an ethical issue. But a 

year later, nearly identical transition benefits became mandatory under the 

Family Support Act. At that point, the control group was to be denied what had 

become part of the national, legally guaranteed benefit package. Thus, the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services required the control group to receive 

the benefits, and the experimental design was terminated. 

72Quoted in Rob Hollister, op. cit., p. 12. Hollister was referring to Richard 

M. Catalano, Lisa Berglund, Jeanne A. M. Ryan, Heather S. Lonczak, and J. David 

Hawkins, Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on 

Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs, Social Development Research 

Group (Seattle, WA: Social Development Research Group, University of 

Washington, November, 1998), available from: http://aspe.hhs.gov/

hsp/PositiveYouthDev99/, accessed August 25, 2003. 

73 Hollister, op. cit., p. 8. 

74This problem is exacerbated by what is commonly referred to as the 

“file-drawer problem,” the publication bias of journals for studies that show 

significant results can offer a one-sided view of the evidence. The idea is that for 

every study with significant results that is published, there may be many more 

with insignificant results languishing in file drawers unpublished. 

75Morton Hunt, How Science Takes Stock: The Story of Meta-Analysis (New 

York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997). See, e.g., Mark W. Lipsey, “Juvenile 

Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability of Effects, 

in Thomas D. Cook, Harris Cooper, David S. Cordray, Heidi Hartmann, Larry V. 

Hedges, Richard J. Light, Thomas A. Louis, and Frederick Mosteller (editors), 

Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook (New York, NY: Russell Sage 

Foundation, 1992), pp. 83-127. 

76Douglas J. Besharov, Peter Germanis, and Peter H. Rossi, Evaluating 

Welfare Reform: A Guide for Scholars and Practitioners (College Park, MD: 

University of Maryland, School of Public Affairs, 1997). 
Endnotes 131 

 77U.S. Department of Education, “What Works Clearinghouse: Evidence 

Report Topics,” available from http://www.w-w-c.org/topicnom.html, accessed 

June 30, 2003. 

78U.S. Department of Education, “Introduction to the What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Report Process and the Role of Scientific Standards,” 

March 5, 2003. 

79National Institutes of Health, “About the Consensus Program: 

Frequently Asked Questions,” available from: http://consensus.nih. 

gov/about/faq.htm, accessed August 5, 2003. 

80National Institutes of Health, “Guidelines for the Planning and 

Management of NIH Consensus Development Conferences,” available from 

http://consensus.nih.gov/about/process.htm, accessed August 5, 2003. 

81National Institutes of Health, “Guidelines for the Planning and 

Management of NIH Consensus Development Conferences,” available from 

http://consensus.nih.gov/about/process.htm, accessed August 5, 2003. 

 

82National Institutes of Health, “Guidelines for the Planning and 

Management of NIH Consensus Development Conferences,” available from 

http://consensus.nih.gov/about/process.htm, accessed August 5, 2003. 

83Olds, D., Hill, P., Mihalic, S., & O’Brien, R. (1998). Blueprints for 

Violence Prevention, Book Seven: Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation by 

Nurses. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

84Solicitation Notice, “Evaluation of Independent Living Programs 

Funded Under the Chaffee Foster Care Independence Program,” May 7, 2002, 

Department of Health and Human Services, (Contracting Office), Rockville, MD. 

www.fbodaily.com/archive/2002/05-May/09-May-2002/FBO-00072724.htm. 

85White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, Preliminary Report on 

Findings for the Federal Response to Disadvantaged Youth, April 30, 2003. 

86The Office of National Drug Control Policy sought input from 

numerous stakeholders in developing and revising its cross-agency Performance 

Measures of Effectiveness. See the list of individuals and organizations whose 

input was sought in National Drug Control Strategy. (Washington, DC: Office of 

National Drug Control Policy, February 2002). 

87For the purposes of this discussion, a youth “earmark” is defined as 

funds designated by Congress to go to a specific group for a purpose relating to 

youth, allowing that organization to bypass the normal competitive grants 

process. There are two kinds of earmarks. Hard earmarks are where Congress 
Endnotes 132

 

directs funds to a specific program it has identified. Soft earmarks are where 

Congress identifies a program and directs the Federal agency to evaluate the 

program and fund it, if warranted. 

88White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, op. cit., page 4. 

89James O. Finckenauer, Scared Straight! and the Panacea Phenomenon, 

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982. (See also http://ncia.igc. 

org/ncia/pr5.html.) 

90Anthony Petrosino, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and James O. 

Finckenauer, “Well-Meaning Programs Can Have Harmful Effects! Lessons From 

Experiments of Programs Such as Scared Straight,” Crime and Delinquency, vol. 

46, no. 3, July 2000, pp. 354-379. 

91“How Congressional Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending Undermine 

State and Local Decision-making,” by Dr. Ronald D. Utt, Backgrounder #1266 , 

April 2, 1999. Executive Order 12372 “Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs," structures the Federal government's system of consultation with state 

and local governments on its decisions involving grants, other forms of financial 

assistance, and direct development. Under E.O. 12372, States, in consultation 

with their local governments, design their own review processes and select those 

Federal financial assistance and direct development activities they wish to 

review. Earmarked programs are able to bypass this system. 

92Ibid. 

93Department of Defense Education Activity: An Overview. (2003, April). 

Retrieved from: http://www.odedodea.edu/communications/overview2003/

pdf/overview2003.pdf. 

94Smrekar, C., Guthrie, J.W., Owens, D.E., and Sims, P.G. (2001, 

September). March Toward Excellence: School Success and Minority Student 

Achievement in Department of Defense Schools. A Report to the National Education 

Goals Panel. Retrieved from: http://www.negp.gov/reports/DoDFinal921.pdf. 

95United States General Accounting Office. (2001, September). BIA and 

DOD Schools: Student Achievement and Other Characteristics Often Differ from Public 

Schools’. Retrieved from: http://www.gao.gov. 

96 Anderson, L.B., Bracken, J. and Bracken, M.C. (2000, October). Review of 

Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) Schools. Volume II: Quantitative 

Analysis of Educational Quality. Institute for Defense Analyses Paper P-3544, 

www.odedodea.edu/communications/pdf/ RofDoDEAschoolsV2.pdf. 
Endnotes 133 

97National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Nation’s Report Card. 

Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

98Smrekar, op. cit., Anderson, op. cit.

CHAPTER 4 

99Eric Erikson, op cit. 

100 Greg Toppo, “Teens with multiple choices make surprising one; 

Survey has good news for parents,” USA Today, McLean, Va., August 6, 2003, 

page D.05. 

101Iris F. Litt, “Parents are “in” again,” Journal of Adolescent Health, August, 

2003, (editorial) and additional articles in this issue. 

102There are three types of grant application reviews generally used for 

funding social programs. On-site grant reviews take place over about 5 days, 

usually in a hotel in the Washington, D.C., area, and involve chaired groups of 

about 4 (often non Federal) panelists in each group, coordinated by Federal 

managers. All panel members in a group review the same applications, and each 

group writes a consensus opinion. Field reviews mean that reviewers do most of 

their review work at their home or office, and then gather with other panelists 

(often a larger group, about 10 persons) at a hotel often in the D.C. area. The 

third type of review involves contact with fellow panelists either via the Internet 

or telephone conference calls. 

103As reported by Harry Wilson, Associate Commissioner, Family and 

Youth Services Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and 

other staff of the bureau, summer, 2003. 

CHAPTER 5 

104Gary Walker, op cit., January 2001. 

105Ibid. 

106Data sources on foster care youth include “Foster Care National 

Statistics, June, 2003,” National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect 

Information, www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.pdf. 

107Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) 

Report, Preliminary Fiscal Year 2001 estimates as of March 2003. 

108“Improving Special Education for Children with Disabilities in Foster 

Care,” (Education Issue Brief), Casey Family Programs, June, 2002. 
Endnotes 134

 109Ibid. 

110R. Jean Haurin, “Patterns of Childhood Residence and the Relationship 

to Young Adult Outcomes,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54 (1992): 846-860. 

111Leighton Ku et al, “Factors Influencing First Intercourse for Teenage 

Men,” Public Health Reports 108 (1993): 680-694; Sara C. Carpenter, “The 

Association of Foster Care or Kinship Care with Adolescent Sexual Behavior and 

First Pregnancy, “ Pediatrics 108, No. 3 (2001): e46. 

112See www.casey.org/cnc/policy_issues/youth_aging_out.htm 

113Richard Wertheimer, “Youth who ‘Age Out’ of Foster Care: Troubled 

Lives, Troubling Prospects,” Child Trends, Inc., December, 2002, 

www.childtrends.org/pdf/fostercarerb.pdf. 

114Ibid. 

115See Judith S. Brook et al., “Sequence of Sexual Behavior and Its 

Relationship to Other Problem Behaviors in African-American and Puerto Rican 

Adolescents,” Journal of Genetic Psychology 1 (1994): 107-114; David Huizinga et 

al., “Longitudinal Study of Delinquency, Drug Use, Sexual Activity, and 

Pregnancy Among Children and Youth in Three Cities,” Public Health Records 108 

(1993): 90-96; Jeffrey Fagan et al., “Delinquency and Substance Use Among InnerCity Students,” Journal of Drug Issues 20 (1990): 351-402; and Anne C. Petersen et 

al., “Social Changes Among Youth,” Journal of Adolescence Health 14 (1993): 632-

637. 

116Wertheimer, op. cit. 

117Loper, “Female Juvenile Delinquency Rates.” 

118Bill McCarthy, “Mean Streets: The Theoretical Significance of 

Situational Delinquency Among Homeless Youths,” American Journal of Sociology

98 (1992): 597-628. 

119Robert E. Larzelere et al., Parental Management: Mediator of the Effect 

of Socioeconomic Status on Early Delinquency,” Criminology 28 (1990): 301-323. 

120Jeffrey Fagan et al., “Contributions of Delinquency and Substance Use 

to School Dropout Among Inner-City Youths,” Youth and Society 21 (1990): 306-

354. 

121E. R. Temblay et al., “Disruptive Boys with Stable and Unstable High 

Fighting Behavior Patterns During Junior Elementary School,” Journal of 

Abnormal Child Psychology 19 (1991): 285-300. 
Endnotes 135 

 122National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice, 

“Characteristics of Youth and Educational Programming in Juvenile 

Corrections;” EDJJ Notes, January, 2002, www.edjj.org. 

123Gary Walker, op cit., January, 2001. 

124Federal Register: May 16, 2003 (Vol. 68, No. 95), pp. 26622-26628. 

125 Ibid. 

126U.S. Department of Labor, “Report on the Youth Labor Force,” June, 

2000, revised November, 2000. 

127 Ibid. 

128 Ibid. 

129National Adolescent Farmworker Occupational Health and Safety 

Advisory Committee, “Migrant and Seasonal Hired Adolescent Farmworkers: A 

Plan to Improve Working Conditions,” 2001. 

130U.S. Department of Labor, op. cit.

131Findings from the “National Agriculture Workers Survey,” 2000. 

132Ibid. 

133Ibid. 

134Ibid. NOTE: Needs-based services include financial aid through 

programs such as TANF, general assistance or welfare, and publicly provided 

housing and medical and nutritional assistance such as WIC, Food Stamps, and 

Medicaid. 

135Migrant & Seasonal Head Start Quality Improvement Center, “Special 

Needs of Migrant Farmworker Population.” 

136U.S. Department of Labor, op cit.

137Migrant & Seasonal Head Start Quality Improvement Center, op. cit. 

138 SEAs and LEAs can use Title I, IDEA and often, Education for 

Homeless Children and Youth funds for these kinds of activities. 
Endnotes 136

 139Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) report 

from Fiscal Year 2001. 

140Ibid. 

141Ibid. 

142Casey Family Programs, “Improving Special Education for Children 

with Disabilities in Foster Care,” Education Issue Brief, June, 2002. 

143Ibid. 

144Child Welfare League of America, “Improving Educational Outcomes 

for Youth in Care,” Symposium Summary Report. 

14520 U.S.C. 7101 

146“Caught Between Two Systems: How Exceptional Children in Out-ofHome Care are Denied Equality in Education,” Yale Law and Policy Review, 10 

(2000). 

147Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1472. 

148Education Department, General Administrative Regulations, 34 C.F.R. 

300.515. 

149“IEP” means a written statement for a child with a disability that is 

developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting in accordance with §§ 300.341-

300.350. It is a plan that creates expected goals and outcomes for the child with a 

disability. A complete listing of the content found in an IEP can be found at 34 

CFR 300.347. 

150National Adolescent Farmworker Occupational Health and Safety 

Advisory Committee, op.cit. 

151Kissam, Edward; “No Longer Children,” Aguirre International, 2001. 
Acknowledgements 137

White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth 

Chairman: 

Margaret Spellings, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy 

Vice Chairman: 

John Bridgeland, Assistant to the President and Director, USA Freedom Corps 

Staff: 

Karen A. Morison, Staff Director 

Sonia Chessen, Senior Policy Advisor 

Stan Chappell, Senior Advisor 

Mary Beth Luna, Counsel 

Robert Patterson 

Members: 

Eric Andell, Department of Education* 

Andrea Barthwell, Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Roy Bernardi, Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Mason Bishop, Department of Labor*

Jim Capretta, Office of Management and Budget 

Deborah Daniels, Department of Justice 

Stephen Goldsmith, Corporation for National and Community Service 

Roy Grizzard, Department of Labor 

David Kuo, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 

Larry Matlack, Office of Management and Budget 

Juliet McCarthy, Department of Agriculture 

Susan Sclafani, Department of Education 

David Reingold, Corporation for National and Community Service*

Don Winstead, Department of Health and Human Services* 

* served as committee chair 

In addition to the Task Force Members listed above, the following federal 

officials also served on one or more of the Task Force committees: 

Education: Grover Whitehurst, Richard La Pointe, Bill Modzeleski 

Health and Human Services: Duane Alexander, Harry Wilson, Howard Rolston, 

Cristina Beato, Alma Golden, Sybil Goldman, Clarence Carter, Joan Ohl, 

Andy Bush 

Justice: Cheri Nolan, Terrence Donahue, Adolfo Trevino, William Woodruff 

Office of Management and Budget: Melissa Benton, Mary Cassell, Tony 

Cheesebrough, Norris Cochran, Allison Perkins-Cohen, Craig Wacker

Housing and Urban Development: Richard Kennedy, Jackie Williams-Mitchell 

Labor: Kim Cook, Dana Barbieri 

Corporation for National and Community Service: David Caprara 
Acknowledgements 138

Acknowledgements 

Significant contributions to this report were also made by: 

Harry Hatry, Elaine Morley, and Jake Cowan of the Urban Institute 

Doug Besharov, American Enterprise Institute and the University of Maryland 

Gary Walker, Public/Private Ventures 

Robert Blum, University of Minnesota Center for Adolescent Health 

and Development 

Maciej Golubiewski, The Heritage Foundation 

Kathleen McNaught, American Bar Association 

The Task Force would like to express special appreciation to the following 

persons: Steve Poizner, Les Lenkowsky, Tevi Troy, Heather Graham, Allison 

Boyd, Michelle George, Shanika Ratliff, Britt Grant, Eleanor Gillmor, Cornell 

Teague, Kathryn Stack, Kristin Goss, Sue Priftis, John Danielson, Ellen Sell, 

Richard Parker, Christopher Marston, Lacey Harden, Tracy Fried, Jeff Gale, 

Bernie Halloran, Francisco Garcia, Susan Orr, Steven Mallory, Ben Goldhaber, 

Steve Wandner, Karen Morgan, Mark Oliver, Diane Osterhus, Charles Havekost, 

Cathy Deeds, Charles Bish, Rodd Clay, Norman Baillie, Darlind Davis, Peter 

Germanis, Christina Imholt, Thad Ferber, Eric Weingart, Whitney Miller, and 

Kristen Wandell. 
Description of Appendices 139

Description of the Appendices for the Final Report of the 

White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth 

Appendix A: Criteria For Judging Evaluations—Main Areas of Inquiry 

Appendix B: Selected Youth Outcome Measures Currently Being Collected (at 

least nationally) 

Appendix C: Source Material for Common Indicators 

 The first list in Appendix C identifies the publications and reports 

reviewed. Each source contained a wealth of measures; however, measures were 

not included from every source reviewed. The second list identifies the material 

from which were drawn the measures in the report – where a source could be 

found. These materials are resources for additional indicators. 

Appendix D: Youth Program Funding FY 2001- FY 

 Appendix D shows enacted funding levels for FY 2001, FY 2002, and FY 

2003 and the request in the President’s Budget for FY 2004 regarding major 

programs serving or impacting disadvantaged youth in five major departments 

and several other agencies. 

Appendix E: Federal Youth-serving Programs with Type of Service Funded, FY 

2003 

Appendix F: Federal Youth-serving Programs with Target Populations Served, 

FY 2003 

Appendix G: Federal Youth-serving Programs with Program Goals, FY 2003 

Appendix H: Characteristics of Earmarks for Youth Programs in Major YouthServing Departments and Agencies, FY 2003 

 Appendix H shows the earmarked programs and grantees in major youth 

serving Departments, their agencies and the Corporation for National and 

Community Service. Also displayed are amounts of earmarked FY 2003 awards 

to each grantee (as well as their total by Department), the statutory source of the 

earmark, and a description of the purpose of each project. 

Appendix A 141

Appendix A 

Criteria For Judging Evaluations 

Whether or not an evaluation uses an experimental or nonexperimental 

design, a host of questions must be answered before deciding that its findings 

should be accepted. This inquiry should be based on the generally accepted 

criteria for judging evaluations. The main areas of inquiry include: 

• Program “theory”: Does the program or policy make sense in light of 

existing social science knowledge? 

• Program implementation: If the program was not implemented as 

intended, how might the evaluation have been affected? 

• Assessing the randomization: Was random assignment accomplished 

successfully? If not, how serious were the problems? 

• Assessing statistical controls in nonexperimental evaluations: How 

comparable are the program and comparison groups? Were the 

possibilities of selection bias and omitted variables considered? 

• Sample size: Is the sample large enough to yield reasonably precise 

estimates? 

• Attrition: Was the level of attrition measured, was so high that it 

undermined the study and were statistical adjustments used to control for 

any potential attrition-related biases? 

• Data collection: Were the necessary data available and reliably collected? 

• Measurement: Were the key variables valid and could they be measured 

reliably? 

• Analytical models: Are the data summarized and analyzed by means of 

appropriate statistical models? 

• Generalizability: Are the study’s findings applicable to broad 

populations of programmatic or policy interest (“external validity”)? If 

not, how does this limit the usefulness of the findings? 

• Replication: Has the evaluation been replicated elsewhere and, if so, are 
Appendix A 142

the findings consistent? 

• Evaluator’s description of findings: Are the findings presented 

accurately? Are they even-handedly presented, describing the limitations 

of the analyses and considering alternative interpretations? 

• Evaluator’s independence: Are the evaluators involved in the program’s 

development or operations? Do they have a stake, even indirect, in the 

findings? 

• Statistical significance/confidence intervals: Were statistical significance 

tests reported? What level of significance was used? 

• Effect size: Were effect sizes calculated for all impact estimates and placed 

in the context of other programs or policies that have similar goals? 

• Sustained effects: Were program impacts measured after the program 

was completed? Was the length of the follow-up period sufficient to 

determine if the effects were sustained? 

• Benefit-cost analysis: Were the major benefits and costs identified? Were 

benefits and costs identified for all affected parties, such as program 

participants, taxpayers, and society as a whole? 

• Cost-effectiveness analysis: Were the major costs associated with 

achieving specific outcomes identified? 
Appendix B 143

Appendix B 

Selected Youth Outcome Measures Currently Being Collected 

(at least nationally) 

 The following tables provide a set of candidate common outcome measures for youth 

programs in selected service areas. These are expressed in terms of the “after-the-service 

level.” For programs that provide services to specific identifiable disadvantaged youth, it is 

also desirable to include measures such as “Percent of clients whose condition improved by 

at least a pre-specified amount from the time the client began receiving the program’s 

services.” 

 The data for many of these measures are currently collected and reported at the national 

level. However, usually that data are not directly applicable to individual federal programs. 

Nevertheless, these same measures appear to be readily adaptable to use for individual 

programs and their clients. This is likely to require new data collection effort on the part of 

many programs, such as to conduct surveys of their clients using selected items from the 

survey instruments used by the federal national surveys. 

 Wherever appropriate, it will likely be preferable to use measures that closely 

approximate ones already in use. This means that at least some of the methodological 

problems have already been worked out and in the case where the measure provides national 

data, will provide already exiting benchmarks. Thus, in the measures included below are 

versions the same as, or at least similar to, ones already in use somewhere at the federal, or in 

a few cases, at the state level. 

 There were many cases where slight variations of the same general measure were used or 

reported by different programs, causing potential problems in comparability. These 

variations are not included here, instead there is a generic phrasing of the measure. Some 

common reasons for such variation are: 

• Differences in the time period over which data are reported (such as calendar year 

versus fiscal year), or the time period over which an event or action (such as use of 

alcohol or drugs) occurred, such as during the past 30 days or the past 12 months; 

• Subtle differences in the population covered, such as “high school students” versus 

“youth ages 12-17” versus “students;” 

• Differences in the wording of response categories in survey questions that reflect the 

specific focus of a program. For example, a measure used by the Safe and Drug Free 

Schools Program is “percentage of students who reported being involved in a physical 

fight on school property.” The measure can become more widely applicable by 

deleting the phrase “on school property.” 
Appendix B 144

 Adoption of common core measures should not be used to restrain programs from using 

any other performance measures they believe would be useful to them. In the Safe and Drug 

Free Schools Program example noted above, if only the broader version of the measure is 

selected as a common measure, the program would still need to continue focusing on counts 

of the number of incidents occurring on school property. 
Appendix B 145

Table 1: Indicators for Programs Seeking a Reduction in Alcohol Abuse 

Indicators 

Int. or End 

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

Percent of youth ages 12-17 who 

reported drinking alcohol in the 

past 30 days. 

End. race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q11 

Percent of high school students 

who reported any alcohol use on 

school property in the previous 30 

days. 

End. race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q43 

Percent of youth ages 12-17 who 

reported binge drinking, having 5 

or more drinks of alcohol in a row 

within a couple of hours, in the 

past 30 days. 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

age 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q42

Percentage of youth who perceive 

that regular use of alcohol is 

harmful. 

Int. race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

age 

National Survey on Drug Use & 

Health (formerly called the National 

Household Survey on Drug Abuse). 

SAMSHA. 

Percent of High School Students 

who rode in a vehicle driven by 

someone drinking alcohol in the 

past 30 days. 

Int. race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q10 
Appendix B 146

Table 2: Indicators for Programs Seeking a Reduction in Drug Abuse 

Indicators 

Int. or End 

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

Proportion of youth not using 

alcohol or any illicit drug within 

the last 30 days. 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

age 

National Survey on Drug Use & 

Health (formerly called the National 

Household Survey on Drug Abuse). 

SAMSHA.

Percentage of students who 

reported using/not using illicit 

drugs in the previous 30 days. 

Illicit drugs include marijuana, 

cocaine (including crack), heroin, 

hallucinogens (including LSD, 

PCP, and ecstasy (MDMA), 

amphetamines (including 

methamaphetamine), inhalants, 

and non-medical use of 

psychotherapeutics. 

End by grade - 

8th, 10th or 

12th 

Monitoring the Future Survey. 

National Institutes of Health. 

Age of youth when they first used 

marijuana. 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q45 

Percentage of youth who perceive 

that regular use of illegal drugs, 

alcohol, and tobacco is harmful. 

Int. Monitoring the Future Survey. 

National Institutes of Health. 

Percentage of high school students 

who report being offered, sold or 

given an illegal drug on school 

property in the previous 12 

months. 

Int. race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q57 

Percentage of youth ages 12-17 

who reported using marijuana in 

the past 30 days. 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q46 

Percentage of high school students 

who reported using marijuana on 

school property in the previous 30 

days. 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q47 

Percentage of youth ages 12-17 

who reported using cocaine in the 

past 30 days. 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q48 

Number of youth treated for drug 

overdoses over the past X months. 

End None identified. 

Percent of you reporting they have 

the skills and confidence to refuse 

alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, 

and sex. 

End America's Promise Youth Indicators. 
Appendix B 147

Table 3: Indicators for Programs Seeking a Reduction in Tobacco Use 

Indicators 

Int. or End 

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

The percentage of youth ages 12-17 

who reported smoking a cigarette 

in the past 30 days. 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior 

Survey. Q30 

Percentage of students who 

reported smoking cigarettes daily 

in the previous 30 days 

End by grade - 

8th, 10th or 

12th. - 

further 

breakouts 

including 

gender and 

race within 

grades 

Monitoring the Future 

Survey. National Institutes of 

Health. 

The percentage of high school 

students who report any cigarette 

use on school property in the 

previous thirty days 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior 

Survey. Q33 

Percentage of youth who perceive 

that regular use of tobacco is 

harmful. 

Int. race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

age 

National Survey on Drug Use 

& Health (formerly called the 

National Household Survey 

on Drug Abuse). SAMSHA.

Percent of youth reporting use of 

smokeless tobacco in past 30 days. 

End grade level 

and gender 

Iowa Youth Survey. Iowa 

Department of Human 

Rights. 
Appendix B 148

Table 4: Indicators for Programs Seeking a Reduction in Violence/Crime (including reduction in 

Juvenile Delinquency and School Violence) 

Indicators 

Int. or End

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

Number/percent of juveniles who 

were arrested during the past 12 

months. 

End gender, 

offense 

Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 

FBI. 

Number of violent crimes 

experienced at school by students 

ages 12-18 

End age, 

race/ethnici

ty, gender 

National Crime Victimization Survey. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Percent of children with law 

enforcement contacts who had no 

more law enforcement contacts after 

12 months 

End None identified. 

NOTE: “Law enforcement contact” 

needs to be clearly defined. 

Number of violent crimes 

experienced by youth ages 12 to 17. 

Serious violent crimes include 

aggravated assault, rape, robbery 

(stealing by force or threat of 

violence), and homicide 

End age, 

race/ethnici

ty, gender 

National Crime Victimization Survey. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. AND 

Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 

FBI. 

Number/percent of students 

involved in serious disciplinary 

incidents in school. 

End Administrative data. Local Schools in 

the State of Minnesota. 

NOTE: “Serious disciplinary 

incidents” needs to be clearly defined 

Percent of youth reporting they feel 

safe at school. 

End grade level 

and gender 

Iowa Youth Survey. Iowa 

Department of Human Rights. 

Percentage of students who reported 

having been suspended from school 

at 

least once in the past 12 months. 

End Kansas Communities that Care 

Survey. 

Percent of youth reporting having 

been disciplined at school for 

fighting, theft, or damaging property 

during the past 12 months. 

End grade level 

and gender 

Iowa Youth Survey. Iowa 

Department of Human Rights. 

Percentage of students who reported 

being involved in a physical fight on 

school property 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q20 

Percent of high school students that 

were threatened or injured with a 

weapon during the last 12 months on 

school property. 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q16 

Percent of high school students who 

carried a weapon (such as a gun, 

knife, or club) in the past 30 days 

Int. race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q12 

Number of days High School 

Students carried a gun during the last 

30 days 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q13 

Percent of High School Students who 

carried a weapon on school property 

in the past 30 days 

Int. race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q14 

Percent of High School students that 

missed school in the last 30 days 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q15 
Appendix B 149

Indicators 

Int. or End

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

because they felt unsafe at school, or 

unsafe going to or from school. 

grade (9-12) 

Percent of youth reporting they have 

resolved conflict non-violently. 

End America's Promise Youth Indicators. 
Appendix B 150

Table 5: Indicators for Programs Seeking Improvement in Academic Performance 

Indicators 

Int. or End 

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

The percentage of 4th grade 

students scoring at or above the 

basic and proficient levels of the 

NAEP. 

End students' gender, 

race or ethnicity, 

highest level of 

parental 

education, and 

type of school 

(public or 

nonpublic) 

Test record data. National 

Assessment for Educational 

Progress. 

The percentage of 8th grade 

students scoring at or above the 

basic and proficient levels of the 

NAEP. 

End students' gender, 

race or ethnicity, 

highest level of 

parental 

education, and 

type of school 

(public or 

nonpublic) 

Test record data. National 

Assessment for Educational 

Progress. 

The percentage of 12th grade 

students scoring at or above the 

basic and proficient levels of the 

NAEP. 

End students' gender, 

race or ethnicity, 

highest level of 

parental 

education, and 

type of school 

(public or 

nonpublic) 

Test record data. National 

Assessment for Educational 

Progress. 

Percent of students in the 

program whose grade-level 

scores increased by at least X 

during the past school year. 

End None identified. 

Percentage of all 12th grade 

students who scored 3 or higher 

on at least one AP English 

exam, on the AP American 

History exam, and on at least 

one AP science exam 

End race, gender Program data. College Board 

Advanced Placement Program, 

NCES, ED. 

The percentage of all 12th grade 

students who took at least one 

AP exam 

End race, gender Program data. College Board 

Advanced Placement Program, 

NCES, ED. 

Percent of students who agree 

with the statement “I try to do 

my best in school” 

Int. grade level and 

gender 

Iowa Youth Survey. Iowa 

Department of Human Rights. 

Percent of 14-18 year olds who 

believe that cheating occurs by 

half or most students 

Int. State of America's Youth 

Survey. The Horatio Alger 

Association. 

Percent reporting they read just 

for fun. 

Int. grade level and 

gender 

Iowa Youth Survey. Iowa 

Department of Human Rights. 

Percent of students that plan to 

complete high school. 

Int. grade level and 

gender 

Iowa Youth Survey. Iowa 

Department of Human Rights. 

The average percentage of days 

that students attended school 

Int. Vermont Department of 

Education Records. 
Appendix B 151

Indicators 

Int. or End 

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

Percent of students on grade 

level 

Int. None identified. 

Status school dropout rates for 

ages 16-24 

End race, ethnicity Current Population Survey. 

Census Bureau, Department of 

Commerce. 

NOTE: Note: Status rates 

measure the proportion of the 

population who have not 

completed high school and are 

not enrolled at one point in 

time, regardless of when they 

dropped out. 

Percentage of 8th grade 

students with disabilities who 

meet or exceed basic levels in 

reading and math, in the 

National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP). 

End students' gender, 

race or ethnicity, 

highest level of 

parental 

education, and 

type of school 

(public or 

nonpublic) 

Test record data. National 

Assessment for Educational 

Progress. 

Percentage of students with 

disabilities who earn a high 

school diploma 

End Data Analysis System (DANS). 

Office of Special Education 

Programs, Department of 

Education. 

NOTE: This data source does 

not include GED counts 

Percent of 16-24 year old high 

school graduates enrolled in 

college in the October following 

graduation 

End age, race, income Current Population Survey. 

Census Bureau, Department of 

Commerce. 

Percent of disadvantaged high 

school graduates enrolled in 

college in the October following 

graduation. 

End 

 

None identified. 

Percent of children entering 

kindergarten who are rated by 

the school as ready to learn. 

Int. None identified. 
Appendix B 152

Table 6: Indicators for Programs Seeking Increased Youth Participation in Community Service 

Indicators 

Int. or End 

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

Percentage of high school students 

who participated in volunteer 

activities during the current school 

year 

End age, sex, 

race/ethnici

ty 

National Household Education 

Survey. National Center for 

Education Statistics, Department 

of Education. 

Involvement in school activities - 

The percentage of students who 

answered yes to the statement 

"There are lots of chances for 

students in my school to get 

involved in sports, clubs, and other 

school activities outside of class.” 

 Int. Kansas Communities that Care 

Survey 

Percent of students who in the past 

school year provided at least an 

average of X hours per month of 

community service 

End None identified. 

Percent of students who, 12 

months after finishing school, 

reported having participated in 

some voluntary community service 

activity since leaving school. 

End None identified. 

Percent of youth reporting they 

place a high value on helping other 

people 

 Int. America's Promise Youth 

Indicators 
Appendix B 153

Table 7: Indicators for Programs Seeking Effective Substance Abuse Treatment

Indicators 

Int. or End 

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

Substance Abuse Treatment 

Admissions by Primary Substance 

of Abuse 

Int. ages 0-11 

and 12-17 

Treatment Episode Data Set 

(TEDS). Office of Applied 

Studies, Substance Abuse Mental 

and Health Services 

Administration. 

Percent of youth ages 12-17 who 

reported they are currently using 

an illicit drug that are receiving 

some form of treatment. 

Int. None identified. 

Percent of youth who in the past 12 

months dropped out of a drug 

treatment program. 

Int. None identified. 

Percent of youth who had received 

treatment for substance abuse that 

as of X months after completion of 

the treatment were not using illicit 

drugs. 

End None identified. 
Appendix B 154

Table 8: Indicators for Programs Seeking Increased Youth Self Sufficiency Skills 

Indicators 

Int. or End 

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

Number and percent who entered 

employment, enrolled in 

education, or entered a training 

program as of the first quarter after 

exit from school or from the 

particular outside-school program. 

End Unemployment Insurance 

Wage Records. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Department 

of Labor. 

Percentage of youth ages 16 to 19 

who are neither enrolled in school 

nor working 

Int. gender, race Current Population Survey. 

Census Bureau, Department 

of Commerce AND Bureau of 

Labor Statistics Data. 

Number of youth who complete 

high school, GED, receive skills or 

job readiness training and/or 

secure employment. 

End None identified. 

Percentage of youth who report 

having the ability to plan ahead 

and make choices. 

Int. America's Promise Youth 

Indicators. 

Percent of graduating youth 

reporting that the training they 

received has given them the skills 

to take care of themselves. 

Int. None identified. 

Percent of graduating youth 

reporting that the training they 

received gives them confidence 

that they will be able to get the 

kind of job they want. 

Int. grade level 

and gender 

Iowa Youth Survey. Iowa 

Department of Human 

Rights. 
Appendix B 155

Table 9: Indicators for Programs Seeking Improved Mental Health 

Indicators 

Int. or End 

Outcome? Breakouts 

Main Source/ 

 Data Source 

Percent of children with serious 

depression or loneliness. 

End None identified. 

Proportion of suicide attempts 

among youth grades 9-12 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q26 

Number and percentage of 

children who considered suicide 

during the last 12 months. 

End race/ethnici

ty, sex, or 

grade (9-12) 

CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q24 

Percent of youth with “normal” 

levels of subjective well-being 

End None identified. 

Percent of youth receiving mental 

health services who attain an 

improved level of functioning at 

discharge. 

End None identified. 

Percent of youth receiving mental 

health services who attain an 

improved level of functioning 12 

months after completion of the 

services. 

End None identified. 

Percentage of children that felt so 

bad they stopped usual activities, 

during the last 12 months 

End CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Q23 

Percentage of children with serious 

emotional disturbance who reside 

in a stable environment 

End None identified. 

Percentage of children with serious 

emotional disturbance who attend 

school regularly 

End None identified. 

Average days of inpatient 

residential treatment among 

children with serious emotional 

disturbance in grantee 

communities over the past year 

End None identified. 

Percent of children in families 

receiving behavioral health 

services who experience an 

improved level of functioning at 

discharge. 

End Agency Reported Data. New 

Mexico Children’s Mental Health 

Agencies. 

Number of teen deaths caused by 

suicide 

End National Vital Statistics System. 

National Center for Health 

Statistics. 

 

Appendix C 157

Appendix C 

Source Material for Common Indicators 

The first list in the following appendix identifies the publications and reports reviewed. 

Each source contained a wealth of measures; however, measures were not included 

from every source reviewed. 

The second list identifies the material from which were drawn the measures in the 

report – where a source could be found. These materials are excellent resources for 

additional indicators. 
Appendix C 158

Source Material for Common Indicators 

Materials Reviewed

“America’s Children: Key National Indicator of Well-Being 2002.” Forum on Child and 

Family Statistics. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 

“America's Promise Youth Indicators.” The Alliance for Youth. Washington, DC. 

“Chapin Hall Cross-State Youth Indicator Matrices: Social and Emotional Development 

Indicators.” Workshop materials: Youth Indicators Technical Assistance Workshop, 

Washington, DC, April 2002. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, Chapin Hall Center for 

Children and Child Trends. 

“Community Level Indicators for Understanding Health and Human Services Issues: A 

Compendium of Selected Indicator Systems and Resource Organizations.” Department 

of Health and Human Services. September 2000. 

“Developmental list of measures.” Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice. 

“Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse Fact Sheet.” Office of National Drug Control 

Policy. June, 2003. 

“FY 2002 Performance and Accountability Report.” Department of Education. 

“Health, United States, 2000, with Adolescent Health Chartbook.” National Center for 

Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

“Juvenile Justice Bulletin.” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

Department of Justice. December 2000. 

“Kids Count Data Book: 2003.” The Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

“Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes.” John P. Robinson, Phillip 

R. Shaver and Lawrence S. Wrightsman. Academic Press, 1991. 

“Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning Results” 

(http://www.departmentresults.state.mn.us/dcfl/index.html) 
Appendix C 159

“Minnesota Department of Human Services Results.” 

(http://www.departmentresults.state.mn.us/hs/index.html) 

“National Drug Control Strategy Performance Measures of Effectiveness: 2000 Annual 

Report.” Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

“New Mexico Budget FY 2004.” 

“Performance and Management Assessments.” Budget of the United States 

Government, Fiscal Year 2004. Office of Management and Budget. 

“Trends in the Well-Being of America’s Children and Youth 2002.” Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) of the Department of Health 

and Human Services. 

Basic Data Sources for Measures Included in Appendix A

Administrative data. Local Schools in the State of Minnesota. 

Agency Reported Data. New Mexico Children’s Mental Health Agencies. 

Current Population Survey. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce. 

Data Analysis System (DANS). Office of Special Education Programs, Department of 

Education. 

Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics. Michigan Department of Community 

Health. 

HIV/AIDS Surveillance System. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and 

Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Iowa Youth Survey. Iowa Department of Human Rights. 

Kansas Communities that Care Survey. Office of Prevention, Kansas Department of 

Social and Rehabilitation Services. 
Appendix C 160

Monitoring the Future Survey. National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug 

Abuse. The instrument was not obtained for this report. Indicators are listed as 

described in secondary sources unless otherwise noted. 

National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. 

The current 2001 questionnaire was used for references in this report. 

National Household Education Survey. National Center for Education Statistics, 

Department of Education. The 2001 Before and After-School Programs and Activities 

Survey, and 2001 Adult Education and Lifelong Learning Survey were used for 

references in this study. 

National Survey on Drug Use & Health (formerly called the National Household 

Survey on Drug Abuse). Substance Abuse Mental and Health Services Administration, 

Department of Health and Human Services. The 2001 questionnaire was used for 

references in this report. 

National Vital Statistics System. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

Program data. College Board Advanced Placement Program. National Center for 

Education Statistics, Department of Education. 

State of America's Youth Survey. The Horatio Alger Association. 

STD Surveillance System. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health 

Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Test record data. National Assessment for Educational Progress. 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS). Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse Mental 

and Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. 

Unemployment Insurance Wage Records. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of 

Labor. 

Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Vermont Department of Education Records. 
Appendix C 161

Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Division of Alcohol & Drug Abuse Programs, 

Vermont Department of Health.

Youth Risk Behavior Survey. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and 

Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 2003 questionnaire 

was used for references in this report. 

Appendix D: Youth Program Funding FY 2001- FY 2004 1

(in billions of dollars)

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Enacted Enacted Enacted Request

Department of Agriculture

Food Stamps................................................................................... 20.0 22.8 26.2 27.6

School Nutrition Programs............................................................... 7.2 7.6 8.1 8.5

WIC.................................................................................................. 4.0 4.5 4.7 4.8

Child and Adult Care Food Program............................................... 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

Department of Agriculture, Other..................................................... 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Department of Agriculture, Total............................................... 33.4 37.1 41.3 43.3

Department of Education

Title I, Grants to LEAs..................................................................... 8.8 10.4 11.7 12.4

Reading First State Grants.............................................................. --- 0.9 1.0 1.1

Special Education, Grants to States................................................ 6.3 7.5 8.9 9.5

Perkins Vocational and Technical Education.................................. 1.1 1.18 1.19 ---

Department of Education, Other...................................................... 9.8 8.8 8.8 7.2 ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Department of Education, Total................................................ 26.0 28.8 31.6 30.2

Department of Health and Human Services

Medicaid 2

........................................................................................ 19.8 23.1 26.1 29.0

Adoption Assistance/Foster Care and Adoption.............................. 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.7

Child Care Development Fund........................................................ 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.8

Child Support Enforcement............................................................. 2.9 3.5 3.2 3.5

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families...................................... 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9

State Children's Health Insurance Program.................................... 3.7 3.7 4.75 2.7

Consolidated Health Centers........................................................... 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant.............. 1.3 1.4 1.40 1.4

Head Start 2

..................................................................................... 6.2 6.5 6.8 6.8

Department of Health and Human Services, Other......................... 8.8 9.3 6.4 9.8 ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Department of Health and Human Services, Total.................. 71.8 77.1 78.4 83.2

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Supportive Housing Program.......................................................... 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4

Community Development Block Grants........................................... 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.4

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Other................. 1.6 1.4 1.3 0.7 ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Total......... 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.5

Department of Labor

Job Corps........................................................................................ 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6

Workforce Investment Act Formula Youth....................................... 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0

Department of Labor, Other............................................................. 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Department of Labor, Total........................................................ 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6

Other

Social Security, Supplemental Security Income 2

............................ 5.3 5.5 5.7 6.0

Social Security, Dependent, Survivor and DI benefits 2

................... 20.1 21.1 22.8 23.6

Earned Income Tax Credit (outlay portion only) 2 ............................ 26.1 27.9 30.6 31.4

Department of Defense................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Department of the Interior................................................................ 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0

Department of Justice...................................................................... 2.8 2.1 1.8 0.7

Department of Transportation 3

........................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Office of National Drug Control Policy............................................. 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Environmental Protection Agency 3

.................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Corporation for National and Community Service........................... 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Other, Total.................................................................................. 56.1 58.3 62.7 63.6

TOTAL.......................................................................................... 197.2 211.1 223.5 229.4

1

 Source: Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

3

 Totals less than $500 million.

2

 OMB estimates. These programs are not in the Federal Youth Programs Survey. Amounts shown for these programs are the 

amounts attributable to youth and do not represent the whole program.

Appendix D 163

Appendix E: Federal 

Youth-serving Programs with Type of Service Funded, FY 2003 (Total appropriations may overlap and also serve other age groups)

 FY '03 Appropriation (Millions) 

Academic services/educationally related services

Activities to support adults who work with youth

After school/Summer programs

AIDS/STD prevention

Bilingual education

Capital improvement

Character education

Child abuse and neglect prevention/related services

Chronic disease prevention

Clearinghouse/resource center

Counseling

Economic/community development

Evaluation activities

Funding for conferences/meetings

General health care

Improvement of/application of technology

Information dissemination

Institutional systems support

Job training/employment skills development

Juvenile offender services

Mental health services

Mentoring

Offender treatment

Parental and family intervention;

Peer activities

Planning and program development

Pregnancy prevention

Research

Self-sufficiency skills development

A

genc

y and Pro

gram

Department of Agriculture4H Youth Development 25.52 $ DD D D D D DDDD

Children, Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR)

$ 8.43 DDDD DD D DDD DD D D DDDD D

Child and Adult Care Food Program 1,925.00 $ D 

Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program

$ 5.00 DD D D DD D

National School Lunch Program 6,389.00 $ D 

School Breakfast Program 1,681.00 $ 

Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

$ 4,696.00 

Summer Food Service Program for Children

$ 288.00 D 

Department of DefenseAbout Face - $ D D D DD DDD D D DD D

National Guard Challenge Program 63.30 $ D D D DDDDD D D DDD

DOD STARBASE - $ DDD D DD 

NJROTC 36.82 $ D D D D D D D D

Naval Sea Cadet Corps 1.00 $ D D D D D D

Young Marines 3.34 $ DDD D DDD D D DD D 

Department of Education21st Century Community Learning Centers

$ 993.50 DDD D D D DD D D DD 

Class-Size Reduction Program - $ D

Appendix E 
Comprehensive Regional Assistance 

Centers

$ 27.82 DD D D DD DDD D D 

Comprehensive School Reform 233.47 $ D D D D D D 

Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments

$ - D

Improving Literacy Through School Libraries

$ 12.42 D D

Innovative Programs 382.50 $ DDDDD DDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D

McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act

$ 54.64 D DD D D D D 

Migrant Ed - High School Equivalency Program (HEP)

$ 23.35 D

Migrant Education -- National Migrant Education Hotline

$ 0.94 D

Migrant Education Coordination Program - Consortium Incentive Grants

$ 2.50 D

Migrant Education Coordination Program - Interstate and Intrastate Coordination Grants

$ 1.84 D DD D

Migrant Education Coordination Program -- Migrant Education Support Center

$ 0.54 D

Migrant Education Even Start 8.69 $ DDD D D D DDD D D D D D 

Migrant Education State Grant Program 395.41 $ DD D D DD

Office of Indian Education 121.57 $ DDD D D D 

Prevention and Intervention Program for Children and Youth who are Neglected Delinquent or At-Risk

$ - D D D DDD 

Reading First State Grants 993.50 $ D DD 

Rural Education Achievement Program 167.65 $ D

Title I, Part A - Grants to Local Educational Agencies

$ 11,684.31 DDD D DD 

Even Start Tribes and Tribal Organizations

$ 4.97 DD D D DD D 

William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs

$ 248.38 DD D DD D 

Enhancing Education through Technology 695.95 $ D DD

Advanced Placement Test Fee Program and Advanced Placement Incentive Program

$ 23.35 D D

Close Up Fellowship Program 1.49 $ D DD

Appendix E 
Cultural Partnership for At-Risk Children 

& Youth

$ 4.00 D D DD D 

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

$ 6.00 D D

Native Hawaiian Curriculum Development, Teacher Training and Recruitment Program

$ 0.50 DD D D D 

Parent Assistance and Local Family Information Centers

$ 42.22 DDD D D D DDDDD DDDDDD D DD 

Professional Development of Music Educators

$ 6.50 D D DD D D D D 

Public Charter Schools Program 198.70 $ D DDD D D D 

Reading is Fundamental 25.33 $ DD D D D 

Ready to Learn Television 22.85 $ D DD D D D 

School Dropout Prevention 10.93 $ DDD D D D D D DDD DD 

Very Special Arts 7.00 $ DD D D D D

Voluntary Public School Choice Program 25.83 $ D DDD D D D 

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP)

$ 293.08 DD DD D DD 

Talent Search 142.30 $ D DD DD DD 

Upward Bound 268.40 $ D DD D D 

Upward Bound Math-Science 31.80 $ D DD D D 

Carol M. White Physical Education Program

$ 59.61 DD D D 

Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program

$ 32.29 DDDD DDD D DDD DDDDDD DDDDDD

Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse 24.84 $ DD DD D DDD DDD D

Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners Program

$ 4.97 D DD DD D D D D DDDDD D

Mentoring Program 17.39 $ D D

National Coordinator Program 16.09 $ D D 

Safe and Drug-Free School and Communities Act State Grants Program

$ 468.95 D D D D D DDD D D 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students 184.60 $ DDD DD DD D DDDDDDDD DD D D

State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders

$ 18.38 D DD D D D

Native Hawaiian Special Education Program

$ 3.10 D D

Special Education Grants to States 8,874.40 $ D D DD D

Appendix E 
Switzer Fellowship (1), Field Initiated 

Research (2), Rehabilitation Research Training Center (1)

$ 0.35 D D D D DD

Coordinated technical assistance and dissemination

$ 53.13 D D D DDD DD 

Personnel Preparation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

$ 91.90 

Research and Innovation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

$ 77.21 DDD DD DD DDDD D DDD DD 

Special Education; State Program Improvement Grant

$ 51.36 D D 

Studies and Evaluations 16.00 $ D D

Technology Development, Demonstration, and Utilization and Media Services

$ 37.96 DD D DD DD D D DD 

Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities

$ 26.33 DD D D D D D 

Braille Training Program 0.12 $ D

Demonstration and Training Programs 20.90 $ D D D D DD 

Parent Information and Training (PIT) & PIT Technical Assistance Center

$ 0.88 DD DD 

Projects With Industry 21.93 $ DD 

Vocational Rehabilitation -- State Grants 2,533.49 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD

Adult Education - State Administered Grant Program

$ 571.26 D D 

Assistance for the Outlying Areas 1.48 $ D

Native Hawaiian Vocational Education Program

$ 2.93 D

Tech Prep Demonstration Program 4.97 $ D

Community Technology Centers Program 32.48 $ DDD D D D D D 

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act

$ 1,192.20 DD D D D DD D D 

Department of Health and Human ServicesAdoption Incentive Program 42.72 $ D D D DD D D D 

Family Support (PNS) - $ DD DD 

Projects of National Significance (PNS) 12.40 $ D D D DD D D D D D 

Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights

$ 36.26 D D DDD DDDDDD DDD D 

Appendix E 
State Councils on Developmental 

Disabilities

$ 71.13 DD DDDDD D D D DD

University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service (UCEDDS)

$ 24.96 DDDD DDDDD D DDDDDDDD D DDDD

Native American Languages Grant Program

$ 45.46 DDD D D D D D D D 

Social Economic Development Strategies (SEDS)

$ 45.46 D D DDDD DDDDD D DDD DD

Adoption Opportunities 27.23 $ D DD D D D D 

Chafee Foster Care Independence Program

$ 181.73 DDDDD D DD DD D D D DD D D D

Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities

$ 33.84 D DD D D D D 

Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants 21.87 $ D D

Child Welfare Services 290.09 $ D DD DD DD DDDD DDD 

Children's Justice Act 17.00 $ D D DD DDD DD 

Community Based Family Resource and Support Program

$ 33.20 D DD DD DD D D D D 

Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance

$ 4,884.50 D D DD D 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families 404.35 $ D DD D D DDDD D D 

Title IV-E Adoption Assistance 1,584.50 $ D D DD DDD 

Child Care Development Fund 4,803.34 $ DDD D DD D D DD 

Runaway and Homeless Youth - Basic Center program

$ 49.47 DD D D DD DDDDD D DDDDDDDD 

Runaway and Homeless Youth - State Collaboration/Demonstration Grants for Positive Youth Development

$ 1.56 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Runaway and Homeless Youth - Transitional Living Program and Maternity Group Homes

$ 40.50 D D DD DD DDD D D DDDDDDDDD

Runaway and Homeless Youth/Education and Prevention Grants to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless and Street Youth (Street Outreach)

$ 15.40 D 2 D DD DDDD D DDDDDD 

Community Services Block Grant 645.76 $ DDD D D DDD D DDD D DDDD D

Family Violence Prevention and Services Program Discretionary Grants

$ - D DD D 

Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women's Shelters -- Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions

$ - D DD D 

Appendix E 
Family Violence Prevention and 

Services/Grants for Battered Women's Shelters -- Grants to States and Indian Tribes

$ 126.40 D DD D 

National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) 16.89 $ DD D DDD D D 

Social Services Block Grant 1,700.00 $ DDDDD DD D D DDDDDD D D D 

Child Support Enforcement 3,245.97 $ 

OCSE Access and Visitation program 10.00 $ DD D 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program

$ 16,908.63 D D D D DD DD D DD D DDDDDD 

Social Services Research and Demonstration program

$ 34.75 DD D DD 

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program

$ 42.00 DDD 

Community Coalition Partnerships for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy/Capacity Building for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy

$ 13.02 DD DD D D 

Cooperative Agreement to Support Comprehensive School health programs to prevent the spread of HIV & other important health problems

$ 57.84 DD D D DD DD D DDD 

HIV Prevention Projects for CommunityBased Organizations Targeting Men of Color Who have sex with men

$ - D D D D DD DD DD D 

HIV Related Applied Research 0.20 $ D D

Tobacco Control Program 99.93 $ D D DD 

Prevention Research Centers Program - $ D D D DDD D D DDDDDD 

Injury Prevention and Control Research 10.10 $ D D DD 

National Academic Centers for Excellence on Youth Violence Prevention

$ 9.22 D DD D D D 

National Oral Health Programs 11.71 $ DD 

National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center

$ 25.51 DD D DD D 

Residential Fire Prevention - $ D DD

Health Care Financing Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations [CMS Research]

$ 73.71 D DD

State Children's Health Insurance Program

$ 4,751.00 D D D 

Special Projects of National Significance 24.84 $ D D DD DD 

Appendix E 
Consolidated Health Centers 1,504.81 $ D D D DD D D 

Health Care for the Homeless 121.75 $ D D DDDDD D DD 

Healthy Schools Healthy Communities 21.02 $ D D D D D DD D 

Public Housing Primary Care 17.62 $ D DD DDD DDDDD D D DD D

Coordinated HIV Services and Access to Research for Children, Youth, Women and Families

$ 59.60 DD D D D D D DD DDDDDD

Coordinated Services and Access to Research for Women, Infants, Children, and Youth: Youth Initiative

$ 6.06 DD D D D D D DD DDDDDD

Center for Maternal and Child Oral Health 1.35 $ D 

Healthy Start 98.35 $ DDD

Integrated health and behavioral health care for children, adolescents, and their families

$ 0.80 D D D D D 

Maternal and Child Health Block Grant 729.97 $ D DDD 

National Adolescent Health Information Center; Adolescent Health Center for State Maternal and Child Health Personnel

$ 2.25 DD 

Section 510 Abstinence Education Grant Program

$ 49.68 DDD D D D D D D D 

Medical Home for Children with Special Health Care Needs

$ 5.00 DD DD D D 

SPRANS Community-Based Abstinence Education Project Grants

$ 54.64 DDD D D D D D DDD 

Rural Health Outreach Grant Program - $ D D DD D D D DD 

Child and Youth Initiative - $ DDD D D D DDD D D DDDD D

Alcohol Research Center Grants - $ DD D

Alcohol Research Programs - $ DD D

Cancer Control - $ DD D

Center for Research for Mothers and Children

$ - DD D

Drug Abuse Research Programs - $ DD D

Mental Health Research Grants - $ DD D

Nursing Research - $ DD D

Oral Diseases and Disorders Research - $ DD D

Policy Research and Evaluation Grants - $ D DD D DD DDD DD DDDDDD 

Family and Community Violence Prevention Program

$ 7.35 D D D D D D D DD 

Appendix E 
Adolescent Family Life program 

(research)

$ 0.99 D

Adolescent Family Life Program (demonstration)

$ 30.92 DD DD D D D DD DD D D

Family Planning Personnel Training Program

$ 7.00 DD D D 

Family Planning Program (services) 247.80 $ D D D DD D D 

Family Planning Service Delivery Improvement Research

$ 8.90 D D D

National Bone Health Campaign 1.69 $ D D DD

Circles of Care 2.40 $ DD DD D

Community Youth Mental Health Promotion and Violence/Substance Abuse Prevention

$ - DDD DD DDDD DDDDDD DDD D

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services Program for Children and Their Families

$ 98.05 D DD DD D DDD 

Hotline Evaluation and Linkage Program 3.00 $ D DD D D DD 

Mental Health Block Grant 437.14 $ D

National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative 30.00 $ DD D DD D DDD D D D D 

National Suicide Prevention Resource Center (NSPRC)

$ 3.00 D DD D DD D DDD 

Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act of 1986

$ 33.78 D 

School Guidelines and Related Activities of National Strategy for Suicide Prevention

$ - D D D DD D DDD 

Statewide Family Networks 3.40 $ D D DD D DDD D 

TCE (Targeted Capacity Expansion) - Prevention and Early Intervention

$ 1.00 D DD

Youth Violence Prevention Program 10.00 $ D 

Alaska Comprehensive Integrated Approach to FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder)

$ 5.80 D DD DDDDDD DDDD D

Community Initiated Interventions - $ D D DD DDD D D DD 

Ecstasy, Other Club Drugs, Methamphetamines and Inhalants

$ 8.00 DDD DD D DDDDDDD DD DDD D

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) Center for Excellence

$ 2.60 D DD DD DD D D 

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Education Initiative

$ 1.25 DDD D DDDD 

Four State Consortium on FAS/FAE 0.70 $ D DD DDD DD D D DDDD

Appendix E 
Girl Power! 0.06 $ 

Hispanic Latino Boys and their Fathers 0.44 $ DD D D 

MADD Youth Steering Committee - $ DD 

Mentoring and Family Strengthening 6.91 $ D D DD D 

National Association for Children of Alcoholics

$ - D DD D D D 

National Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI)

$ 7.08 DD 

Parenting is Prevention/National Families in Action

$ 0.40 D D D D 

Prevention of Underage Alcohol Use - $ DDD D D D DDD D D D DD 

Reality Check 0.10 $ D D D DDD D DDD 

Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resource Network (part of NCADI contract)

$ 0.25 D D 

Soy Unica Soyo Latina Hispanic Initiative 0.14 $ DD D D 

Starting Early Starting Smart - $ DDD D DDD D DD DDD D DDDDDD

State Incentive Grants Discretionary Program

$ 60.75 DD DD D D DDD 

Substance Abuse and HIV Prevention in Minority Communities

$ 39.80 DD D D DD DDD DD DDDD D

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant/Prevention SetAside

$ 350.79 DDDD D DDD D D D DDD D

Cooperative Agreement to Study Children of Women with Alcohol. Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Disorders Who have Histories of Violence

$ 1.00 D DDDDD D DDD DD 

Cooperative Agreements for Strengthening Communities in the Development of Comprehensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Systems for Youth

$ 8.82 D D DDDDD DDDD D 

Development of Comprehensive Drug/Alcohol and Mental Health Treatment Systems for Persons Who Are Homeless

$ 28.50 D DDD D D DD 

Evaluation of Outpatient Treatment Models for Persons with Co-occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders

$ - D

Appendix E 
Grants to Improve the Quality and 

Availability for Residential Treatment and its Continuing Care Component for Adolescents

$ 8.09 D D DDDDD DDD D 

Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts/TCE 15.61 $ D D DD DD DDDDD D D 

Practice Improvement Collaborative 5.59 $ D D D 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant

$ 1,403.15 D D D D DD D DDDD 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 31.69 $ D DDD DDD D DDD D DDD DDDDD D 

Targeted Capacity Expansion for HIV/AIDS

$ 60.29 D D D DD D D D 

Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentEmpowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities Program

$ 30.00 DDD D DDD DD D D DDD D

Community Development Block Grant/Entitlement Grants

$ 1,310.38 D DDDDDDDDDD D D D DDDDDDDDD D

Community Development Block Grants/Special Purpose Grants/Insular Areas

$ - D DDDDDDDDDD D D D DDDDDDDDD D

Community Development Block Grants/States Program

$ 3,057.55 D DDDDDDDDDD D D D DDDDDDDDD D

Emergency Shelter Grants - $ 

Supportive Housing Program 1,217.00 $ 

Indian Housing Block Grant 645.00 $ D D D DD D D D 

HOPE VI 570.00 $ DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDD

Youthbuild collaborations 60.00 $ D DD D 

Community Outreach Partnership Center 7.00 $ D DDD D D D DD DD

Department of InteriorIndian Child and Family Education (FACE)

$ 15.16 D D D

Indian Social Services: Welfare Assistance

$ 25.00 

Administrative Cost Grants for Indian Schools

$ 44.77 DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Assistance for Indian Children with Severe Disabilities

$ 3.80 DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian Education - Assistance to Schools 16.91 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian Education Facilities Maintenance 49.18 $ DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian Education Facilities Operations 55.42 $ DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian School Equalization Program 347.20 $ DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Appendix E 
Indian Schools - Student Transportation 37.26 $ DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Replacement and Repair of Indian Schools

$ 327.61 DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Therapeutic Residential Model 2.94 $ DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian Child Welfare Act 11.05 $ D D D D 

Services to Indian Children, Elderly and Families

$ 31.52 DD 

Teaching with Historic Places - $ DD D D D 

Department of JusticeGang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.)

$ 16.00 DD D DDD DDD D DDD DD

Public Education on Drug Abuse - Information

$ 1.00 DD D D D DD 

Cops in Schools (Community Oriented Policing Services)

$ 39.74 D D

Executive Office for Weed and Seed 58.54 $ DDD DD DDDD DDDDD D DDD D

Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 397.52 $ DD DD DD DD DDDD DDDDDD D

Byrne Earmark, Alaska Native Justice Center

$ 0.99 D DD 

Byrne Earmark, Miami Dade MAD DADS - $ DD D D D D D D D D 

Byrne Earmark, National Fatherhood Initiative

$ 2.98 D D D D D D 

Byrne Earmark, Regional Tribal Justice Center for Lake, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties

$ - DD D D D D 

Byrne Earmark, San Bernardino County/Night Light Program

$ - D D D D D DD 

Byrne Earmark, Santee-Lynches MultiJurisdictional Community Oriented Policing Demonstration Project Youthful Offender Focus

$ - DDD D D DD D D 

Byrne Earmark, Youth and Young Adult Intervention Program

$ - DD DD D D 

Byrne Formula Grant 496.75 $ D D DD D DD DDD D DD DD DD 

Community Prosecution - $ D DD 

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners (RSAT)

$ 64.60 DD D DD DDD D 

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative

$ 14.84 D D D DD DDDDDDDDD D 

Sex Offender Management Discretionary Grant

$ 4.96 D D D D D D DD 

Tribal Courts Assistance Program 7.95 $ DD D

Appendix E 
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth 

in Sentencing Incentive Grants (VOI/TIS)

$ - D 

Juvenile Breaking the Cycle 0.75 $ D D D D D DD D D 

Conflict Resolution for School Personnel Project

$ - D D 

Anti-Defamation League's -- Partners Against Hate

$ 0.65 D DD D DD DDDD D D 

Attorney Training in Juvenile Justice 0.50 $ D DD 

Balanced and Restorative Justice Project 0.28 $ D D DD D 

Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America 5.00 $ D D DD DDD D DDD D 

Blueprints/Life Skills Training Program - $ D D D

Byrne Earmark, Boys and Girls Clubs of America

$ 80.00 DDD DD D D D D DD D D

Chicago Violence Program 0.45 $ DD D D DDDD DD 

Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners

$ 2.28 

Crimes Against Children Research Center Phase 2

$ 1.50 D D D D DD DD 

Crimes Against Children Research Center Phase 3

$ - D D D D DD DD 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement 0.30 $ D D DD D 

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) (Discretionary)

$ 6.60 D D DD 

Evaluation Facilitation of the tribal Youth Program (program evaluation)

$ 0.55 D DD 

Evaluation of Juvenile Mentoring Program 1.60 $ D D DD D D

Evaluation of Parents Anonymous (program evaluation)

$ 0.30 D DD

Evaluation of Safe Start Initiative 0.50 $ D DD

Gang-Free Schools and Communities: Community Based Gang Intervention

$ 11.90 DDD DD DD DDDDDDDDDD DD 

Hate Crimes Involving Juveniles as Victims and Offenders

$ - D D

It's about the Children Drug Awareness Campaign

$ - DD D

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) Program

$ 188.77 D D D DDD D D D 

Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project

$ 0.50 D DD 

Juvenile Justice/Substance Abuse Integration

$ - D DD D 

Appendix E 
National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges

$ 3.00 D D DD D DD DDDDDDDD 

National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

$ 88.68 D DD

National Juvenile Detention Association: Training and Technical Assistance Efforts for Juvenile Corrections Workers and Line Staff

$ 0.85 DD D DD D DD DDDDDDDD 

National Juvenile Sex Offender Training Project -- University of Oklahoma Health Science Center

$ 0.20 D D D DD DD DD DD 

National Law-Related Education Program/Youth for Justice

$ 1.90 D D D DD DDD 

National Youth Court Center 0.65 $ D D DD DDD D DD 

Performance-based Standards for Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG)

$ - D D D DDD D 

Performance-based Standards for Juvenile Detention and Correction Facilities (PBS) Project

$ 1.70 D D D DDD D 

Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Program (PALYEP)

$ 6.00 DDD D D DDDD D DD D

Risk Focused Policing - $ D D DDD

Safe Kids/Safe Streets: Community Approaches to Reducing Abuse and Neglect and Preventing Delinquency

$ 1.92 D D D DD DD DD 

Safe Start Initiative 9.94 $ D D DD D D D D D D 

Second National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children

$ 0.53 D D

State Challenge Activities Program 9.91 $ DD D DD DD D D 

State Formula Grants Program - Title II 83.26 $ DDD D DD DDDD DDDDD D 

Title V - Community Prevention Grants Program

$ 2.51 DD D D DD D D D 

Training and TA to Federal, State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies

$ 1.20 D DD D D 

Tribal Youth Program 12.39 $ DD DD D DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD

$ -

Tribal Youth Training and Technical Assistance Program

$ 0.25 DD DD D D DDDDDDD D

Utility of Mental Health Assessments in Incarcerated Youth

$ - DD D

Appendix E 
Victims of Child Abuse - Child Abuse 

Investigation and Prosecution

$ 10.93 D D DD DDD D D 

Victims of Child Abuse - Court Appointed Special Advocates

$ 11.90 D DD DDD D 

West Farms Career Academy - Phipps Community Development Corporation

$ - DDDDD DD D DDD DDDDDDDD D

Youth Violence Alternative Project - $ D D D D D 

Missing Children's Assistance Program 32.63 $ D D DD D D D 

Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) 15.86 $ DDD DD DD D D D 

Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program

$ 0.68 DD DD DD DD DDDDD DD 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program

$ 18.24 

Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program

$ 39.69 D 

Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Program

$ 14.90 

STOP Violence Against Indian Women Discretionary Grants Program

$ 9.17 D D 

STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants Program

$ 145.52 D D 

Children's Justice Act Partnerships for Indian Communities

$ 2.98 D D D D 

Department of LaborJob Corps 1,518.55 $ D DDD D D DDD D D DDD D

Migrant and Seasonal Farm worker Youth Activities

$ 1.80 D D D D D DD D D D

Rewarding Youth Achievement Grants - $ D D D D D DD D D D

WIA Formula Youth 1,000.97 $ DDD DDD DDDD DDDD DD DD D

Youth Offender Demonstration Initiative 55.00 $ D D D D D DD D D D

Youth Opportunity Grants 44.50 $ D D D D D DD D D D

Apprenticeship and Training 20.83 $ DDD DDD D D 

High School/High Tech Program 1.80 $ DDD D DD DD D D DDD DD 

Girls' E-Mentoring in Science, Engineering and Technology

$ - D D DD D D 

Department of Transportation $ -

Aspirando la Seguridad en Trafico 0.10 $ D

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions Juvenile Holdover Program

$ - D D 

Farm Safety 4 Just Kids: Buckle Up or Eat Glass

$ - DD D 

Appendix E 
National Organizations for Youth Safety 

(NOYS)

$ 0.15 D D DD D D DD D

Native American Outreach 0.05 $ D D D 

Jack & Jill of America Inc. "A Habit For Life" JJA says Buckle Up!

$ - D DD D D 

Asian American Outreach - $ D 

Environmental Protection AgencyEnvironmental Education grants 2.80 $ DD D D D 

National Environmental Education Training Program

$ 1.81 D D

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Drug Free Communities Support Program Grants

$ 59.61 D 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign

$ 149.03 D D D D D 

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps State*National 173.86 $ DDDDD DDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D

AmeriCorps*NCCC 24.84 $ DDD D D D D D DD D

AmeriCorps*VISTA 93.67 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDD

Learn and Serve America - Higher Education

$ 10.61 DDDD DD DDDD DD D DD D DD D 

Learn and Serve America-CommunityBased Organization/School-Based Organizations

$ 32.11 DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DD D DDDDDD

Foster Grandparent Program 111.12 $ D D D DDD DD D D D 

Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)

$ 58.50 DD D D D D D DDDDDD D D D

Appendix E 

Appendix F: Federal Youthserving Programs with Target 

Populations Served, FY 2003 (Total appropriations may overlap and also serve other age groups)

 FY '03 Appropriation (Millions) 

Abused/neglected youth

Adults who work with youth

All youth

At-risk/high-risk youth

Children of welfare recipients

Current or former children or youth in foster care

Dropouts/potential dropouts

Immigrant youth

Juvenile delinquents/offenders

Low-income youth

Migratory youth

Minority youth

Missing/exploited/abducted youth

Native American/Alaskan/Hawaiian youth

Obese youth

Pregnant/parenting youth

Runaway/homeless youth

Rural youth

Students (includes public, private, home school)

Sufferers of chronic disease (including HIV/AIDS)

Unemployable or unemployed youth

Urban youth

Agency and Program

Department of Agriculture4H Youth Development $ 25.52 DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDChildren, Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR) $ 8.43 DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDChild and Adult Care Food Program $ 1,925.00 D DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD D Commodity Supplemental Food Program $ 114.50 D DCommunity Food Projects Competitive Grant Program

 $ 5.00 DDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDD DD

Food Stamps $ 26,168.69 D DNational School Lunch Program $ 6,389.00 D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSchool Breakfast Program $ 1,681.00 D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSpecial Milk Program for Children $ 15.00 D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDSpecial Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

 $ 4,696.00 D D

Summer Food Service Program for Children $ 288.00 D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDepartment of DefenseAbout Face $ - DD D D D D DD DDNational Guard Challenge Program $ 63.30 DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDOD STARBASE $ - DD D D D DD D Young Marines $ 3.34 DDDDD D D DD DDDDDNJROTC $ 36.82 D DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDNaval Sea Cadet Corps $ 1.00 D D D DD D

Appendix F 
Department of Education

21st Century Community Learning Centers $ 993.50 D DDDDDDDDD D D D DD D Class-Size Reduction Program $ - D DComprehensive Regional Assistance Centers $ 27.82 DDDD DDDDD D DDD D Comprehensive School Reform $ 233.47 D DDD D D Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments $ - DImproving Literacy Through School Libraries $ 12.42 D DD DDDDDDDD DD DInnovative Programs $ 382.50 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDMcKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act $ 54.64 DD DDD D DD D D Migrant Ed - High School Equivalency Program (HEP)

 $ 23.35 D

Migrant Education -- National Migrant Education Hotline

 $ 0.94 D

Migrant Education Coordination Program - Consortium Incentive Grants

 $ 2.50 D

Migrant Education Coordination Program - Interstate and Intrastate Coordination Grants

 $ 1.84 D

Migrant Education Coordination Program -- Migrant Education Support Center

 $ 0.54 D

Migrant Education Even Start $ 8.69 D DDD D DDD D DDDDDMigrant Education State Grant Program $ 395.41 DOffice of Indian Education $ 121.57 D D DD D Prevention and Intervention Program for Children and Youth who are Neglected Delinquent or At-Risk

 $ - D D DD D D 

Reading First State Grants $ 993.50 DDD DD DDD D DD D Rural Education Achievement Program $ 167.65 DD Title I, Part A - Grants to Local Educational Agencies $ 11,684.31 DD D DDD D D Even Start Tribes and Tribal Organizations $ 4.97 DD DDD D DD DD William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs

 $ 248.38 DD DD D D D DDD DD 

Enhancing Education through Technology $ 695.95 DAdvanced Placement Test Fee Program and Advanced Placement Incentive Program

 $ 23.35 DD D

Close Up Fellowship Program $ 1.49 DD D D D D D D Cultural Partnership for At-Risk Children & Youth $ 4.00 DD D DDD D John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts $ 6.00 DD D D Native Hawaiian Curriculum Development, Teacher Training and Recruitment Program

 $ 0.50 DDDDD D D D D D D DD D 

Appendix F 
Parent Assistance and Local Family Information 

Centers

 $ 42.22 DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD

Professional Development of Music Educators $ 6.50 D DDD DD Public Charter Schools Program $ 198.70 DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDReading is Fundamental $ 25.33 Ready to Learn Television $ 22.85 D DDD DD D School Dropout Prevention $ 10.93 DD D DD D DDD DD DDVery Special Arts $ 7.00 DDD D D Voluntary Public School Choice Program $ 25.83 DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDGaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP)

 $ 293.08 D D D D D DD D 

Talent Search $ 142.30 D D DDD D D D Upward Bound $ 268.40 D DDD D D D Upward Bound Math-Science $ 31.80 DDD D D D Carol M. White Physical Education Program $ 59.61 DElementary and Secondary School Counseling Program

 $ 32.29 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse $ 24.84 D DD Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners Program $ 4.97 D D DDDDD D D D DDMentoring Program $ 17.39 D D DD D National Coordinator Program $ 16.09 D Safe and Drug-Free School and Communities Act State Grants Program

 $ 468.95 D DD D D D 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students $ 184.60 DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD DDState Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders $ 18.38 D D DD Native Hawaiian Special Education Program $ 3.10 D Special Education Grants to States $ 8,874.40 D DDDDDDDDDD D DD D Switzer Fellowship (1), Field Initiated Research (2), Rehabilitation Research Training Center (1)

 $ 0.35 

Coordinated technical assistance and dissemination $ 53.13 D D D D D Personnel Preparation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

 $ 91.90 D 

Research and Innovation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

 $ 77.21 DD DDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDD

Special Education; State Program Improvement Grant

 $ 51.36 D 

Studies and Evaluations $ 16.00 D Technology Development, Demonstration, and Utilization and Media Services

 $ 37.96 DD D D DD D 

Appendix F 
Training and Information for Parents of Children with 

Disabilities

 $ 26.33 D D DDDDD D DDD 

Braille Training Program $ 0.12 D Demonstration and Training Programs $ 20.90 DD Parent Information and Training (PIT) & PIT Technical Assistance Center

 $ 0.88 

Projects With Industry $ 21.93 D Vocational Rehabilitation -- State Grants $ 2,533.49 DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDAdult Education - State Administered Grant Program $ 571.26 DAssistance for the Outlying Areas $ 1.48 DD D D D D Native Hawaiian Vocational Education Program $ 2.93 DD D D D D Tech Prep Demonstration Program $ 4.97 DCommunity Technology Centers Program $ 32.48 D D D DDD D Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act

 $ 1,192.20 DDDDDDDD D D D D DD D 

Department of Health and Human Services

Adoption Incentive Program $ 42.72 D DD D D D Family Support (PNS) $ - D 

Projects of National Significance (PNS) $ 12.40 D D D D Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights $ 36.26 DD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD State Councils on Developmental Disabilities $ 71.13 DD D DD D D D University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service (UCEDDS)

 $ 24.96 D 

Native American Languages Grant Program $ 45.46 D DD DSocial Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) $ 45.46 DD D D D D D DAdoption Opportunities $ 27.23 D D D D Chafee Foster Care Independence Program $ 181.73 D D D D D DDDDDChild Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities $ 33.84 D D D D Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants $ 21.87 D DDD Child Welfare Services $ 290.09 D D D D DD DD Children's Justice Act $ 17.00 DDD Community Based Family Resource and Support Program

 $ 33.20 D DDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDD

Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance

 $ 4,884.50 D DD D D 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families $ 404.35 D D DD D Title IV-E Adoption Assistance $ 1,584.50 D DD D D 

Appendix F 
Child Care Development Fund $ 4,803.34 DD DDD D DDD D DD DD 

Runaway and Homeless Youth - Basic Center program

 $ 49.47 D DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD

Runaway and Homeless Youth - State Collaboration/Demonstration Grants for Positive Youth Development

 $ 1.56 DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD

Runaway and Homeless Youth - Transitional Living Program and Maternity Group Homes

 $ 40.50 D DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD

Runaway and Homeless Youth/Education and Prevention Grants to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless and Street Youth (Street Outreach)

 $ 15.40 D DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD

Community Services Block Grant $ 645.76 DD DDDDDDDDDDD D D DD Family Violence Prevention and Services Program Discretionary Grants

 $ - D D 

Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women's Shelters -- Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions

 $ - D DD 

Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women's Shelters -- Grants to States and Indian Tribes

 $ 126.40 D DD 

National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) $ 16.89 DDDDD DD D DD D D Social Services Block Grant $ 1,700.00 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDChild Support Enforcement $ 3,245.97 D DDDDDDDDDDDDD D DOCSE Access and Visitation program $ 10.00 D DDDDDDDDDDDD D DTemporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program

 $ 16,908.63 DDDD D D D D DD DD

Social Services Research and Demonstration program

 $ 34.75 DD 

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program $ 42.00 DCommunity Coalition Partnerships for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy/Capacity Building for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy

 $ 13.02 DDD DD D D D D DD D

Cooperative Agreement to Support Comprehensive School health programs to prevent the spread of HIV & other important health problems

 $ 57.84 DDD D D DD DDDDDDD D

HIV Prevention Projects for Community-Based Organizations Targeting Men of Color Who have sex with men

 $ - DD D DD DDD D D DDDD

HIV Related Applied Research $ 0.20 D DD 

Appendix F 
Tobacco Control Program $ 99.93 D

Prevention Research Centers Program $ - D DD D DD DDDD DInjury Prevention and Control Research $ 10.10 D D D D D D DD D National Academic Centers for Excellence on Youth Violence Prevention

 $ 9.22 D D D D D D DD D 

National Oral Health Programs $ 11.71 D DNational Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center $ 25.51 DD D D D D D DDD D Residential Fire Prevention $ - DDD D DD D Health Care Financing Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations [CMS Research]

 $ 73.71 D

State Children's Health Insurance Program $ 4,751.00 D DSpecial Projects of National Significance $ 24.84 D D DD DConsolidated Health Centers $ 1,504.81 D D D DDD DDDDDDDDHealth Care for the Homeless $ 121.75 D DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDHealthy Schools Healthy Communities $ 21.02 D DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDPublic Housing Primary Care $ 17.62 D D D D D DD DCoordinated HIV Services and Access to Research for Children, Youth, Women and Families

 $ 59.60 D DDDDDDDDDDD DDD D D

Coordinated Services and Access to Research for Women, Infants, Children, and Youth: Youth Initiative

 $ 6.06 D DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD

Center for Maternal and Child Oral Health $ 1.35 DHealthy Start $ 98.35 DD D D D Integrated health and behavioral health care for children, adolescents, and their families

 $ 0.80 D

Maternal and Child Health Block Grant $ 729.97 DD National Adolescent Health Information Center; Adolescent Health Center for State Maternal and Child Health Personnel;

 $ 2.25 D

Section 510 Abstinence Education Grant Program $ 49.68 D D D D DD DMedical Home for Children with Special Health Care Needs

 $ 5.00 D 

SPRANS Community-Based Abstinence Education Project Grants

 $ 54.64 DDD D D DD D

Rural Health Outreach Grant Program $ - DD DD DD DDD DDD DDDD Child and Youth Initiative $ - DDD DDD DD DD DDDDDAlcohol Research Center Grants $ - DDD 

Appendix F 
Alcohol Research Programs $ - DDD D 

Cancer Control $ - DDD D Center for Research for Mothers and Children $ - DD DDrug Abuse Research Programs $ - DDD D Mental Health Research Grants $ - DDD Nursing Research $ - DDD D Oral Diseases and Disorders Research $ - DD DPolicy Research and Evaluation Grants $ - DD DDDDD D D DDDD DDFamily and Community Violence Prevention Program $ 7.35 DDDDDDD DD D D DD D Adolescent Family Life program (research) $ 0.99 DAdolescent Family Life Program (demonstration) $ 30.92 DFamily Planning Personnel Training Program $ 7.00 DFamily Planning Program (services) $ 247.80 D Family Planning Service Delivery Improvement Research

 $ 8.90 D

National Bone Health Campaign $ 1.69 D DDCircles of Care $ 2.40 DD D D DD D D DD D Community Youth Mental Health Promotion and Violence/Substance Abuse Prevention

 $ - DD D DD DD D D DDD DD 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services Program for Children and Their Families

 $ 98.05 D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 

Hotline Evaluation and Linkage Program $ 3.00 DD D D DDDDDD DDD D Mental Health Block Grant $ 437.14 National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative $ 30.00 DD DDDDDDD D D DDD DDNational Suicide Prevention Resource Center (NSPRC)

 $ 3.00 DD DD D DDDDDDDDDD D 

Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act of 1986

 $ 33.78 D 

School Guidelines and Related Activities of National Strategy for Suicide Prevention

 $ - DDDDD D DDDDDD DD D 

Statewide Family Networks $ 3.40 D DDDDDDDDD D DD DDTCE (Targeted Capacity Expansion) - Prevention and Early Intervention

 $ 1.00 DD D D D

Youth Violence Prevention Program $ 10.00 D

Alaska Comprehensive Integrated Approach to FASD 

(fetal alcohol spectrum disorder)

 $ 5.80 DD D D D D D D DD DD

Community Initiated Interventions $ - DDDDDDDD D D D DD DEcstasy, Other Club Drugs, Methamphetamines and Inhalants

 $ 8.00 DDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDD

Appendix F 
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) Center for 

Excellence

 $ 2.60 DD D D D D D D DDDDD

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Education Initiative

 $ 1.25 DD 

Four State Consortium on FAS/FAE $ 0.70 D DDGirl Power! $ 0.06 DD Hispanic Latino Boys and their Fathers $ 0.44 D D DD D D MADD Youth Steering Committee $ - DMentoring and Family Strengthening $ 6.91 D D D D National Association for Children of Alcoholics $ - DD D D D National Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI)

 $ 7.08 D D

Parenting is Prevention/National Families in Action $ 0.40 D DD D DD D D D D D Prevention of Underage Alcohol Use $ - DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDReality Check $ 0.10 DDD D DRegional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resource Network (part of NCADI contract)

 $ 0.25 D D

Soy Unica Soyo Latina Hispanic Initiative $ 0.14 D D D DD DD Starting Early Starting Smart $ - D DD DDDDDD D DDD D State Incentive Grants Discretionary Program $ 60.75 DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDSubstance Abuse and HIV Prevention in Minority Communities

 $ 39.80 D DDD DDDDDD D DDDDDDD

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant/Prevention Set-Aside

 $ 350.79 DDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDD DD

Cooperative Agreement to Study Children of Women with Alcohol. Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Disorders Who have Histories of Violence

 $ 1.00 D D

Cooperative Agreements for Strengthening Communities in the Development of Comprehensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Systems for Youth

 $ 8.82 DDDDDDD DD D DDDDDDDDD

Development of Comprehensive Drug/Alcohol and Mental Health Treatment Systems for Persons Who Are Homeless

 $ 28.50 D 

Evaluation of Outpatient Treatment Models for Persons with Co-occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders

 $ - 

Grants to Improve the Quality and Availability for Residential Treatment and its Continuing Care Component for Adolescents

 $ 8.09 DDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDD

Appendix F 
Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts/TCE $ 15.61 D DDD D DD D D D 

Practice Improvement Collaborative $ 5.59 D DDDSubstance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant

 $ 1,403.15 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Targeted Capacity Expansion $ 31.69 D DDD D DD D D DDDDDDDTargeted Capacity Expansion for HIV/AIDS $ 60.29 D D DD D D DD DDD

Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentEmpowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities Program

 $ 30.00 DDD D DD D D D DD 

Community Development Block Grant/Entitlement Grants

 $ 1,310.38 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Community Development Block Grants/Special Purpose Grants/Insular Areas

 $ - DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 

Community Development Block Grants/States Program

 $ 3,057.55 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 

Emergency Shelter Grants $ - DSupportive Housing Program $ 1,217.00 DShelter Plus Care $ - DD Indian Housing Block Grant $ 645.00 D DDDD D D D D DDDDDDD

HOPE VI $ 570.00 Youthbuild collaborations $ 60.00 D D DD DD D Community Outreach Partnership Center $ 7.00 DD D D D D Department of InteriorIndian Child and Family Education (FACE) $ 15.16 D DD D D D Indian Social Services: Welfare Assistance $ 25.00 D DD D D D Administrative Cost Grants for Indian Schools $ 44.77 DDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDAssistance for Indian Children with Severe Disabilities

 $ 3.80 DDD DDD DDD DD DDDDDD

Indian Education - Assistance to Schools $ 16.91 DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDIndian Education Facilities Maintenance $ 49.18 DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDIndian Education Facilities Operations $ 55.42 DDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDIndian School Equalization Program $ 347.20 DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDIndian Schools - Student Transportation $ 37.26 DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDReplacement and Repair of Indian Schools $ 327.61 DDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDTherapeutic Residential Model $ 2.94 DDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDIndian Child Welfare Act $ 11.05 DD D D D Services to Indian Children, Elderly and Families $ 31.52 D DD D D D D Teaching with Historic Places $ - DDepartment of Justice

Appendix F 
Gang Resistance Education and Training 

(G.R.E.A.T.)

 $ 16.00 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D

Public Education on Drug Abuse - Information $ 1.00 DD D D Cops in Schools (Community Oriented Policing Services)

 $ 39.74 D D

Executive Office for Weed and Seed $ 58.54 DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDLocal Law Enforcement Block Grant $ 397.52 D DByrne Earmark, Alaska Native Justice Center $ 0.99 D D D Byrne Earmark, Miami Dade MAD DADS $ - DD D DDD D D D DDByrne Earmark, National Fatherhood Initiative $ 2.98 DD D D D D DByrne Earmark, Regional Tribal Justice Center for Lake, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties

 $ - D D

Byrne Earmark, San Bernardino County/Night Light Program

 $ - DD DDDDDDD DDD DD

Byrne Earmark, Santee-Lynches Multi-Jurisdictional Community Oriented Policing Demonstration Project Youthful Offender Focus

 $ - DD D D D D D D 

Byrne Earmark, Youth and Young Adult Intervention Program

 $ - DD D D D D D DD 

Byrne Formula Grant $ 496.75 D D DD D Community Prosecution $ - D D D D DResidential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners (RSAT)

 $ 64.60 D DD 

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative $ 14.84 D D D D DD Sex Offender Management Discretionary Grant $ 4.96 D DD Tribal Courts Assistance Program $ 7.95 DD D D DD D D D Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants (VOI/TIS)

 $ - D

Juvenile Breaking the Cycle $ 0.75 DConflict Resolution for School Personnel Project $ - DAnti-Defamation League's -- Partners Against Hate $ 0.65 DDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDD Attorney Training in Juvenile Justice $ 0.50 D DBalanced and Restorative Justice Project $ 0.28 DD DBig Brothers/Big Sisters of America $ 5.00 DDD DD DD D D DD D Blueprints/Life Skills Training Program $ - D DD DByrne Earmark, Boys and Girls Clubs of America $ 80.00 D D DDDD D D DD DDChicago Violence Program $ 0.15 DD D D D D DD Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners

 $ 2.28 DD D 

Appendix F 
Crimes Against Children Research Center Phase 2 $ 1.50 DD D D D 

Crimes Against Children Research Center Phase 3 $ - DD D D D Disproportionate Minority Confinement $ 0.30 DD D DEnforcing the Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) (Discretionary)

 $ 6.60 D 

Evaluation Facilitation of the tribal Youth Program (program evaluation)

 $ 0.55 D

Evaluation of Juvenile Mentoring Program $ 1.60 DEvaluation of Parents Anonymous (program evaluation)

 $ 0.30 D 

Evaluation of Safe Start Initiative $ 0.50 D D Gang-Free Schools and Communities: Community Based Gang Intervention

 $ 11.90 D D D D DD D 

Hate Crimes Involving Juveniles as Victims and Offenders

 $ - DD D D 

It's about the Children Drug Awareness Campaign $ - D DJuvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) Program

 $ 188.77 D D D 

Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project

 $ 0.50 D

Juvenile Justice/Substance Abuse Integration $ - D DD National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

 $ 3.00 DD DDDDDDD DDD DDD D D

National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

 $ 88.68 DDDDD D D DD DDD D 

National Juvenile Detention Association: Training and Technical Assistance Efforts for Juvenile Corrections Workers and Line Staff

 $ 0.85 DD DDDDDDD DDD DDD D D

National Juvenile Sex Offender Training Project -- University of Oklahoma Health Science Center

 $ 0.20 DD DDDDD D DDD DDD D D

National Law-Related Education Program/Youth for Justice

 $ 1.90 DD DD D D D 

National Youth Court Center $ 0.65 DDD D D D D DD D Performance-based Standards for Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG)

 $ - DD 

Performance-based Standards for Juvenile Detention and Correction Facilities (PBS) Project

 $ 1.70 DD 

Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Program (PALYEP)

 $ 6.00 DDDD D DD D D DD DD 

Appendix F 
Risk Focused Policing $ - DD D D D D D D 

Safe Kids/Safe Streets: Community Approaches to Reducing Abuse and Neglect and Preventing Delinquency

 $ 1.92 DD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDD D

Safe Start Initiative $ 9.94 DD D Second National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children

 $ 0.53 DD D D 

State Challenge Activities Program $ 9.91 DDD D D D D D State Formula Grants Program - Title II $ 83.26 DDD DD D D D DD DD Title V - Community Prevention Grants Program $ 2.51 DDD D Training and TA to Federal, State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies

 $ 1.20 DDD D D D D D 

Tribal Youth Program $ 12.39 DDDDDDD DD D DDDDDD D Tribal Youth Training and Technical Assistance Program

 $ 0.25 DDD DD DD D D DDD 

Utility of Mental Health Assessments in Incarcerated Youth

 $ - D DD D 

Victims of Child Abuse - Child Abuse Investigation and Prosecution

 $ 10.93 DD D D 

Victims of Child Abuse - Court Appointed Special Advocates

 $ 11.90 DD D D D 

West Farms Career Academy - Phipps Community Development Corporation

 $ - DDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDD

Youth Violence Alternative Project $ - D DMissing Children's Assistance Program $ 32.63 DDD D D Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) $ 15.86 D D D DD D D D DD DD Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program $ 0.68 D D D DD D D DD DEnforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program $ 18.24 DD D D D D D DD Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program

 $ 39.69 D D DD 

Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Program

 $ 14.90 D D

STOP Violence Against Indian Women Discretionary Grants Program

 $ 9.17 D 

STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants Program

 $ 145.52 

Children's Justice Act Partnerships for Indian Communities

 $ 2.98 DD

Department of LaborJob Corps $ 1,518.55 D DDDD D D D DD D 

Appendix F 
Migrant and Seasonal Farm worker Youth Activities $ 1.80 D D DDDD D DDDD DD 

Rewarding Youth Achievement Grants $ - DDDD DDDD D DDDD DD WIA Formula Youth $ 1,000.97 D DDDD DDDD D DDDD DD Youth Offender Demonstration Initiative $ 55.00 DDDD DDDD DDDD DD Youth Opportunity Grants $ 44.50 DDDD DDDD D DDDD DD Apprenticeship and Training $ 20.83 DD D D D DD D High School/High Tech Program $ 1.80 D D D D DDDD Girls' E-Mentoring in Science, Engineering and Technology

 $ - DD D D D DD D 

Department of TransportationAspirando la Seguridad en Trafico $ 0.10 DD DD D DCommunity Anti-Drug Coalitions Juvenile Holdover Program

 $ - DD D D D 

Corazón de mi Vida $ 0.10 DD D D DFarm Safety 4 Just Kids: Buckle Up or Eat Glass $ - D DNational Organizations for Youth Safety (NOYS) $ 0.15 DD DDD D D DD D Native American Outreach $ 0.05 D DJack & Jill of America Inc. "A Habit For Life" JJA says Buckle Up!

 $ - DD D D D 

Asian American Outreach $ - DOffice of National Drug Control Policy $ - Drug Free Communities Support Program Grants $ 59.61 D DD National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign $ 149.03 DD D D D D Environmental Protection Agency $ - Environmental Education grants $ 2.80 D DNational Environmental Education Training Program $ 1.81 D DCorporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps State*National $ 173.86 DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDAmeriCorps*NCCC $ 24.84 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDAmeriCorps*VISTA $ 93.67 DD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDLearn and Serve America - Higher Education $ 10.61 DDD DDDDDD DDD DDD DLearn and Serve America-Community-Based Organization/School-Based Organizations

 $ 32.11 DDD DDDDDD DDD DDDDD

Foster Grandparent Program $ 111.12 D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDRetired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) $ 58.50 DD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD

Appendix F 

Appendix G: Federal Youth-serving 

Programs with Program Goals, FY 2003 (Total appropriations may overlap and also serve other age groups)

 FY '03 Appropriation (Millions) 

Address crime and disorder problems

Address homelessness/runaway youth

Collect and/or evaluate data/conduct research

Eliminate or reduce substance abuse

Eliminate/reduce teen pregnancy/ STDs/HIV

Enforce underage drinking laws

Help developmentally disabled children

Improve academic performance

Prevent and/or reduce neglect/abuse/exploitation

Prevent substance abuse

Prevent/treat chronic diseases

Promote good nutrition/address obesity

Promote healthy development of children/families

Promote mental health

Provide after-school care

Provide character education

Provide day care

Provide institutional systems support

Provide mentoring services

Provide self-sufficiency skills

Provide service learning opportunities

Agency and Program

Department of Agriculture4H Youth Development 25.5 $ DDDDD DD 

Children, Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR) 8.4 $ D DDD DDD DD DDD DDD

Child and Adult Care Food Program 1,925.0 $ D D

Commodity Supplemental Food Program 114.5 $ DDD

Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program 5.0 $ DD DD DDD 

Food Stamps 26,168.7 $ DD 

National School Lunch Program 6,389.0 $ D DD

School Breakfast Program 1,681.0 $ D DD

Special Milk Program for Children 15.0 $ D D

Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

$ 4,696.0 DDD

Summer Food Service Program for Children 288.0 $ D D

Department of DefenseAbout Face - $ DD D D DD DDD

National Guard Challenge Program 63.3 $ DDD D D DD D DDD

DOD STARBASE - $ D

Young Marines 3.3 $ D DD D D D DDD D DDD

NJROTC 36.8 $ DD DDDDDDD DDD D DDD

Naval Sea Cadet Corps 1.0 $ D D DD

Appendix G 
Department of Education

21st Century Community Learning Centers 993.5 $ D DD DD D DDDDD D D

Class-Size Reduction Program - $ D

Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers 27.8 $ D DD 

Comprehensive School Reform 233.5 $ D DD 

Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments - $ D

Improving Literacy Through School Libraries 12.4 $ D

Innovative Programs 382.5 $ DD DD D 

McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act 54.6 $ DD D

Migrant Ed - High School Equivalency Program (HEP) 23.3 $ D D

Migrant Education Coordination Program - Consortium Incentive Grants

$ 2.5 D

Migrant Education Coordination Program - Interstate and Intrastate Coordination Grants

$ 1.8 DD

Migrant Education Coordination Program -- Migrant Education Support Center

$ 0.5 DD

Migrant Education Even Start 8.7 $ D DD DDDD D DD 

Migrant Education State Grant Program 395.4 $ D 

Office of Indian Education 121.6 $ D D DD 

Prevention and Intervention Program for Children and Youth who are Neglected Delinquent or At-Risk

$ - DD

Reading First State Grants 993.5 $ D

Rural Education Achievement Program 167.7 $ D

Title I, Part A - Grants to Local Educational Agencies 11,684.3 $ D DD

Even Start Tribes and Tribal Organizations 5.0 $ D D 

William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs 248.4 $ D D 

Enhancing Education through Technology 695.9 $ D

Advanced Placement Test Fee Program and Advanced Placement Incentive Program

$ 23.3 DD 

Close Up Fellowship Program 1.5 $ D

Cultural Partnership for At-Risk Children & Youth 4.0 $ D D D 

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts 6.0 $ D

Native Hawaiian Curriculum Development, Teacher Training and Recruitment Program

$ 0.5 D

Parent Assistance and Local Family Information Centers 42.2 $ DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD

Professional Development of Music Educators 6.5 $ D D D

Public Charter Schools Program 198.7 $ D DD D

Reading is Fundamental 25.3 $ D DD

Ready to Learn Television 22.9 $ D DD 

Appendix G 
School Dropout Prevention 10.9 $ DD D 

Very Special Arts 7.0 $ D D

Voluntary Public School Choice Program 25.8 $ D

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP)

$ 293.1 D D

Talent Search 142.3 $ D

Upward Bound 268.4 $ D D

Upward Bound Math-Science 31.8 $ D D

Carol M. White Physical Education Program 59.6 $ D DD 

Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program 32.3 $ D D DD D D

Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse 24.8 $ DD D

Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners Program 5.0 $ D D 

Mentoring Program 17.4 $ D D D D 

National Coordinator Program 16.1 $ D D

Safe and Drug-Free School and Communities Act State Grants Program

$ 468.9 D D D D D 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students 184.6 $ D D DD D 

State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders 18.4 $ D D D 

Native Hawaiian Special Education Program 3.1 $ D D

Special Education Grants to States 8,874.4 $ DD D

Switzer Fellowship (1), Field Initiated Research (2), Rehabilitation Research Training Center (1)

$ 0.4 DD D

Coordinated technical assistance and dissemination 53.1 $ D DD DD D

Personnel Preparation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

$ 91.9 D

Research and Innovation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

$ 77.2 D DD DD D 

Special Education; State Program Improvement Grant 51.4 $ D 

Studies and Evaluations 16.0 $ D

Technology Development, Demonstration, and Utilization and Media Services

$ 38.0 D DD DD D 

Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities 26.3 $ D D DD 

Braille Training Program 0.1 $ D

Demonstration and Training Programs 20.9 $ DD D 

Parent Information and Training (PIT) & PIT Technical Assistance Center

$ 0.9 D

Projects With Industry 21.9 $ D 

Vocational Rehabilitation -- State Grants 2,533.5 $ DDDDD DDDDD DD DDD DD

Appendix G 
Adult Education - State Administered Grant Program 571.3 $ D

Assistance for the Outlying Areas 1.5 $ D 

Native Hawaiian Vocational Education Program 2.9 $ D 

Tech Prep Demonstration Program 5.0 $ D 

Community Technology Centers Program 32.5 $ DD 

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act 1,192.2 $ D 

Department of Health and Human ServicesAdoption Incentive Program 42.7 $ D D D DD 

Family Support (PNS) - $ DD D

Projects of National Significance (PNS) 12.4 $ DD D

Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights 36.3 $ DDDDD D D DD D 

State Councils on Developmental Disabilities 71.1 $ D D D D D D DD

University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service (UCEDDS)

$ 25.0 D D DD D

Native American Languages Grant Program 45.5 $ D

Social Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) 45.5 $ D D

Adoption Opportunities 27.2 $ D D D DD 

Chafee Foster Care Independence Program 181.7 $ DDD DDDD DDD DDDDD

Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities 33.8 $ D DD 

Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants 21.9 $ DD 

Child Welfare Services 290.1 $ DD D DD D 

Children's Justice Act 17.0 $ DD D 

Community Based Family Resource and Support Program 33.2 $ D D D DD DD D 

Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance 4,884.5 $ D 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families 404.4 $ D D DD D DDD 

Title IV-E Adoption Assistance 1,584.5 $ D 

Child Care Development Fund 4,803.3 $ D DD D D D 

Runaway and Homeless Youth - Basic Center program 49.5 $ DDDD D DD DD D DDDD

Runaway and Homeless Youth - State Collaboration/Demonstration Grants for Positive Youth Development

$ 1.6 DDDD D DDD DD D DDD

Runaway and Homeless Youth - Transitional Living Program and Maternity Group Homes

$ 40.5 DDDD DDDD DDD DDDDDD

Runaway and Homeless Youth/Education and Prevention Grants to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless and Street Youth (Street Outreach)

$ 15.4 DDD D DDD DD D DDD

Community Services Block Grant 645.8 $ DDDDD DD DDDDD DDD

Family Violence Prevention and Services Program Discretionary Grants

$ - D 

Appendix G 
Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered 

Women's Shelters -- Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions

$ - DD D D 

Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women's Shelters -- Grants to States and Indian Tribes

$ 126.4 DD D 

National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) 16.9 $ D D DD DDD 

Social Services Block Grant 1,700.0 $ D D

Child Support Enforcement 3,246.0 $ D 

OCSE Access and Visitation program 10.0 $ D 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program 16,908.6 $ D 

Social Services Research and Demonstration program 34.7 $ D 

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program 42.0 $ D D

Community Coalition Partnerships for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy/Capacity Building for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy

$ 13.0 D D D DD DDD

Cooperative Agreement to Support Comprehensive School health programs to prevent the spread of HIV & other important health problems

$ 57.8 D D DDD 

HIV Prevention Projects for Community-Based Organizations Targeting Men of Color Who have sex with men

$ - D D

HIV Related Applied Research 0.2 $ D D

Tobacco Control Program 99.9 $ D 

Prevention Research Centers Program - $ D

Injury Prevention and Control Research 10.1 $ DD 

National Academic Centers for Excellence on Youth Violence Prevention

$ 9.2 D D DD 

National Oral Health Programs 11.7 $ D D

National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center 25.5 $ D 

Residential Fire Prevention - $ D

Health Care Financing Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations [CMS Research]

$ 73.7 D

State Children's Health Insurance Program 4,751.0 $ D

Special Projects of National Significance 24.8 $ DD D

Consolidated Health Centers 1,504.8 $ D D

Health Care for the Homeless 121.7 $ D DD DDDDD D 

Healthy Schools Healthy Communities 21.0 $ D DDDDDDDDDDDD DD

Public Housing Primary Care 17.6 $ DDD DDDDD D 

Coordinated HIV Services and Access to Research for Children, Youth, Women and Families

$ 59.6 DDDD D DDDDDD D DDD

Appendix G 
Coordinated Services and Access to Research for Women, 

Infants, Children, and Youth: Youth Initiative

$ 6.1 DDDD D DDDDDD D DDD

Center for Maternal and Child Oral Health 1.4 $ D

Healthy Start 98.3 $ D D

Integrated health and behavioral health care for children, adolescents, and their families

$ 0.8 D

Maternal and Child Health Block Grant 730.0 $ D DD

National Adolescent Health Information Center; Adolescent Health Center for State Maternal and Child Health Personnel;

$ 2.3 D

Section 510 Abstinence Education Grant Program 49.7 $ D D

Medical Home for Children with Special Health Care Needs 5.0 $ D DD

SPRANS Community-Based Abstinence Education Project Grants

$ 54.6 D D

Rural Health Outreach Grant Program - $ D

Child and Youth Initiative - $ DDDDD D DDDDDDDD DDD

Alcohol Research Center Grants - $ D D

Alcohol Research Programs - $ D D

Cancer Control - $ D

Center for Research for Mothers and Children - $ D

Drug Abuse Research Programs - $ D D

Mental Health Research Grants - $ D

Nursing Research - $ D

Oral Diseases and Disorders Research - $ D

Policy Research and Evaluation Grants - $ DDD D D D DDDD DDD 

Family and Community Violence Prevention Program 7.4 $ D DD DDD D D D D

Adolescent Family Life program (research) 1.0 $ DD D

Adolescent Family Life Program (demonstration) 30.9 $ DD D

Family Planning Personnel Training Program 7.0 $ D

Family Planning Program (services) 247.8 $ D D

Family Planning Service Delivery Improvement Research 8.9 $ D D

National Bone Health Campaign 1.7 $ DD 

Circles of Care 2.4 $ DD D

Community Youth Mental Health Promotion and Violence/Substance Abuse Prevention

$ - D DDD DD D DDDD

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services Program for Children and Their Families

$ 98.1 D D

Hotline Evaluation and Linkage Program 3.0 $ D D

Mental Health Block Grant 437.1 $ D

National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative 30.0 $ D DD D 

Appendix G 
National Suicide Prevention Resource Center (NSPRC) 3.0 $ D DD D

Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act of 1986

$ 33.8 D D

School Guidelines and Related Activities of National Strategy for Suicide Prevention

$ - D D

Statewide Family Networks 3.4 $ DD DD D

TCE (Targeted Capacity Expansion) - Prevention and Early Intervention

$ 1.0 D D

Youth Violence Prevention Program 10.0 $ DD 

Alaska Comprehensive Integrated Approach to FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder)

$ 5.8 DD D DD DD D DD 

Community Initiated Interventions - $ D DD DDDDD DD D D 

Ecstasy, Other Club Drugs, Methamphetamines and Inhalants 8.0 $ DDD D D DD D DDDD

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) Center for Excellence 2.6 $ D DD D DDD DD D D DD

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Education Initiative 1.2 $ DD D D D DD

Four State Consortium on FAS/FAE 0.7 $ DD D DDD DD DD D 

Girl Power! 0.1 $ D D

Hispanic Latino Boys and their Fathers 0.4 $ D D

MADD Youth Steering Committee - $ D D

Mentoring and Family Strengthening 6.9 $ DD DDD DD 

National Association for Children of Alcoholics - $ D D DD D D

National Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) 7.1 $ D D

Parenting is Prevention/National Families in Action 0.4 $ D DD D D DD DD 

Prevention of Underage Alcohol Use - $ DDDDDD DDD DD D 

Reality Check 0.1 $ D D D D DD D 

Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resource Network (part of NCADI contract)

$ 0.2 D D

Soy Unica Soyo Latina Hispanic Initiative 0.1 $ D D D D D 

Starting Early Starting Smart - $ DDDDD D DD DD 

State Incentive Grants Discretionary Program 60.8 $ DD D 

Substance Abuse and HIV Prevention in Minority Communities 39.8 $ D D D DD 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant/Prevention Set-Aside

$ 350.8 DD D 

Cooperative Agreement to Study Children of Women with Alcohol. Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Disorders Who have Histories of Violence

$ 1.0 D DD DD D D 

Appendix G 
Cooperative Agreements for Strengthening Communities in the 

Development of Comprehensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Systems for Youth

$ 8.8 D D DD D 

Development of Comprehensive Drug/Alcohol and Mental Health Treatment Systems for Persons Who Are Homeless

$ 28.5 DDD D D 

Evaluation of Outpatient Treatment Models for Persons with Cooccurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders $ - DGrants to Improve the Quality and Availability for Residential Treatment and its Continuing Care Component for Adolescents

$ 8.1 D D DD D 

Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts/TCE 15.6 $ D D D D 

Practice Improvement Collaborative 5.6 $ D D D 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant 1,403.1 $ DD DD D D 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 31.7 $ DDDDD DD DDDD D 

Targeted Capacity Expansion for HIV/AIDS 60.3 $ D D D D D 

Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentEmpowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities Program 30.0 $ D D DDD DDD

Emergency Shelter Grants - $ D

Supportive Housing Program 1,217.0 $ D

Shelter Plus Care - $ D

Indian Housing Block Grant 645.0 $ D

HOPE VI 570.0 $ D DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD

Youthbuild collaborations 60.0 $ D D D D DD 

Community Outreach Partnership Center 7.0 $ D D DD DDD

Department of InteriorIndian Child and Family Education (FACE) 15.2 $ D DD DDD D 

Indian Social Services: Welfare Assistance 25.0 $ 

Administrative Cost Grants for Indian Schools 44.8 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Assistance for Indian Children with Severe Disabilities 3.8 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD

Indian Education - Assistance to Schools 16.9 $ D DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian Education Facilities Maintenance 49.2 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian Education Facilities Operations 55.4 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian School Equalization Program 347.2 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian Schools - Student Transportation 37.3 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Replacement and Repair of Indian Schools 327.6 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Therapeutic Residential Model 2.9 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Indian Child Welfare Act 11.1 $ D DD D 

Services to Indian Children, Elderly and Families 31.5 $ DD

Teaching with Historic Places - $ D

Appendix G 
Department of Justice

Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) 16.0 $ D DD D D D D DDD

Public Education on Drug Abuse - Information 1.0 $ DD D 

Cops in Schools (Community Oriented Policing Services) 39.7 $ DD D 

Executive Office for Weed and Seed 58.5 $ D DDD DDD D DD DDDD

Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 397.5 $ D D 

Byrne Earmark, Alaska Native Justice Center 1.0 $ D D D D D D

Byrne Earmark, Miami Dade MAD DADS - $ D D D D D DD D DDD 

Byrne Earmark, National Fatherhood Initiative 3.0 $ D DD D D D D 

Byrne Earmark, Regional Tribal Justice Center for Lake, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties

$ - D D D 

Byrne Earmark, San Bernardino County/Night Light Program - $ D DD D D D 

Byrne Earmark, Santee-Lynches Multi-Jurisdictional Community Oriented Policing Demonstration Project Youthful Offender Focus

$ - D D D D D DD 

Byrne Earmark, Youth and Young Adult Intervention Program - $ D DD D DD 

Byrne Formula Grant 496.8 $ D D D DDD D DD 

Community Prosecution - $ D D

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners (RSAT)

$ 64.6 D D D 

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative 14.8 $ D D D DD DD D

Sex Offender Management Discretionary Grant 5.0 $ D D D DD 

Tribal Courts Assistance Program 7.9 $ D DDD D D D 

Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants (VOI/TIS)

$ - D D

Juvenile Breaking the Cycle 0.7 $ D D D 

Conflict Resolution for School Personnel Project - $ 

Anti-Defamation League's -- Partners Against Hate 0.7 $ DDDDD DDD D D D 

Attorney Training in Juvenile Justice 0.5 $ D 

Balanced and Restorative Justice Project 0.3 $ D D DD

Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America 5.0 $ D D D D D 

Blueprints/Life Skills Training Program - $ DD D 

Byrne Earmark, Boys and Girls Clubs of America 80.0 $ DD DD DDDD DD D DDD

Chicago Violence Program 0.2 $ DD D D 

Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners 2.3 $ D 

Crimes Against Children Research Center Phase 2 1.5 $ D 

Crimes Against Children Research Center Phase 3 - $ D D 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement 0.3 $ D 

Appendix G 
Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) (Discretionary) 6.6 $ D

Evaluation Facilitation of the tribal Youth Program (program evaluation)

$ 0.6 DD D 

Evaluation of Juvenile Mentoring Program 1.6 $ D

Evaluation of Parents Anonymous (program evaluation) 0.3 $ DD D 

Evaluation of Safe Start Initiative 0.5 $ D D

Gang-Free Schools and Communities: Community Based Gang Intervention

$ 11.9 D D D 

Hate Crimes Involving Juveniles as Victims and Offenders - $ D D

It's about the Children Drug Awareness Campaign - $ DDD DDD DD

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) Program 188.8 $ DD D 

Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project 0.5 $ D 

Juvenile Justice/Substance Abuse Integration - $ D 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 3.0 $ D DD DD D D 

National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 88.7 $ D

National Juvenile Detention Association: Training and Technical Assistance Efforts for Juvenile Corrections Workers and Line Staff

$ 0.9 D DD DD D D 

National Juvenile Sex Offender Training Project -- University of Oklahoma Health Science Center

$ 0.2 DD D 

National Law-Related Education Program/Youth for Justice 1.9 $ D D DD

National Youth Court Center 0.7 $ D D D D D

Performance-based Standards for Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG)

$ - D 

Performance-based Standards for Juvenile Detention and Correction Facilities (PBS) Project

$ 1.7 D D 

Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Program (PALYEP) 6.0 $ D D D D DD DD DDD

Risk Focused Policing - $ D

Safe Kids/Safe Streets: Community Approaches to Reducing Abuse and Neglect and Preventing Delinquency

$ 1.9 D D D D 

Safe Start Initiative 9.9 $ D D DD D 

Second National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children

$ 0.5 D

State Challenge Activities Program 9.9 $ D D D 

State Formula Grants Program - Title II 83.3 $ D DD D DD 

Title V - Community Prevention Grants Program 2.5 $ D DD 

Appendix G 
Training and TA to Federal, State, Local and Tribal Law 

Enforcement Agencies

$ 1.2 D DD 

Tribal Youth Program 12.4 $ DDDD DD DD DDD DDD 

Tribal Youth Training and Technical Assistance Program 0.2 $ D DD D D D DDDD DDDD

Utility of Mental Health Assessments in Incarcerated Youth - $ D

Victims of Child Abuse - Child Abuse Investigation and Prosecution

$ 10.9 D D 

Victims of Child Abuse - Court Appointed Special Advocates 11.9 $ DD D 

West Farms Career Academy - Phipps Community Development Corporation

$ - D DD DDDD D DD DDDD

Youth Violence Alternative Project - $ D D 

Missing Children's Assistance Program 32.6 $ DDD D 

Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) 15.9 $ D D D D 

Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program 0.7 $ D D D D D 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program 18.2 $ D

Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program

$ 39.7 DD 

Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Program 14.9 $ D 

STOP Violence Against Indian Women Discretionary Grants Program

$ 9.2 D D

STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants Program 145.5 $ D D

Children's Justice Act Partnerships for Indian Communities 3.0 $ 

Department of LaborJob Corps 1,518.6 $ D D DD

Migrant and Seasonal Farm worker Youth Activities 1.8 $ D DDD

Rewarding Youth Achievement Grants - $ D DDD

WIA Formula Youth 1,001.0 $ D D DDDD

Youth Offender Demonstration Initiative 55.0 $ D DDD

Youth Opportunity Grants 44.5 $ D DDD

Apprenticeship and Training 20.8 $ D DD 

High School/High Tech Program 1.8 $ D DD DDD DDD

Girls' E-Mentoring in Science, Engineering and Technology - $ D D DDD 

Department of TransportationAspirando la Seguridad en Trafico 0.1 $ D DD

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions Juvenile Holdover Program - $ D D D D DD

Corazón de mi Vida 0.1 $ D D

Farm Safety 4 Just Kids: Buckle Up or Eat Glass - $ D D

National Organizations for Youth Safety (NOYS) 0.2 $ D D D D DDD 

Appendix G 
Native American Outreach 0.1 $ DD

Jack & Jill of America Inc. "A Habit For Life" JJA says Buckle Up! - $ D

Asian American Outreach - $ D

Environmental Protection AgencyEnvironmental Education grants 2.8 $ D D D

National Environmental Education Training Program 1.8 $ D

Office of National Drug Control PolicyDrug Free Communities Support Program Grants 59.6 $ D D

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign 149.0 $ DD D D D D 

Cor

poration for National and Communit

y Service

AmeriCorps State*National 173.9 $ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

AmeriCorps*NCCC 24.8 $ D DD D D D D

AmeriCorps*VISTA 93.7 $ DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD 

Learn and Serve America - Higher Education 10.6 $ D

Learn and Serve America-Community-Based Organization/School-Based Organizations

$ 32.1 D D D 

Foster Grandparent Program 111.1 $ D D D 

Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) 58.5 $ D D D 

Appendix G 
 Appendix H: Characteristics of Earmarks for Youth Programs in Major Youth-Serving Departments and Agencies, FY 2003

AGENCY PROGRAM CFDA GRANTEE FY 2003 AWARD STATUTORY 

SOURCE

DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE

Department of Education TOTAL FUNDS 

EARMARKED

$ 10,385,000

ED/OII After the Bell Program 84.215K After the Bell Program 100,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB*** Soldotna, Alaska for after school programs involving community, parents a

ED/OII American Cities Foundation, 84.215K American Cities 

Foundation, 

$ 250,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Philadelphia, PA, for mentoring, academic, enrichment, and counseling pr

students

ED/OII American Foundation for 

Negro Affairs (AFNA) National Education and Research Fund

84.215K American Foundation for 

Negro Affairs (AFNA) National Education and Research Fund

$ 650,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Philadelphia, PA, to raise the achievement levels of minority students and 

access to higher education

ED/OII Big Brothers/Big Sisters 84.215K Big Brothers/Big Sisters 400,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Southeast Alaska, in partnership with Alaska D

the Boys and Girls Club and Cook Inlet Tribal Council to develop and implcomprehensive mentoring program for at-risk children

ED/OII Boys and Girls Club 84.215K Boys and Girls Club 80,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Burbank, CA, for mentoring, career exploration and other educational serv

youth through the Teen Center Outreach Project

ED/OII Chicago Public Schools for 

the Chicago Reading Initiative

84.215K Chicago Public Schools 

for the Chicago Reading Initiative

$ 100,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Chicago, a research- based instruction to improve reading achievement in 

ED/OII Communities in Schools 

Dallas, Inc. 

84.215K Communities in Schools 

Dallas, Inc. 

$ 100,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Dallas, TX, to expand educational programs serving at-risk students

ED/OII Communities in Schools of 

East Texas, Inc. 

84.215K Communities in Schools 

of East Texas, Inc. 

$ 250,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB TX, for educational services for at-risk students

ED/OII Communities in Schools of 

Northeast Texas, Inc.

84.215K Communities in Schools 

of Northeast Texas, Inc.

$ 250,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Mount Pleasant, TX, for educational services for at-risk students

ED/OII Communities in Schools of 

Northern Virginia, Inc., 

84.215K Communities in Schools 

of Northern Virginia, Inc., 

$ 265,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Alexandria, VA, to expand family literacy, after school and other education

risk students and their parents

ED/OII Communities In Schools--

Cameron County, Inc. 

84.215K Communities In Schools-

-Cameron County, Inc. 

$ 150,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Harlingen TX, for educational services for at-risk youth

ED/OII Communities in Schools--

Greater Fort Hood Area 

84.215K Communities in Schools-

-Greater Fort Hood Area 

$ 250,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Killeen, TX, for academic and support services for at-risk students and the

ED/OII Community Foundation of 

Greater Birmingham, 

84.215K Community Foundation 

of Greater Birmingham, 

$ 200,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Birmingham, AL, to expand cultural and educational programs to inner city 

ED/OII Drug Free Pennsylvania, Inc. 84.215K Drug Free Pennsylvania, 

Inc. 

$ 50,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Harrisburg, PA, to enhance its media literacy project to provide at-risk stud

opportunity to create public service announcements targeting the preventi

ED/OII Great Neck Center for the 

Visual and Performing Arts, Inc. 

84.215K Great Neck Center for 

the Visual and Performing Arts, Inc. 

$ 25,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Great Neck, NY, for an arts education program for disadvantaged children

ED/OII Harrods Creek Community 

Development, Inc.

84.215K Harrods Creek 

Community Development, Inc.

$ 15,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Louisville, Kentucky, educational programs for inner city children and teen

ED/OII Henderson Allied Community 

Advocates 

84.215K Henderson Allied 

Community Advocates 

$ 500,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Henderson, NV to provide quality early childhood education and after scho

low-income families

Appendix H 
ED/OII Henry and William Evans 

Home for Children, Inc.

84.215K Henry and William 

Evans Home for Children, Inc.

$ 200,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Winchester, Virginia, for children who are in need of assistance in prepara

productive adults

ED/OII Institute for Student 

Achievement

84.215K Institute for Student 

Achievement

$ 500,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Lake Success, NY, for educational programs for at-risk students at Mt. Ve

and A.B. Davis Middle School

ED/OII Jackson-Madison School 

District

84.215K Jackson-Madison 

School District

$ 500,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Jackson, TN, for an alternative learning center for at-risk youth

ED/OII Labor and Industry for 

Education (LIFE)

84.215K Labor and Industry for 

Education (LIFE)

$ 450,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Hewlett, NY, to expand after school, vocational training, and other educati

risk youth and developmentally disabled children and adults

ED/OII Linking Learning to Life 84.215K Linking Learning to Life 75,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Burlington, VT for staff salaries and the development of a model school-to

for low-income and at-risk youth

ED/OII Millikin University 84.215K Millikin University 75,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Decatur, Illinois to assist inner-city and rural high school students prepare ED/OII Nevada HAND English 

Literacy Project 

84.215K Nevada HAND English 

Literacy Project 

$ 450,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB to purchase ESL software and workstations to use in working with low-inco

Las Vegas, Nevada

ED/OII New School University 84.215K New School University 250,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB New York, NY, to establish a pilot program which will provide supplementa

well as university faculty instruction to at-risk, low-income senior high scho

ED/OII Our Hope for Youth 84.215K Our Hope for Youth 500,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Delaware for a school dropout prevention education media program on in-

networks targeting Hispanics and other high-risk groups

ED/OII Overtown Youth Center 84.215K Overtown Youth Center 100,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Miami, FL, for mentoring, family literacy, and other education and training 

youth

ED/OII Partners in Economic 

Progress 

84.215K Partners in Economic 

Progress 

$ 100,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Des Moines, IA for a mentoring and education support program for disadv

ED/OII Philadelphia Zoo 84.215K Philadelphia Zoo 250,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Philadelphia, PA, for the Zoo School Education program and the Junior Zo

Ventures program to provide at-risk students with access to science and eclasses

ED/OII Prince Music Theater 84.215K Prince Music Theater 50,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Philadelphia, PA, to develop a comprehensive in-school and after-school p

at-risk youth with education and training in the arts

ED/OII Project 2000 84.215K Project 2000 125,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Washington, DC, to support the continuation of Project 2000, including aft

weekend programs which provide academic support and educational meninner city youth in low-income housing developments in Southeastern

ED/OII Project H.O.M.E. 84.215K Project H.O.M.E. 100,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Philadelphia, PA, for the planning and design of the Honickman Roberts L

provide technology and computer education, youth academic enrichment, programming, and adult instruction to disadvantaged residents

ED/OII Selma Youth Development 

Center

84.215K Selma Youth 

Development Center

$ 500,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Selma, AL, for an "at-risk" youth intervention and training program, includi

development, school-to-work training, and conflict resolution activities

ED/OII South Shore Drill Team and 

Performing Arts Ensemble, 

84.215K South Shore Drill Team 

and Performing Arts Ensemble, 

$ 50,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Chicago, IL, for after school educational services for at-risk students

ED/OII Tides Foundation 84.215K Tides Foundation 300,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB for McKelvey entrepreneurial college scholarships to rural, low income Pe

school graduates

ED/OII Tiskelwah Community 

Center

84.215K Tiskelwah Community 

Center

$ 100,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Charleston, West Virginia, for at risk youth and young adult program

ED/OII Toledo Public Schools 84.215K Toledo Public Schools 225,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB OH, for educational services for at-risk students and their families as part 

education-housing partnership pilot program

ED/OII U.S. Dream Academy, Inc 84.215K U.S. Dream Academy, 

Inc

$ 600,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Columbia, MD, to improve and maintain Dream Academy Learning Center

programs for at-risk children with a family history of incarceration

ED/OII West Philadelphia YMCA 84.215K West Philadelphia 

YMCA

$ 250,000 FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Philadelphia, PA, for educational and recreational programming to serve a

ED/OII Westernaires 84.215K Westernaires 500,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Golden, Colorado for outreach and educational programs for at risk youthED/OII YMCA of Anchorage 84.215K YMCA of Anchorage 250,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Alaska, for after-school enrichment programs for at risk youthED/OII YWCA of Anchorage 84.215K YWCA of Anchorage 250,000 $ FIE/ESEA/ NCLB Alaska, for after-school enrichment programs for at-risk school children an

*** Fund for the Improvement of Education, Elementary and Secondary Edreauthorized by No Child Left Behind. Title V, Part D, Subpart 1, section 5

Appendix H 
Department of Health and 

Human Services

TOTAL FUNDS 

EARMARKED

$ 29,764,447

HHS/CMMS Health Care Financing 

Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations [CMS Research]

93.779 Children’s Hospice 

International

$ FY 03 460,984

appropriation

To provide a continuum of care for children with life threatening conditions 

HHS/CMMS Health Care Financing 

Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations [CMS Research

93.779 Children’s Hospitals of 

Minneapolis

$ FY 03 347,725

appropriation

Demonstration project to provide pediatric palliative care education and coservices

HHS/CMMS Health Care Financing 

Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations [CMS Research

93.779 Hope House Day Care 

Center in Memphis, TN

$ FY 03 99,350

appropriation

Demonstration project on improving the overall well-being of HIV positive c

HHS/CMMS Health Care Financing 

Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations [CMS Research

93.779 Medical Care for 

Children Partnership in Fairfax, VA

$ FY 03 129,155

appropriation

To provide outreach to increase access to medical and dental care for chil

HHS/HRSA Rural Health Outreach Grant 

Program

93.912 State of Alaska 385,000 $ P.L. 108-07 Reduce high anemia rate in children in the Yukon Kuskokwin Delta and Br

HHS/HRSA Rural Health Outreach Grant 

Program

93.912 Idaho Children’s Health 

Initiative

$481, 250 P.L. 108-07 Application not received

HHS/HRSA Rural Health Outreach Grant 

Program

93.912 The Children’s Health 

Fund

$ P.L. 108-07 Improve access to health care for many of Pennsylvania’s underserved ru

158,812

HHS/HRSA Rural Health Outreach Grant 

Program

93.912 Marshall University 481,250 $ P.L. 108-07 West Virginia Children’s Health Project

HHS/HRSA Rural Health Outreach Grant 

Program

93.912 Ohio University 481,250 $ P.L. 108-07 To increase access to health care for children in Appalachia, Ohio

HHS/HRSA Maternal and Child Health 

Block Grant

93.110 Dane County 

Neighborhood Child Health Clinic

$ P.L. 108-07 Provide child dental services 9,935

HHS/HRSA Maternal and Child Health 

Block Grant

93.110 Milwaukee Health 

Department

$ P.L. 108-07 Pilot program providing health services to at-risk children in daycare 496,750

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Agape of Central 

Alabama, Inc., Montgomery, AL, for their work with the children in need

$ FY2003 69,545

Conference Rpt 108-7

Agape of Central Alabama, Inc., Montgomery, AL, for their work with the c

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Alameda County Social 

Services Agency

$ FY2003 437,140

Conference Rpt 108-7

Alameda County Social Service Agency, Alameda County, California, for ASafety Program to serve low to moderate risk families

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Alaska Department of 

Health and Social Services

$ FY2003 596,100

Conference Rpt 108-7

Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, in consultation with the Health Board, the Municipality of Anchorage, Cook, Inlet Tribal Council, Uand the Anchorage Women’s Commission to develop a comprehensive st[sic]

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Asian Pacific Women’s 

Center, Inc.

$ FY2003 149,025

Conference Rpt 108-7

Asian Pacific Women’s Center, Inc., Los Angeles, CA for Domestic ViolenHousing program to protect at risk children

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Boy and Girls Home of 

Nebraska

$ FY2003 347,725

Conference Rpt 108-7

Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska Child Abuse Prevention Program to prochild abuse prevention and counseling services to families

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Catholic Community 

Services/Juneau Family

$ FY2003 248,375

Conference Rpt 108-7

Catholic Community Services/Juneau Family Resource Center in Alaska tabuse prevention issues

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Center for Women and 

Families

$ FY2003 99,350

Conference Rpt 108-7

Center for Women and Families, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, child abuse pre

Appendix H 
HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Child Welfare League of 

America, Inc.

$ FY2003 496,750

Conference Rpt 108-7

Child Welfare League of America, Inc., Washington DC for study on MonitChildren in Foster Care 

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Childhelp, USA 248,375 $ FY2003 

Conference Rpt 108-7

Childhelp USA, Fairfax, Virginia, to reduce the incidence and severity of chenhance the ability to investigate reports and meet the needs of victims of 

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Children’s Village Inc. 139,090 $ FY2003 

Conference Rpt 108-7

Children’s Village, Inc., in Pine Ridge, South Dakota to serve children of thTribe who are abused and neglected and are removed from the care of the

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Hispanic Committee of 

Virginia

$ FY2003 238,440

Conference Rpt 108-7

Communities Against Domestic Violence, Falls Church, VA to prevent famlanguage-minority communities

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Homeless Prenatal 

Program

$ FY2003 397,400

Conference Rpt 108-7

Homeless Prenatal Program, San Francisco, CA, for services to at-risk ch

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Nexus Diversified 

Community Services

$ FY2003 1,092,850

Conference Rpt 108-7

Nexus Diversified Community Services of Manteno, Illinois, to enhance ancommunity-based residential center for sexually abused youth

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Mockingbird Society 322,888 $ FY2003 

Conference Rpt 108-7

Mockingbird Society of Seattle, Washington to pilot a model program for mstabilizing children in the state foster care system

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Ohel Children’s Home & 

Family Services

$ FY2003 298,050

Conference Rpt 108-7

Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, Brooklyn, NY, for a child abusprogram

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Parents Anonymous of 

Iowa

$ FY2003 49,675

Conference Rpt 108-7

Parents Anonymous of Iowa to expand child abuse prevention services in 

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Parents for Meghan’s 

Law

$ FY2003 99,350

Conference Rpt 108-7

Parents for Meghan’s Law in Stony Brook, New York for educational progrchild abuse and their families

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Alaska Department of 

Health and Social Services

$ FY2003 248,375

Conference Rpt 108-7

State of Alaska for emergency housing for victims of child abuse in Ancho

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Alaska Department of 

Health and Social Services/ Healthy Families/Better Beginnings

$ FY2003 1,987,000

Conference Rpt 108-7

State of Alaska Healthy Families/Better Beginnings home visiting program Alaska and regional Native non-profit organizations

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 Vanessa Behan Crisis 

Nursery

$ FY2003 99,350

Conference Rpt 108-7

Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery, Spokane Washington to create a national project

HHS/ACF Child Abuse Prevention 

Programs

93.670 The Department will 

transfer $99,350 from the General Departmental Management account to ACF to work with ARCH.

$ FY2003 99,350

Conference Rpt 108-7

ARCH – Conference report language for General Departmental Managemfunding for ARCH National Resource Center on Respite and Crisis ServiceNC

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 Alaska Children’s 

Services Program

$ FY2003 248,375

Conference Rpt 108-7

Alaska Children’s Services Program to serve needs of at risk youth in Anc

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 Bethesda Children’s 

Home

$ FY2003 149,025

Conference Rpt 108-7

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 Concerned Citizens, Inc 248,375 $ FY2003 

Conference Rpt 108-7

Concerned Citizens, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, for Mother’s House.

Appendix H 
HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 Fathers Day Rally 

Committee

$ FY2003 149,025

Conference Rpt 108-7

Fathers Day Rally Committee, Philadelphia, PA for the Rites of Passage p

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 Good Shepherd 

Alliance, Inc

$ FY2003 49,675

Conference Rpt 108-7

Good Shepherd Alliance, Inc., Leesburg, Virginia for Hand up to Self SuffiHomeless project

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 Gulf Coast Jewish 

Family Services

$ FY2003 496,750

Conference Rpt 108-7

Gulf Coast Jewish Family Services, Inc., Clearwater, Florida for Battered IRefugee Women’s Project.

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 San Jose Office on 

Child Care

$ FY2003 99,350

Conference Rpt 108-7

San Jose Office on Child Care, San Jose, CA, for pilot program to increascare resources

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 St. Elizabeth’s 

Foundation

$ FY2003 99,350

Conference Rpt 108-7

St. Elizabeth’s Foundation in Baton Rouge, LA for an adoption awareness 

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 The Institute for 

Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization

$ FY2003 99,350

Conference Rpt 108-7

The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, PA, fonon-custodial fatherhood program to reconnect fathers with their children

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 University of Alaska 

School of Social Work

$ FY2003 746,125

Conference Rpt 108-7

University of Alaska School of Social Work to evaluate effectiveness of Alawelfare system

HHS/ACF Social Services Research 

and Demonstration

93.647 Henry Hosea House 149,025 $ FY2003 

Conference Rpt 108-7

Henry Hosea House in Kentucky for support of programs that serve the honeedy.

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRANS)

93.243 Bellfaire Jewish 

Children’s Bureau

 $ 601,068 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Social Advocates for Youth (SAY) Program, which provides and substance abuse prevention services to high school youth. Services help prevent and reduce the use of alcohol and other drugs, and to decreaof other social and mental health problems such as teen violence, teen desuicide.

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Bert Nash Community 

Mental Health, Inc.

 $ 149,025 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Working to Recognize Alternative Possibilities (WRAP) probased prevention and intervention program providing traditional and non-thealth services to detect the early signs of risk of school failure, crime, viosubstance abuse and provide support, skills, and resources to children an

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Covenant House 

Pennsylvania

 $ 496,750 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Crisis Center programs – a residence for runaway and homPhiladelphia. The goal of this program is to give emergency shelter to homrunaway youth as well as help them put together a plan to address their lo

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Family Communications 

Inc. --- (Ohio)

 $ 149,025 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Managing Anger, Promoting Safety (MAPS) Project (Ohio)– program for child care providers and others who work with preschool childchildren’s growth in anger management and self-regulation skills. The projprovide intensive train-the –trainer workshops.

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Family Communications 

Inc. ---(Iowa)

 $ 248,375 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Managing Anger, Promoting Safety (MAPS) Project (Iowa)– program for child care providers and others who work with preschool childchildren’s growth in anger management and self-regulation skills. The projprovide intensive train-the –trainer workshops.

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 KidsPeace, 

Pennsylvania

 $ 99,350 Conference 

Report 108-10

To improve the therapeutic, educational, and recreational services providethrough the implementation of “thin-client” technology. (Thin-client technoKidsPeace personnel to better diagnose and treat children in emotional crtreating children simpler and more efficient).

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 KidsPeace National 

Centers, New England

 $ 447,075 Conference 

Report 108-10

To expand KidsPeace Continuum of Care Diagnostic/Treatment services tavailability and improve the mental health diagnostic and treatment servicechild and youth in Eastern Maine. Three approaches are proposed: creatTreatment Program; an Outpatient/Substance Abuse Program; and an Edthat uses health educational methods as well as professional and peer he

Appendix H 
HHS/SAMHS

A/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Lawrence Hall Youth 

Services (LHYS) for in Chicago, Illinois

 $ 248,375 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support an Intensive Residential Treatment Program designed to activebehavioral and emotional issues. The program also provides mental healtsupport services for severe emotional disorders (SED) youth, through the School. Goals of program: clients learn age appropriate social and living ssuccessful transitions from residential treatment to permanent living situatphysical health needs and educational goals are met, and to increase sch

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Meeting Street Center 

Early Intervention Mental Health Support Project

 $ 397,400 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide mental health supports to individuals from birth to five year of aemphasis on infants and children in their first three years of life. Additionaalso be conducted and available to the child’s parents, siblings and significcaretakers. The project will also offer consultative mental health supports attending childcare agencies in the state’s most culturally diverse and finaneighborhoods.

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Operation Breakthrough, 

Inc

 $ 347,725 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide comprehensive mental health services to children and families Specific services to be provided include: counseling and education to childwho are at-risk for maladaptive emotional functioning and mental health diresult of exposure to trauma, grief and violence.

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Pacific Clinics $ 496,750 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Latina Youth Suicide Prevention Program – a school-based early intervention program aimed at youth (ages 11-18) who are at risk of unprotected sex, substance abuse, suicide and other depressive/mood disaddition, the program provides education and support to parents, school scommunity at large decreasing the stigma associated with mental illness..

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 State of Alaska Dept. of 

Public Health and Social Services

 $ 248,375 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Suicide Prevention Targeted Gatekeeper Training Programprovide training to groups well positioned to intervene with people at risk (wfocus on teenagers and Alaskan Natives). 

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 United Migrant 

Opportunities Services, Inc

 $ 56,610 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Mi Arco Iris Children’s program – a bilingual bicultural progsupport groups for children (8-12) who have witnessed or been victims of vhome. 

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Arab-American and 

Chaldean Council

 $ 496,750 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Family Strengthening and Community Empowerment Initiacomprehensive, multi-disciplinary education, prevention, case managemehealth program focused on assisting refugees and recent immigrants of Ar(targeting youth and their families). 

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Family Support Systems 

Unlimited, Inc.

 $ 248,375 Conference 

Report 108-10

To enhance current mental health service delivery programs for children aparticipating in foster care, adoption and independent living skills program

HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Ventura County 

Probation Agency

 $ 397,400 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the Emotionally Challenged Juvenile Offender Intervention Proa program providing comprehensive assessment and treatment options fodisturbed juvenile offenders. Services provided will reduce recidivism ratethe mount of time spent in more restrictive environments, such as juvenile and psychiatric hospitals

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Children’s Home of 

Easton Services, Inc.

 $ 99,350 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide at-risk youth counseling services.

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Community Health 

Centers

 $ 248,375 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support a youth anti-drug program in a primary care health clinic.

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Fenway Community 

Center, Boston, MA

 $ 149,025 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide comprehensive health care, mental health, and drug treatment income HIV and AIDS patients.

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Hands Across Cultures 

in Espanola, NM for the Black Tar Heroin Coalition

 $ 347,750 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support a coalition to combat the use of Black Tar Heroin in Espanola, 

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Institute for Research, 

Education and Training in Addictions

 $ 248,375 Conference 

Report 108-10

To support the development of health policy approaches for education and addiction.

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Iowa State University in 

Ames, Iowa

 $ 298,050 Conference 

Report 108-10

To implement the substance abuse prevention program Rock in Preventio

Appendix H 
SAMHSA/CS

AP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Jefferson Parish, LA. $ 496,750 Conference 

Report 108-10

To develop a program for student drug testing assessment.

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Life Haven Inc. , New 

Haven, Conn.

 $ 347,725 Conference 

Report 108-10

To promote a substance abuse prevention program that supports resiliencand other at-risk children.

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Silver Spring 

Neighborhood Center, WI

 $ 10,929 Conference 

Report 108-10

To develop alcohol, tobacco, and drug prevention for youth.

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 South Boston 

Community Health Center

 $ 198,700 Conference 

Report 108-10

To develop a substance abuse prevention program in South Boston.

SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 24th Judicial District 

Attorney (Southeastern Louisiana Drug Prevention and Education Program))

 $ 99,350 Conference 

Report 108-10

To develop student drug testing, counseling, education, drug education, oprogram evaluation.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Start SMART 

Foundation

 $ 223,538 Conference 

Report 108-10

To examine the distribution of a saliva alcohol test.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Teen Court of Greater 

New Orleans

 $ 49,675 Conference 

Report 108-10

To expand the drug prevention program in New Orleans Parish.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 University of South 

Dakota for the Four Fetal Alcohol Syndrome State Consortium

 $ 695,450 Conference 

Report 108-10

To develop a Consortium on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in the western states

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAP

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 University of Vermont to 

Disseminate Multimedia Drug Prevention Program

 $ 49,675 Conference 

Report 108-10

To disseminate a multimedia drug abuse prevention program for middle scVermont.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Alaska Christian College $ 198,700 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide treatment services in the areas of substance abuse, sexual aburelated issues to Native American youth as they are transitioning to colleg

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 City of Vallejo, 

California

 $ 273,213 Conference 

Report 108-10

Program to identify and treat young children who are abusing drugs and aage.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Community Services for 

Children

 $ 99,350 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide comprehensive, seamless family and child development servicinvolved families with young children.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Cook Inlet Kenai 

Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment

 $ 397,400 Conference 

Report 108-10

To respond to the needs of women and children on the Kenai Peninsula.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Cook Inlet Tribal Council $ 496,750 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide for outpatient slots for women and children.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Cooper River Native 

Association

 $ 248,375 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide for substance abuse treatment, intake/aftercare, family and groservices.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Fairbanks Native 

Association

 $ 496,750 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide services for adolescents and children.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Flowering Tree in Pine 

Ridge, SD.

 $ 298,050 Conference 

Report 108-10

For residential substance abuse treatment programs for young mothers anwomen on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Gavin Foundation in S. 

Boston, Mass.

 $ 248,375 Conference 

Report 108-10

For services for the adolescent substance abuse recovery home

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Southcentral 

Foundation’s Pathways

 $ 1,987,000 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide intensive treatment using a therapeutic community milieu for Ayouth.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Southeast Alaska 

Regional Health Consortium

 $ 397,400 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide residential substance abuse treatment services at any given m

Appendix H 
HHS/SAMHS

A/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Fairbanks Native 

Association (Ch’eghutsen)

 $ 794,800 Conference 

Report 108-10

To continue the provision of comprehensive mental health services for chiAlaska.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Yukon Kuskokwim 

Health Corporation (Tundra Swan Inhalant Abuse Treatment)

 $ 1,490,250 Conference 

Report 108-10

To provide residential treatment services for adolescent inhalant abusers.

HHS/SAMHSA/CSAT

Programs of Regional and National Significance 

93.243 Vocational Instruction 

Project Community Services

 $ 298,050 Conference 

Report 108-10

To expand services to families who are impacted by the issues of addictiohealth.

Department of Justice TOTAL FUNDS 

EARMARKED

$ 147,340,711

DOJ/OJP National AMBER Alert 

Training Program

16.543 Fox Valley Technical 

College

$ JJDPA * for training and technical assistance to develop an effective, coordinated A

2,483,750

program.

DOJ/OJP Internet Crimes Against 

Children

16.543 General grants 2,245,000 $ JJDPA for the CyberTipline.

DOJ/OJP Breaking the Cycle of 

Juvenile Drug Abuse

16.541 Lane County, Oregon 745,125 $ JJDPA for Lane County, Oregon's Breaking the Cycle of Juvenile Drug Abuse pro

juvenile crime and drug abuse through early identification and intervention

DOJ/OJP Secure Our Schools Act 16.541 4,967,500 $ JJDPA for the Secure Our Schools ActDOJ/OJP National Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children for the Child Sexual Exploitation Campaign 

16.542 National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children 

$ JJDPA to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for the Child Sex

3,974,000

Campaign to expand services to law enforcement in cases of child pornogmolestation, and sexual exploitation

DOJ/OJP Hamilton Fish National 

Institute 

16.542 George Washington 

University

$ JJDPA for Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence 2,980,500

DOJ/OJP Partnership for At-Risk Youth 

& Ready4 Work

16.541 Public Private Ventures 2,980,500 $ JJDPA for the `Innovative Partnerships for High Risk Youth' demonstration

DOJ/OJP South Carolina Truancy and 

Dropout Prevention Initiative

16.541 South Carolina 

Department of Education

$ JJDPA for the South Carolina Truancy and Dropout Prevention Initiative 2,483,750

DOJ/OJP C.A.L. (Character, 

Academics, Leadership) Community Baseball Program

16.541 Cal Ripken, Sr. 

Foundation 

$ JJDPA for the Cal Ripken, Sr. Foundation for youth prevention programs aimed a

1,987,000

teamwork, and drug prevention;

DOJ/OJP Alaska Child Advocacy 

Centers

16.541 Alaska Department of 

Health & Social Service

$ JJDPA to the State of Alaska for a Child Abuse Investigation Program 1,987,000

DOJ/OJP L.A. Best's After School 

Enrichment Program

16.541 City of Los Angeles 1,987,000 $ JJDPA for the Los Angeles, CA BEST youth program

DOJ/OJP NETSMARTZ 16.542 National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children 

$ JJDPA to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for the NETSMA

1,987,000

expand the program into schools, homes, and youth organization nationwi

DOJ/OJP Staff-Secure Program for 

Female Offenders

16.541 Father Flanagan's Boys 

Home

$ JJDPA for Girls and Boys Town, USA 1,490,250

DOJ/OJP Harvard Medical School 

Center for Mental Health and Media

16.542 Harvard Medical School 1,490,250 $ JJDPA for the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media for a s

causes of youth violence

DOJ/OJP Crimes Against Children 

Research Center, Phase 6

16.542 University of New 

Hampshire

$ JJDPA to the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research C

1,490,250

DOJ/OJP National Service Expansion 

& Quality Improvement Initiative

16.541 `I Have a Dream' 

Foundation 

$ JJDPA for `I Have a Dream' Foundation for at-risk youth 1,490,250

DOJ/OJP Teens, Crime and 

Community

16.541 National Crime 

Prevention Council

$ JJDPA for the Teens, Crime and Community program 1,241,875

Appendix H 
DOJ/OJP Girl Scouts Beyond Bars and 

Girl Scouts in Juvenile Detention Centers

16.541 Girl Scouts of the USA 993,500 $ JJDPA to expand and replicate the Beyond Bars program

DOJ/OJP Diploma Plus 16.541 Commonwealth 

Corporation

$ JJDPA for the Commonwealth Corporation's Diploma Plus program to serve at-ris

993,500

Massachusetts

DOJ/OJP Fox Valley Technical College 16.542 Fox Valley Technical 

College

$ JJDPA to Fox Valley Technical College of Appleton, Wisconsin to increase and ex

993,500

offered to local law enforcement involved in the investigation of child abus

DOJ/OJP Greater Heights Youth 

Prevention Program

16.541 Latino Pastoral Action 

Center, Inc

$ JJDPA for the Greater Heights Program to provide mentoring to high-risk youth 993,500

DOJ/OJP Juvenile Delinquency 

Prevention Project

16.541 Western Kentucky 

University Research Foundation

$ JJDPA to Western Kentucky University for the Juvenile Delinquency Project 993,500

DOJ/OJP Kansas Youth Friends 

Project

16.542 Youth Friends 993,500 $ JJDPA for Kansas Youth Friends to expand the school mentorship program

DOJ/OJP National Child Protection 

Development and Training Center 

16.542 Winona State University 993,500 $ JJDPA for the National Child Protection Development and Training Center in Minn

DOJ/OJP Transitional Living Initiative 

for At-Risk Young People

16.541 CHE Service Inc. 993,500 $ JJDPA for Residential Care Consortium for delinquency prevention programs

DOJ/OJP Safe & Sound Program 16.541 Safe & Sound, Inc 993,500 $ JJDPA for the Wisconsin Safe & Sound Program which combines aggressive enfo

community organizing, and the establishment of `safe places' for children school hours in Milwaukee's highest crime areas

DOJ/OJP At-Risk Youth Program 16.541 World Vision Inc. 993,500 $ JJDPA for World Vision for at-risk youth programsDOJ/OJP Arkansas Boys and Girls 

Clubs

16.541 Arkansas Alliance for 

Boys & Girls Clubs

$ JJDPA for the Arkansas Boys and Girls Clubs to expand after-school programs, d

894,150

prevention activities, and mentoring of at-risk children

DOJ/OJP Champions for Healthy Kids 

and Communities

16.541 The Oregon Partnership 834,540 $ JJDPA for Oregon Partnership for Champions for Healthy Kids and Communities 

drug abuse

DOJ/OJP New Mexico State University 

Cooperative Extension Service

16.541 The Regents of New 

Mexico State University 

$ JJDPA for the Afterschool Services Pilot program operated by the New Mexico St

745,125

Cooperative Extension Service to serve youth who are at home alone or abetween 2 and 6 in the afternoon

DOJ/OJP Alaska's LOVE Social 

Services

16.541 LOVE Social Services, 

Inc.

$ JJDPA to Alaska's LOVE Social Services to establish and enhance after school p

745,125

Fairbanks, AK for at risk youth

DOJ/OJP Brooklyn Academy of Music 

Youth & Community Initiative

16.541 Brooklyn Academy of 

Music

$ JJDPA for the Brooklyn Academy of Music to help at risk youth and combat teena

745,125

DOJ/OJP Multidisciplinary Crisis 

Intervention Program

16.541 Low County Children's 

Center , Inc.

$ JJDPA to the Low County Children's Center in South Carolina for continued suppo

745,125

collaborative effort among local organizations in Charleston that provide fuchildren who have been abused

DOJ/OJP Living Independently & 

Fostering Empowerment (LIFE) Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention

16.541 Yellowstone Boys and 

Girls Ranch, Inc

$ JJDPA for Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch for programs assisting at-risk youth 745,125

DOJ/OJP National Family Support 

Roundtable

16.541 Prevent Child Abuse 

America

$ JJDPA for Prevent Child Abuse America for the programs of the National Family S

596,100

Roundtable

DOJ/OJP Youth and Families with 

Promise Program

16.541 Utah State University 596,100 $ JJDPA to Utah State University for the Youth and Families with Promise Program

DOJ/OJP Drug, Alcohol Abuse 

Counseling for Native American Families

16.541 St. Joseph's Indian 

School 

$ JJDPA for St. Joseph's Indian School in South Dakota for juvenile delinquency pre

576,230

DOJ/OJP Community Prep High 

School

16.541 Center for Alternative 

Sentencing and Employment Services, Inc.

$ JJDPA for the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services, Inc. in 

496,750

help combat teenage delinquency and illiteracy

DOJ/OJP A Child Is Missing 16.541 A Child Is Missing 496,750 $ JJDPA for A Child Is MissingDOJ/OJP Life Skills Lesson Program 16.541 ARISE Foundation 496,750 $ JJDPA for the ARISE Foundation for at-risk youth

Appendix H 
DOJ/OJP Collaborative Community 

Response to Drug Endangered Children

16.541 496,750 $ JJDPA for the Child Endangerment Response Coalition in Spokane, WA

DOJ/OJP Youth Programs 16.541 Elysian Valley United 

Community Services

$ JJDPA for the Elysian Valley United Community Services in Los Angeles, CA for y

496,750

DOJ/OJP Family Therapy Clinic at 

Seton Hill College

16.541 Seton Hill College 496,750 $ JJDPA for a Family Therapy Clinic at Seton Hill College to assist troubled teens

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary (JJ Part 

C)

16.580 City of Los Angeles, 

California

$ JJDPA to the City of Los Angeles, California for the Family Violence Program 496,750

DOJ/OJP First Tee program 16.541 World Golf Foundation 496,750 $ JJDPA for the First Tee programDOJ/OJP COPES for Kids: Youth 

Crisis Intervention Services

16.541 Family & Children's 

Services

$ JJDPA for Juvenile Offender Treatment and Prevention Project to provide mental 

496,750

and prevention services to youth and families involved with or at high risk with the Tulsa County juvenile justice system

DOJ/OJP Kansas Big Brothers Big 

Sisters - Statewide Growth Project

16.541 Kansas Big Brothers Big 

Sisters

$ JJDPA for the Kansas Big Brothers Big Sisters to expand services to all 105 coun

496,750

DOJ/OJP Early Intervention to Prevent 

Juvenile Crime & Delinquency

16.541 Kennedy Kreiger 

Institute, Inc.

$ JJDPA for the Kennedy Kreiger Institute in MD to create a juvenile delinquency pr

496,750

DOJ/OJP Lawrence Hall Youth 

Service's Youth Delinquency & Prevention Project

16.541 Lawrence Hall Youth 

Services

$ JJDPA for Lawrence Hall Youth Services in Chicago, IL to continue delinquency p

496,750

programs

DOJ/OJP Mother Cabrini High School 16.541 Mother Cabrini High 

School 

$ JJDPA for Mother Cabrini HS in New York City to provide at-risk girls with after sc

496,750

mentoring, and prevention programs

DOJ/OJP CA Fire F.R.I.E.N.D.S. 16.541 Orange County Fire 

Authority

$ JJDPA for Orange County, CA Fire F.R.I.E.N.D.S. program, to help reduce juveni

496,750

DOJ/OJP Alaska Mentoring 

Demonstration Program

16.541 The Foraker Group 496,750 $ JJDPA for a statewide at-risk youth mentoring program in Alaska involving commu

organization, schools, and non-profit entities including Boys and Girls ClubBig Sisters.

DOJ/OJP Youth Crime Watch of 

America National Expansion & Outreach

16.541 Youth Crime Watch of 

America

$ JJDPA for Youth Crime Watch of America; 496,750

DOJ/OJP Youth for Tomorrow 

Residential Program

16.541 Youth for Tomorrow 

New Life Center, Inc.

$ JJDPA for Youth for Tomorrow 496,750

DOJ/OJP USA Youth Violence 

Prevention Initiative

16.542 University of South 

Alabama

$ JJDPA for the Youth Violence Prevention Research Project at the University of So

496,750

DOJ/OJP After School and Counseling 

Programs for At-Risk Native American Youth in South Dakota

16.541 Dakota Drug & Alcohol 

Prevention

$ JJDPA to the After School and Counseling Programs for At-Risk Native American 

447,075

Dakota;

DOJ/OJP State of Pennsylvania 

Witness Protection Program

16.541 447,075 $ see BJA for the State of Pennsylvania Witness Protection Program;

DOJ/OJP La Assocoacion Benefica 

Cultural Father Bellini Association

16.541 Father Bellini Inc 397,400 $ JJDPA for the Father Bellini Association to expand and develop additional program

youth in Northwest Queens;

DOJ/OJP College for Teen Education, 

Crime & Violence Prevention

16.541 Pennsylvania's Martin 

Luther King, Jr. Center for Non-Violence

$ JJDPA for Pennsylvania's Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Non-Violence to cont

397,400

program which enables students to work alongside business and industry 

DOJ/OJP Summer Stars Teen Program 16.541 Milwaukee Public 

Schools

$ JJDPA for a grant for the Milwaukee Summer Stars Program; 397,400

DOJ/OJP Children Who Witness 

Violence program in Cuyahoga County, OH

16.541 Children Who Witness 

Violence

$ JJDPA to Ohio's Children Who Witness Violence Program for crisis intervention, a

397,400

treatment services to children and families impacted by violence;

DOJ/OJP Project AVARY 16.541 Project AVARY, Inc. 397,400 $ JJDPA for Project AVARY to support programs for at risk youth in California's Bay 

Appendix H 
DOJ/OJP Rapid Response Program in 

Washington and Hancock Counties

16.541 Catholic Charities Maine 397,400 $ JJDPA for the Rapid Response Program in Washington and Hancock Counties in 

Maine;

DOJ/OJP Juvenile Fire Setters 

Intervention Program

16.542 National Association of 

State Fire Marshalls

$ JJDPA for the Juvenile Fire Setters program in New Hampshire; 387,465

DOJ/OJP After School Program for AtRisk Youth 16.541 Path Community Services, Inc. $ JJDPA for Path Community Services, Inc. in El Paso, TX for an after school progr

347,725 youth;

DOJ/OJP Franklin County/North 

Quabbin Teen Substance Abuse Intervention

16.541 Franklin County 

Regional Council of Government

$ JJDPA for the Franklin County, MA Community Coalition of Teens, Youth Substan

298,050

Prevention;

DOJ/OJP Christian Center's Up-Reach 

Center for Success Project

16.541 Christian Center of 

Pittsfield, Inc

$ JJDPA for the Christian Center's Up-Reach center in Pittsfield, MA; 298,050

DOJ/OJP GED & Beyond Project 16.541 City of Jackson 298,050 $ JJDPA to the City of Jackson, Mississippi for a juvenile justice program;DOJ/OJP Elizabeth Buffum Chace 

Family Resource Center in Warwick, Rhode Island

16.540 Elizabeth Buffum Chace 

Family Resource Center

$ OCCSSA for the Elizabeth Buffum Chace Family Resource Center in Warwick, Rhod

298,050

provide services for members of the community affected by domestic viole

DOJ/OJP Juvenile Assessment Center, 

Information Resource Center

16.541 Miami-Dade County 298,050 $ JJDPA for Miami-Dade County, FL Juvenile Assessment Center;

DOJ/OJP Vermont Coalition of Teen 

Centers - Capacity Building Initiative;

16.542 Washington County 

Youth Services Bureau Boys & Girls Club

$ JJDPA for a grant to the Vermont Coalition of Teen Centers; 298,050

DOJ/OJP Youth Center of Wyoming 

Valley, Pennsylvania

16.541 Wyoming Valley 

Catholic Youth Center

$ JJDPA for the Youth Center of Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania to provide preventa

298,050

abuse education programs;

DOJ/OJP Charles Mix County Crime 

Prevention

16.541 Charles Mix County 288,115 $ JJDPA to Charles Mix County, South Dakota for a full-time substance abuse coun

youth, and for the expansion of youth programs in Lake Andes and Wagne

DOJ/OJP After School Program: A 

Prevention Strategy

16.541 City School District of 

New Rochelle 

$ JJDPA for the New Rochelle, New York City School District for after school progra

248,375

youth;

DOJ/OJP Birmingham, Alabama 

Education Technology (BET) Center: Education Success for At-Risk Youth

16.542 Jefferson State 

Community College

$ JJDPA to the Birmingham, Alabama Education Technology (BET) Center for at-ris

248,375

DOJ/OJP At-Risk Youth Program 16.541 Town of Bristol 248,375 $ JJDPA for Bristol, RI for development and implementation of an at-risk youth progDOJ/OJP Chittendon County Mentoring 

Project

16.541 Chittendon County 

Mentoring Project

$ JJDPA to the United Way of Chittendon County, Vermont to continue the Champl

248,375

Initiative Project;

DOJ/OJP Mount Vernon Learning & 

Earning Awareness Program (LEAP)

16.541 City of Mount Vernon 248,375 $ JJDPA for the City of Mount Vernon, NY for at-risk youth programs;

DOJ/OJP CITY Skills Training 

Consortium of Alabama's Introduction of Technology to the Academic Remediation Process 

16.541 CITY Skills Training 

Consortium

$ JJDPA for Community Intensive Treatment Program (C.I.T.Y.) and Skills Training 

248,375

Alabama for technology investments to be used by the teen centers;

DOJ/OJP Youth Challenge Course 

Program

16.541 Detroit Rescue Mission 

Ministries

$ JJDPA for the Detroit Rescue Mission for its High Course Youth Corrections Prog

248,375

youth;

DOJ/OJP Community Center 16.541 Indoor Recreation of 

Orleans County Inc.

$ JJDPA for Orleans County, VT for a crime prevention community center for at-risk 

248,375

Newport Derby region;

DOJ/OJP Juvenile Crime & 

Delinquency Prevention Program

16.541 Page County 248,375 $ JJDPA for Page County, VA for a juvenile crime prevention program;

DOJ/OJP Safer Learning Center 16.541 Safer Foundation 248,375 $ JJDPA for the Safer Learning Center in Chicago, Illinois for expansion of mentorin

learning programs;

DOJ/OJP Youth System Improvement 

Project

16.541 Jefferson County 248,375 $ JJDPA to Jefferson County, Colorado for the Youth System Improvement Project;

Appendix H 
DOJ/OJP Community Based Juvenile 

Justice Programming

16.541 Boys and Girls Home of 

Nebraska 

$ JJDPA for the Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska to expand programs geared tow

198,700

have committed minor offenses and/or have unique mental, psychological problems;

DOJ/OJP Housing Authority of the City 

of Camden Youth Initiative Program

16.541 Housing Authority of the 

City of Camden

$ JJDPA for the Camden City, New Jersey Housing Authority to establish a drug pre

198,700

for children in low income housing developments;

DOJ/OJP Young Boatbuilders 

Apprenticeship

16.541 City of Alexandria 198,700 $ JJDPA for the City of Alexandria, VA to implement an alternative detention progra

DOJ/OJP Demonstration project with 

the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

16.540 TASC Inc. 198,700 $ OCCSSA ** to TASC Inc. for a demonstration project with the Circuit Court of Cook Co

serve non-violent offenders who demonstrate mental illness and/or substa

DOJ/OJP Public Awareness & 

Education Campaign to Combat Child Sexual Abuse

16.541 From Darkness to Light 198,700 $ JJDPA to From Darkness to Light in Charleston, South Carolina which seeks to p

and obtain services for victims of child abuse by providing information aboand consequences of child sexual abuse;

DOJ/OJP Juvenile Day Reporting 

Center

16.541 County of Durham 198,700 $ JJDPA for the Juvenile Day Reporting Center in Durham, NC;

DOJ/OJP Technical Enhancement of 

Office Expansion

16.541 Nevada Child Seekers 

Merging Corporation

$ JJDPA for Nevada Child Seekers to assist in locating missing children and provid

198,700

the families of missing children;

DOJ/OJP Kuhio Park Terrace/Kuhio 

Homes Community Teen Program

16.541 Housing & Community 

Development Corporation of Hawaii

$ JJDPA for Parents and Children Together (PACT) to provide gang prevention serv

198,700

and outreach, and supervised, alternative activities to youth in the Kuhio PKuhio Homes housing units in Honolulu, Hawaii;

DOJ/OJP Prairie View Prevention 

Services in Sioux Falls, South Dakota

16.541 Dakota Drug & Alcohol 

Prevention

$ JJDPA for Prairie View Prevention Services in Sioux Falls, South Dakota to estab

198,700

for the long-term treatment of juvenile methamphetamine abuse and depe

DOJ/OJP Boysville Mental Health 

Program

16.541 Boysville of Michigan, 

Inc.

$ JJDPA to Boysville of Michigan and SER Metro Detroit for the Samaritan Center; 198,700

DOJ/OJP Second District Court 

Truancy Project

16.541 State of New Mexico 198,700 $ JJDPA to the Second Judicial District Juvenile Justice Center in Albuquerque, Ne

truancy prevention program to help reduce juvenile delinquency and juven

DOJ/OJP At-Risk Youth Program 16.541 Somerville Boxing Club 198,700 $ JJDPA for the Somerville, MA Boxing Club for equipment for at-risk youth programDOJ/OJP SFI - The Positive Alternative 16.541 Sports Foundation, Inc. 198,700 $ JJDPA for the Sports Foundation, Inc., for a focused mentoring program for at-risk DOJ/OJP Family Network Partnership 

Delinquency Prevention Project

16.541 University of Southern 

Mississippi

$ JJDPA for the University of Southern Mississippi Juvenile Justice Prevention Part

198,700

DOJ/OJP Lafayette Parish LA Sheriff's 

Office Youth Academy

16.541 Lafayette Parish LA 

Sheriff's Office

$ JJDPA for the Lafayette Parish, LA Sheriff's Office Youth Academy; 178,830

DOJ/OJP Youth Enrichment Program 16.541 City of Aberdeen 149,025 $ JJDPA for the City of Aberdeen, South Dakota to establish a Youth-Adult Partners

(YAPA) community youth center, which will provide structured out-of-schoteens;

DOJ/OJP Tilles Center - Arts 

Education/School Partnership Program

16.541 Long Island University 124,188 $ JJDPA for the Tilles Center, Long Island University for programs for at-risk youth;

DOJ/OJP Delinquency Prevention & 

Youth Development Program 

16.541 County of Wise Virginia 124,188 $ JJDPA to Virginia's Lonesome Pine Office on Youth for the continuation of delinqu

and youth development programs;

DOJ/OJP (Culinary Education Training 

for At Risk Youth) CETARY

16.541 Johnson Wales 

University 

$ JJDPA for the Culinary Education Training for At Risk Youth program at Johnson 

99,350

in Miami Dade County, FL;

DOJ/OJP Family Ties Supervised 

Visitation Services in Wakefield, Rhode Island

grantee out of operation 99,350 $ JJDPA for the Family Ties Supervised Visitation Services in Wakefield, Rhode Isla

domestic violence prevention and services;

DOJ/OJP Keep Kids in School (KKIS) 16.541 County of Fresno 99,350 $ JJDPA for Fresno County, CA for the Keep Kids in School program;DOJ/OJP Housing Authority 16.541 Town of Laurinburg 99,350 $ JJDPA for Laurinburg, NC for a juvenile delinquency program;

Appendix H 
DOJ/OJP Life Directions, Inc. 16.541 Marion County 99,350 $ JJDPA for Marion County, Oregon's Life Directions Peer Mentoring Partnership w

break the cycle of drug addiction, violent crime, and teenage pregnancy;

DOJ/OJP A Lift Up 16.541 Patriot Gateway 

Community Center Inc.

$ JJDPA to the Patriot Center in Rockford, Illinois for programs for at-risk youth; 99,350

DOJ/OJP Riverdale Domestic Violence 

Prevention Program

16.541 Village of Riverdale 99,350 $ JJDPA for the Village of Riverdale, IL for the Riverdale Youth Interaction Program

DOJ/OJP Regional Violence Initiative 16.542 St. Louis for Kids 

Resource Connection

$ JJDPA for the St. Louis for Kids program to provide afterschool programs for at-ris

99,350

school students in inner city St. Louis, Missouri;

DOJ/OJP At-Risk Youth Program 16.541 Washington Community 

Arts and Cultural Center

$ JJDPA for the Washington, PA Community Arts and Cultural Center to provide pro

99,350

youth;

DOJ/OJP Project DRUG FREE Lewis 

County

16.541 Lewis County Sheriff's 

Department

$ JJDPA to Lewis County, Kentucky and the City of Vanceburg, Kentucky to develo

89,415

drug education and prevention program in the school system and provide resources to address law enforcement problems associated with drug u

DOJ/OJP Child Protection Program 16.541 Nez Perce Tribe 74,513 $ JJDPA to the Nez Perce Tribe in Lapwai, Idaho for the Child Protection Program t

services of human resource programs;

DOJ/OJP Family Enrichment 16.541 North Shore Youth 

Council, Inc.

$ JJDPA for the North Shore Youth Council in Long Island New York to provide fam

59,610

youth development services to underserved children in the Miller Place anschool districts;

DOJ/OJP Drug Education & Prevention 

Program

16.541 Campbell County Fiscal 

Court

$ JJDPA for the City of Fort Thomas, Kentucky to develop and implement a drug ed

34,773

prevention program in the school system;

DOJ/OJP 10th Congressional District 

Gang Task Force

16.544 Loudoun County 516,620 $ JJDPA for a Northern Virginia multi-jurisdiction anti-gang task force.

DOJ/OJP Building Capacity for Highvolume Quality Growth 16.726 Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America $ JJDPA for the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America program. 4,967,500DOJ/OJP Incentive Grants to Prevent 

Juvenile Crime; (Safe Schools Initiative)

16.541 general grants - $ JJDPA Safe Schools Initiative- The conference agreement includes $6,500,000 w

for the Safe Schools initiative. Within this amount $5,000,000 is provided f

DOJ/OJP Incentive Grants to Prevent 

Juvenile Crime; (Indian Youth Grants Program)

16.731 general grants - $ JJDPA education, focusing on the children of alcoholics. 

DOJ/OJP Incentive Grants to Prevent 

Juvenile Crime; (Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws)

16.727 general grants - $ JJDPA to assist States in enforcing underage drinking laws. Each State shall rece

$6,640,000 shall be available for discretionary grants to States. 

DOJ/OJP Incentive Grants to Prevent 

Juvenile Crime; (Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws)

16.548 Alaska Federation of 

Natives

$ JJDPA Within the amounts provided for underage drinking, OJP shall make an aw

99,350

Federation of Natives to develop an underage drinking prevention program including assessment and education, focusing on the children 

DOJ/OJP Restorative Justice 

Response to Truancy

16.548 Barron County 99,350 $ JJDPA for Barron County Restorative Justice Programs, Inc. in Rice Lake, WI for 

initiative.

DOJ/OJP Student Leadership 

Development & Peer Assistance Program

16.548 Bronxville United Free 

School District

$ JJDPA for the Bronxville, NY Public School System for video surveillance equipm

99,350

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary (JJ Part 

C)

16.580 State of Alaska 1,987,000 $ JJDPA for a grant to fund the Alaska Illegal Drug and Alcohol Use Initiative.

DOJ/OJP National Grants 

Administration Program

16.547 National Children's 

Alliance

$ JJDPA to establish local Children's Advocacy Centers, as authorized by section 2

5,968,948

DOJ/OJP Regional Children's 

Advocacy Centers

16.547 general grants 1,735,645 $ JJDPA to Regional Children's Advocacy Centers, as authorized by section 213 of 

DOJ/OJP American Prosecutors 

Research Institute

16.547 National Center for 

Prosecution of Child Abuse

$ JJDPA for a continuation grant to the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abu

1,487,270

technical assistance and training programs to improve the prosecution of cas authorized by section 214a of VOCA;

DOJ/OJP National Children's Advocacy 

Center in Huntsville, Alabama - Training Program

16.547 National Children's 

Advocacy Center 

$ JJDPA for the National Children's Advocacy Center in Huntsville, Alabama to dev

993,500

implement a training program;

Appendix H 
DOJ/OJP Coordinated Approach to 

T&TA and Networking

16.547 National Children's 

Alliance

$ JJDPA for a continuation grant to the National Children's Alliance for technical ass

743,138

training, as authorized by section 214a of VOCA.

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 Eisenhower Foundation 3,974,000 $ OCCSSA for the Eisenhower Foundation for the Youth Safe Haven program;DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 National Fatherhood 

Institute

$ OCCSSA National Fatherhood Institute, the National Physicians Center for Family R

2,980,500

Alabama Police Institute

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 City of Los Angeles 1,490,250 $ OCCSSA for the City of Los Angeles, CA for the Community Law Enforcement and R

program;

DOJ/OJP Get Ready - After School 

Program

16.541 An Achievable Dream, 

Inc

$ JJDPA for the An Achievable Dream in Newport News, Virginia, which provides se

993,500

youth to help them perform better academically and socially;

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 City of Los Angeles 993,500 $ OCCSSA to expand the Los Angeles, CA Community Law Enforcement and Recove

program to the Hollenbeck division;

DOJ/OJP Child Abuse Reporting and 

Evaluation System

16.541 National Children's 

Alliance

$ JJDPA for the National Children's Alliance for the Child Abuse Reporting and Eva

993,500

DOJ/OJP Coordinated County Services 

for Family & Youth

16.542 Alfred University 993,500 $ JJDPA for New York's Alfred University Rural Justice Institute to provide support s

and families who are victims of domestic violence;

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 Suffolk County, NY 

District Attorney

$ OCCSSA for the Suffolk County, NY District Attorney for a new anti-gang initiative; 745,125

DOJ/OJP Community Assessment 

Centers

16.541 Clackamas County 

Juvenile Department

$ JJDPA for Clackamas County, OR for juvenile detention programs; 695,450

DOJ/OJP Child Abuse Investigation 

and Prosecution Enhancement Initiative

16.541 National Children's 

Advocacy Center, Inc

$ JJDPA for the Huntsville, AL National Children's Advocacy Center for a Child Abu

496,750

and Prosecution Enhancement Initiative;

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 Robinson Community 

Learning Center

$ OCCSSA to the Robinson Community Learning Center in South Bend, Indiana to su

496,750

reducing the rate of local youth violence and young adult homicide;

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 MUSC 347,725 $ OCCSSA to continue support for an innovative and effective program which helps si

household women with children reject a life of crime and drugs and build a lifestyle (MUSC)

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 Metropolitan Family 

Services

$ OCCSSA to the Metropolitan Family Services in Illinois for the Domestic Violence an

298,050

Abuse program;

DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 City of Norwalk, CA 298,050 $ OCCSSA for the City of Norwalk, CA for the Gang-Free Communities program;DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 Urban Justice Center 248,375 $ OCCSSA for the Urban Justice Center, to expand the Family Violence Project;DOJ/OJP Byrne Discretionary 16.580 DuPage County, IL 

State's Attorneys Office

$ OCCSSA for DuPage County, IL State's Attorneys Office for child abuse and financia

248,375

initiatives;

DOJ/OJP Substance Abuse Services 

for Incarcerated Juveniles

16.541 ARVAC Inc. 198,700 $ JJDPA to the Yell County, Arkansas Juvenile Detention Center for drug and alcoh

counseling, and rehabilitation program;

DOJ/OJP Expand Program Services 

into Northern Region of 4th Circuit Court District

16.547 Northern Hills Area 

CASA Program

$ JJDPA for South Dakota's Northern Hills Area court Appointed Special Advocate 

183,798

for the expansion of the volunteer advocate network and to create an exteserve the Fourth Circuit;

DOJ/OJP 1st Circuit CASA Expansion 

Project

16.547 1st Circuit CASA 

Program

$ JJDPA for the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program in Davison, So

49,675

will provide advocates for children in the First Circuit;

DOJ/OJP Juvenile Crime Block Grant; 

(Project ChildSafe)

16.523 Project ChildSafe 24,837,500 $ JJDPA for Project ChildSafe, which has been merged with Project HomeSafe, for 

distribution of gun safety locks. These funds may only be used to produce locks based on OJP's interim standard. The conferees note

DOJ/OJP Performance Measures for 

the Juvenile Justice System

16.542 American Prosecutors 

Research Institute

$ JJDPA to the American Prosecutors Research Institute to create and report on be

248,375

measure the use of individual programs and juvenile justice system perforfour pilot States.

DOJ/OJP Local Law Enforcement 

Block Grant; (Boys and Girls Club)

$ JJDPA for Boys and Girls Clubs -

DOJ/OJP General Grants; (SafeStart 

Program)

16.730 General grantees - $ JJDPA STOP Formula: Safe Start

DOJ/OJP Missouri Juvenile Courts - a 

Technological Reformation

16.542 Missouri Office of the 

State Court Administrator 

$ JJDPA to the Missouri Office of the State Court Administrator for computer upgrad

993,500

modernizations of the juvenile court system;

Appendix H 
DOJ/OJP Safe School Education & 

Community Awareness Program

16.541 I-Safe America, Inc 4,967,500 $ JJDPA to I-Safe America for internet safety education for grades K-12 to prevent 

the internet

DOJ/OJP Safe Schools Initiative (SSI) 16.542 New Mexico Police 

Athletic League 

$ JJDPA for the New Mexico Police Athletic League to continue the statewide Law e

397,400

Professional Business Volunteer Technology and Mentoring program and program to assist at-risk youth to 14 additional sites

DOJ/OJP SSI Stop the Violence - 

Students Taking on Prevention

16.542 Family, Career and 

Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) 

$ JJDPA for the Family, Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) "Stop 

496,750

program

DOJ/OJP SSI Community in Schools -

Isolated Community Initiative

16.542 Community in Schools, 

Inc

$ JJDPA for the Alaska Community in Schools Mentoring Program 496,750

DOJ/OJP SSI After School Program 16.541 Operation Quality Time 496,750 $ JJDPA for Operation Quality TimeDOJ/OJP SSI Pinellas County Police 

Athletic League - After School & Summer Program

16.541 Pinellas County 248,375 $ JJDPA for the Pinellas County, FL Police Athletic League

DOJ/OJP SSI Residential Summer 

Camp Program

16.541 Police Athletic League 

of New Jersey

$ JJDPA for the Police Athletic League of New Jersey to implement a short term res

993,500

camp program for youth* JJDPA - Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, as amended** OCCSSA - Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended

Department of Labor TOTAL FUNDS EARMARKED $ 3,775,000

DOL/ETA Kingston-Newburgh 

Enterprise Community

n/a Kingston-Newburgh 

Enterprise Community

$ NY (Reg. 1) / 400,000

Hinchey  

Funds will be used to train at-risk youth and to expand the nurse mentorin

DOL/ETA Collegiate Consortium for 

Workforce and Economic Development / Philadelphia Naval Business Center

n/a Collegiate Consortium 

for Workforce and Economic Development / Philadelphia Naval Business Center

$ PA (Reg. 2) / 250,000

Specter, Santorum

This project will develop workforce development and training to be deliverePhiladelphia region.

DOL/ETA Residential Care Consortium 

/Children's Home of Eastern

n/a Residential Care 

Consortium /Children's Home of Eastern

$ PA (Reg. 2) / 100,000

Specter

This project will provide job placement and job training for young adults whresidential placements in the Northampton, PA area.

DOL/ETA Computer and Internet 

Training Center / University Technology Park

n/a Computer and Internet 

Training Center / University Technology Park

$ PA (Reg. 2) / 75,000

Specter, Santorum

This project will train the working poor and youth in high-tech skills.

DOL/ETA Job Challenge Program / 

Military Educational Training Enhancement Fund 

n/a Job Challenge Program 

/ Military Educational Training Enhancement Fund 

$ LA (Reg. 4) / 300,000

Baker

This program will provide job training and skills to at-risk youth.

DOL/ETA Minot Job Corps Fellowship /

Minot State University

n/a Minot Job Corps 

Fellowship /Minot State University

$ ND (Reg. 4) / 400,000

Dorgan

(not provided in appropriations language)

DOL/ETA Youth Opportunities in 

Retailing, Inc. / New Mexico Retail Association

n/a Youth Opportunities in 

Retailing, Inc. / New Mexico Retail Association

$ ND (Reg. 4) / 200,000

Domenici

This project will work in cooperation with schools and community organizasales and service skills to develop a future workforce in this industry.

DOL/ETA Matanuska-Susitna Borough 

School District 

n/a Matanuska-Susitna 

Borough School District 

$ AK (Reg. 6) / 150,000

Murkowski

This project will provide vocational training for youth.

Appendix H 
DOL/ETA Initiating New Communities / 

Homies

n/a Initiating New 

Communities / Homies

$ CA (Reg. 6) / 100,000

Roybal-Allard

Funds will be used to replicate job training programs for at-risk youth.

DOL/ETA Remote Rural Hawaii Job 

Training Project

n/a Remote Rural Hawaii 

Job Training Project

$ HI (Reg. 6) / 1,500,000

Inouye

(not provided in appropriations language)

DOL/ETA Clark County n/a Clark County 250,000 $ CA (Reg. 6) /

Reid

This project will develop training programs designed to move youth into hiconstruction jobs.

DOL/ETA Nevada Women's Fund n/a Nevada Women's Fund 50,000 $ NV (Reg. 6) / This project will perform a comprehensive study on the status of women a

to tailor workforce initiatives.** ** All earmarks are from the Conference Report.

Corporation for National 

and Community Service

TOTAL FUNDS 

EARMARKED

$ 15,000,000

CNS Points of Light Foundation n/a Points of Light 

Foundation

$ 10,000,000 National and 

Community Service Act, Title III.

National network of independent Volunteer Centers, promotes volunteerintechnical assistance, a national conference and through special initiativesand web-based promotional activities. Grant supports allowable administrand program activities and provides about 50 percent of annual budget.

CNS 1. America’s Promise – The 

Alliance for Youth

n/a 1. America’s Promise – 

The Alliance for Youth

$ 5,000,000 The Omnibus 

Appropriations Act of 2003

Network of independent Communities of Promise who are working to implPromises through training and technical assistance, partnerships with puborganizations which pledge support through material and volunteer manpoat the community level. Corporation funding supports about one-third of bPromise is entirely directed at children and youth, with an emphasis on dis

Appendix H