Chapter 4: Nebraska 


The case study of Title V in Nebraska, which focuses on the national evaluation communities of Norfolk 

and Valentine, demonstrates that implementing the Title V model as designed creates an opportunity for 

change in comprehensive delinquency prevention planning. When implemented without training and 

technical assistance, however, it is difficult for communities to move through the four stages without 

significant challenge. The Title V national evaluation communities in Nebraska, while able to 

implement new programs, struggled to implement the Title V model and, in both cases, were unable to 

do so. 

The first section of this case study discusses state support for Title V from 1997 to 2002. The next 

sections discuss the Title V initiatives in Norfolk and Valentine from 1997 to 2002. The final section 

presents concluding remarks on Title V in Nebraska. 

This summary is based on four primary data sources in each community during its participation in the 

national evaluation: stakeholder interviews, in person and via telephone; a review of Nebraska’s Title V 

documentation, including the state request for proposals for available funds and the Norfolk and 

Valentine grant applications; a review of Title V documentation in Norfolk and Valentine, including the 

grant applications, quarterly progress reports, and prevention policy board meeting minutes; and a 

review of the federal Title V guidelines and documentation. In addition, the report includes the 

evaluation team’s interpretation of the case study data that represent Caliber’s experience in working 

with all 11 national evaluation communities during the multiyear implementation of the evaluation. 

State Support for Title V 

Since the initial availability of Title V funds in 1994, Nebraska has been eligible to receive funds 

ranging from $78,000 to $237,000 per year, based on the size of its juvenile population. The Nebraska 

Crime Commission was the implementing state agency in Nebraska and chose to support rounds of 

communities with grant awards that ranged from $520 to $50,000. Since the beginning of Title V, 

Nebraska has funded 18 Title V communities. 

Nebraska’s Granting Process 

The Nebraska Crime Commission administers Nebraska’s Title V funds. An umbrella agency for several 

criminal and juvenile justice programs in the state, the Crime Commission has a 19-member board of 

directors and is responsible for coordinating and monitoring juvenile justice program development and 

overseeing compliance with federal statutes related to receipt of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act of 1974 funds. The Crime Commission also is responsible for coordinating and 

providing training and technical assistance to communities that seek and receive Crime Commission 

funding. As posted on its Web site, the Crime Commission’s mission is to: 

provide comprehensive planning and coordination of activities leading to the 

improvement of criminal and juvenile administration among state and local agencies. The 

Crime Commission’s array of programs and functions reflects its historical transition in 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 86 
mission from that of distributing federal grant funds to a service and regulatory agency, 

responsible for the overall improvement of Nebraska’s criminal and juvenile justice 

systems. 

The Crime Commission announces annually the availability of federal and state funds through an 

application kit titled “Juvenile Services Grant Funds.” Title V funds are specifically identified within 

this package. In addition to Title V funds, Juvenile Services Grant Funds include state set-asides, 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Title II funds, and general state prevention funds. To 

improve and streamline the grant application process, the Crime Commission’s Grants Division 

developed one application package for federal- and state-supported juvenile justice funds. 

The State Advisory Group (SAG), one of seven Crime Commission advisory groups, is the Nebraska 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice. The coalition makes recommendations on juvenile justice matters to the 

Crime Commission and is responsible for providing annual reports on federal- and state-supported 

activities to the Governor and the legislature. The coalition determines annually the criteria for the 

distribution of Title V funds. 

The Crime Commission’s Juvenile Justice Grants Division distributes an annual announcement of 

available funds that include a preview of requirements, deadlines, and restrictions on use of funds. Units 

of local government are required to request pre-application certification of compliance with the 

mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Once a community receives 

confirmation of compliance from the Crime Commission, it is eligible to submit an application for Title 

V funds. A subcommittee of the Nebraska Coalition for Juvenile Justice reviews grant applications and 

then passes funding recommendations to the full coalition. The coalition then makes its 

recommendations to the Crime Commission for final award approvals. 

State application guidelines note that, although all programs that have a prevention focus are eligible to 

apply for Title V funding, priority funding consideration is given to programs that focus on the critical 

areas identified by the Crime Commission. The areas changed yearly until 2002, since which time they 

have remained relatively stable. For example, the 1998 application kit gave priority to Title V applicants 

who demonstrated ability in planning for service and agency coordination and collaboration, including 

the collocation of services; developing and utilizing innovative ways to involve the private non-profit 

and business sectors in delinquency prevention activities; and developing or enhancing a statewide 

subsidy program to local governments that is dedicated to early intervention and delinquency 

prevention. 

Grants are awarded on a 12-month fiscal cycle. The Crime Commission intends for subgrantees to be 

funded for a full 3 years as long as they continue to meet quarterly and annual state-funding evaluation 

and monitoring requirements, including submission of implementation plans and budget reports. 

According to state staff and local Title V subgrantees, however, continuation funding is not guaranteed 

and, in fact, sometimes has been denied from year to year despite concerted efforts to meet state-funding 

evaluation and monitoring guidelines. In addition, to be eligible for continuation funding, each year Title 

V subgrantees are required to submit a full application, including an updated 3 year plan, and go through 

the full review process. Current and past subgrantees report frustration with this process. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 87 
Training and Technical Assistance 

To help Title V communities implement the risk- and protection-focused delinquency prevention model, 

the Crime Commission, in the years 1994 through 1995, facilitated a locally developed training 

curriculum titled Partners in Planning. This curriculum was rooted in the basic principles of the Title V 

model (i.e., community mobilization, risk and resource assessment, and research-based prevention 

strategies) but was thought to reflect Nebraska’s demographic makeup and prevention context more 

accurately than the federally sponsored Title V curriculum. The Crime Commission offered two Partners 

in Planning training sessions, the last one in 1995. 

The 1998 application kit indicated that training and technical assistance were mandatory for new 

applicants. It stated that “newly certified applicants are required to identify key community leaders who 

will participate in any proposed program or serve on the prevention policy board, and such persons must 

receive technical assistance/training from Juvenile Justice Division staff.” 

The Crime Commission did not offer federally sponsored Title V training. It did, however, provide grant 

management training to all recipients of Juvenile Services Grant Funds (all federal and Nebraska statefunded programs). The training was designed to communicate information about state reporting 

expectations only. In conversations with the national evaluation team, the Crime Commission indicated 

that, when requested, training and technical assistance were made available to grantees. It was the 

experience of the national evaluation team, however, that grantees did not know that training was 

available to them. Although the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention made training 

available to all states, it was up to the state to determine when the training occurred and how it was 

structured. It was not the responsibility of the grantee to recognize the need for and request training. 

Evaluation 

The Crime Commission’s application kit outlined the following requirements for the comprehensive 3­

year plan: 

• A prioritized strategy, including goals, measurable objectives and activities, and a timetable to 

mobilize the community to assume responsibility for delinquency prevention and to coordinate 

services. 

• A description of how the prevention policy board will develop and approve the plan and make 

recommendations to the local applicant to distribute funds to accomplish goals and evaluation 

programs. 

• A plan to collect data, measure performance, and evaluate goals. 

Although the third bullet point above could be construed as a requirement for an evaluation plan, it was 

not indicated as such. In addition, no guidance beyond this statement was given regarding how 

communities were to proceed with planning and implementing an evaluation of their efforts and by what 

criteria their plans would be reviewed. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 88 
Other State Factors 

As early as the summer of 1999, with the support of the Nebraska Crime Commission, the Nebraska 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice began conducting public forums across the state. The purpose of these 

meetings was to provide the Crime Commission with an opportunity to gather input and assist with 

prioritization as the coalition developed its own 3-year plan. 

In 1999, with a new juvenile justice specialist on board, Nebraska reported in conversations with the 

national evaluation team that the Juvenile Services Grant Division and the juvenile justice specialist 

were paying more attention to how it administered Title V funds through a more critical review of 

applications and more frequent communications with applicants and subgrantees. The division reported 

that it recognized inconsistencies in the enforcement of Title V regulations and that applications did not 

consistently represent the Title V model. This increased attention and level of commitment to Title V 

resulted in the termination of some grants that were not meeting Title V requirements and the acceptance 

of new applications that adhered to the requirements. The division and the juvenile justice specialist 

subsequently offered to work with “denied” communities to get them to a point of readiness for future 

applications. 

The juvenile justice specialist position was filled consistently in 1999 for the first time in 5 years. Before 

1999, the position was not always filled promptly, resulting in long periods when the position remained 

unfilled. This lack of continuity created a challenge in that no one staff member could thoroughly 

understand, implement, and support the Nebraska Title V subgrantees. The Crime Commission began to 

see stability with the arrival of the new juvenile justice specialist in 1999. 

Interpretation 

From 1998 until 2002, Nebraska’s support of the Title V model was insufficient. In general, prevention 

was not a priority for the Crime Commission; state officials were more focused on other juvenile justice 

issues such as corrections. The state did not commit adequate resources (e.g., people, money, or state 

funding) to the Title V communities to help them be successful. In addition, the state did not provide 

training for potential Title V grantees and its application kit did not adequately address Title V 

requirements as presented in the federal regulations. 

In early 1999, with the assistance of the new juvenile justice specialist, the national evaluation team 

brought Nebraska’s challenges with Title V to the attention of the OJJDP Title V Program Manager 

who, in turn, brought these issues to the attention of Nebraska’s OJJDP State Relations and Assistance 

Division (SRAD) representative.1

 In addition to several conversations between the new juvenile justice 

specialist and the national evaluation team, the SRAD representative conducted a site visit to Nebraska 

to determine how OJJDP could best support the state to get back on track with its Title V initiative. 

According to interviews with the Crime Commission and agency staff, the relationship with OJJDP was 

not strong. (Given the turnover and redirection of Title V, this support would have been optimal had it 

existed for the Crime Commission and staff; however, ultimately it was lacking.) As a result, the 

1

 State Relations and Assistance Division (SRAD) staff provided funds to help state and local governments achieve the 

system improvement goals of the JJDP Act. SRAD also supported and coordinated communities’ efforts to identify and 

respond to their most critical juvenile justice and delinquency prevention needs. Each state had a SRAD representative. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 89 
juvenile justice specialist implemented several activities to build capacity for Title V in Nebraska. First, 

Title V applications more carefully were reviewed for evidence of compliance with Title V regulations. 

The juvenile justice specialist also began visiting Title V sites more often than had been done before, 

and was more responsive to inquiries from the Title V sites regarding expectations and reporting 

guidelines. The sections that follow present the phases of Title V planning and implementation in 

relation to the state support of Title V during the national evaluation. 

Summary 

A variety of state factors hindered the success of Nebraska’s Title V grantees. First and foremost was the 

lack of training that had implications for mobilization and community assessment. Although Nebraska 

indicated in its application kit that training was required of the prevention policy board in applicant 

communities, training was not made available for Title V applicants. Without community training, the 

many requirements and expectations associated with mobilization and the need for a prevention policy 

board as a resource and critical component of the model were not communicated to the applicants. 

Without training, the community may have been unaware of benefits it would reap from assiduous 

implementation of the community mobilization stage of the Title V model. The expectations for 

community mobilization presented in the application kit were insufficient; the training required to fully 

explain and provide guidance on these expectations was not provided. 

With regard to community assessments, although the request for proposals clearly indicated that a 

comprehensive assessment was required, the state’s guidance was limited to the criteria in the 

application kit, as presented above. Although the request for proposals stated that applicants were 

required to “conduct an assessment, provide a list of risk and protective factors and an explanation of the 

process used in identifying these risk factors, and provide a summary of major risk and protective 

factors and the baseline data that correspond to them,” there was no information regarding the criteria 

the state would be using to assess the extent to which communities met the requirements. In addition, no 

guidance was given on how to complete these activities. 

The Nebraska Coalition for Juvenile Justice’s implementation requirements called for applicants to 

provide “specific strategies for service and agency coordination, including co-location of services at 

sites readily accessible to children and families in need.” The application kit indicated that the Title V 

process included selecting strategies that would “address risk factors through the enhancement of 

protective factors.” It did not require that programs be research based. In addition, without training to 

help interpret how to complete this activity, most grantees fell short of selecting strategies that were 

directly tied to risk or protective factors. 

Nebraska’s support for evaluation and institutionalization was insufficient. Evaluation requirements 

were limited to “providing a monitoring plan for collecting data and measuring objectives.” Nebraska 

did not require that the goals and objectives be linked to the prioritized needs and the selected strategies. 

Nebraska’s application kit addressed institutionalization only to the extent that it requested applicants to 

have a plan for continuation of the project without the assistance of Title V funding after 3 years. 

Nebraska did not ask applicants to outline strategies for sustaining the initiatives. Nebraska’s lack of 

support for the Title V model affected communities’ implementation. The following sections describe 

and analyze the Title V initiatives undertaken in the national evaluation communities of Norfolk and 

Valentine, Nebraska. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 90 
National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 91

Madison County (Norfolk) 

This case study documents the Title V process in Norfolk, from its initial planning for the Title V 

initiative in 1996 through the end of its first Title V initiative in 2002. As the following sections 

describe, the Title V initiative in Norfolk experienced challenges in all phases of the Title V model, 

although it was successful in implementing a program of valuable services for youth. 

The presentation begins with a brief community description and discussion of the role of Title V in 

Norfolk. It continues with discussions of the five stages of the Title V model as implemented in Norfolk: 

community mobilization and 

collaboration, initial assessment and 

planning, implementation of 

prevention strategies, monitoring and 

evaluation, and institutionalization. It 

concludes with the evaluation team’s 

interpretation of the data. 

Brief Community Description 

The Title V community in Madison County, Nebraska, is the city of Norfolk, located 2 hours north of 

Lincoln. It is the largest community in the northeast section of the state and is the major retail trade 

center. According to the grant application, it is also the industrial center of northeast Nebraska and 

supports major industries in farm products, livestock, petroleum products, motor vehicle and automotive 

equipment, drugs and chemicals, electrical equipment and hardware, meat packing, agriculture, and 

metals. It is a major distribution center for perishable and nonperishable goods. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000 Norfolk had a population of 23,516, with approximately 

7,217 youth ages 0 to 19 (31.6 percent of the population) residing within the city limits. There were 

6,537 youth over the age of 3 in school, and 41.2 percent of them were in elementary school (grades 1 

through 8). The median household income was $34,609. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Norfolk 

was primarily white (91.4 percent); 3.2 percent of its population was black or African American, Native 

Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; and 6.4 percent was “some other race” or a combination of two or more 

races. 

Title V in Norfolk 

Since the early 1990s, Norfolk has implemented several prevention programs with the support of its 

schools and community-based organizations. Historically, these programs focused on parenting issues, 

teen pregnancy, family management, high-risk families, and child abuse and neglect. Norfolk has been 

committed to interagency coordination and engaging the community. In 1988, Madison County 

organized a team of Norfolk professionals, civic leaders, and citizens as the Family Action Community 

Team. The team was a broadly representative, community-based organization that developed 

programming, projects, and support for the families in Madison County. With its diverse representation 

and the involvement of key community stakeholders, the team was critical in supporting initiatives and 

Madison County (Norfolk) 

Funding period: 1998–2002 

Amount of Title V funding: $140,631 

Unit of local government: Madison County, county commissioners 

Lead agency: Wesley Center, Inc.
programs throughout Madison County and the northeast region (Region IV) of the state. The team also 

was responsible for developing a comprehensive juvenile justice plan. 

More than a dozen other collaborative efforts were described briefly in Norfolk’s grant application. 

These efforts focused on issues such as mentoring, faith, education, recreation, health and human 

services, social services, substance abuse, parent aide programming, and the arts. 

A timeline of Norfolk’s Title V initiative is presented in figure 4.1. 

Figure 4.1: Norfolk Timeline for the Title V Initiative 

1988 

1994 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2003 

Family Action Community Team (FACT) formed 

Community risk and resource assessment conducted 

Planning process conducted; Title V application submitted 

Title V grant received; FACT begins serving as prevention policy board (PPB) 

Activities Director hired part-time 

Youth Link implemented; Activities Director becomes a full-time position 

Title V grant ends 

Youth Link+ funded as a new program by the NE Crime Commission 

PPB disbanded; FACT subcommittee becomes the Title V PPB 

Youth Link+ developed protocols for implementation 

Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

The process of community mobilization and collaboration included introducing community prevention 

to key leaders, forming a policy board, and participating in training. This section describes community 

mobilization in support of Norfolk’s Title V initiative from 1998 through 2002 and the factors that 

affected it. 

In 1988, a decade before Title V came to Norfolk, Madison County organized a Family Action 

Community Team dedicated to interagency coordination, active community involvement, and fostering 

a healthy and productive environment for children. The Family Action Community Team also worked 

“to strengthen, support, and be an advocate for the family.” In the fall of 1994, the team conducted a 

community assessment. The data collected helped the team prioritize its immediate strategies, called the 

Parent Connection Program. Parent Connection, the first major outcome of the community assessment, 

gave the team its initial momentum, and it felt prepared to address community-level concerns. This 

momentum existed when Norfolk became aware of the Title V grant application announcement in 1999. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 92 
Norfolk viewed Title V as an opportunity to support the community in a way that previously had not 

been possible. 

Introducing Community Prevention to Key Leaders 

The initial community assessment and structure of the Family Action Community Team provided the 

foundation upon which the Title V grant was pursued and the prevention policy board established. 

Prevention Policy Board 

The development of a prevention policy board specific to Title V evolved from the team’s planning 

structure, membership, and connection with the community. The Title V planning and grant-writing 

team consisted primarily of board members from the Family Action Community Team. This group 

proposed that, when the Title V grant was awarded, a Title V prevention policy board be established and 

include the following representation: 

• Five members of the Family Action Community Team who are heads of organizations, high-level 

senior managers, or holders of policy-level positions. 

• One fiscal agent. 

• One Madison County representative (county commissioner/county attorney). 

• Two business representatives (owners, chief executive officers, or senior-level managers). 

• Three youth representatives reflecting the diversity of the community. 

• Three parent representatives reflecting the diversity of the community. 

As part of this mobilization effort, members of the Title V planning team recruited individuals to fill the 

above categories who were willing to commit to the Title V project. It was conveyed to them, and stated 

in the grant application, that the prevention policy board would: 

serve as a governing board for the program. This includes but is not limited to: advisory 

capacity to provide direction of programming and activities; review of all mini-grant 

applications and monthly budgetary expenditures; and support of the prevention 

strategies as outlined in the proposal. 

The board’s responsibilities were as follows: 

• Meet the needs of youth in the Norfolk area. 

• Set policies to guide the project and the coordinators’ activities. 

• Write, maintain, and update a strategic plan outlining the long-range goals for the growth and 

development of prevention for youth. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 93 
• Ensure that finances were adequate and that money was spent responsibly. 

• Support the coordinator. 

• Participate in board and committee meetings. 

The intent was to provide continuity and, upon award of a Title V grant, to include community sectors 

and organizations that might not have been represented on the planning and grant-writing team. 

After the Title V grant was awarded, prevention policy board members were selected from the Family 

Action Community Team board and the community. Therefore, many individuals recruited to serve on 

the prevention policy board were not part of the Title V planning process. As a result, from the 

beginning it was difficult for the board to provide leadership and direction to Norfolk’s Title V 

initiative. Since 1998, the board has lacked a solid structure and, partly because of a lack of training, 

does not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Title V initiative. 

In the second year of the initiative, the prevention policy board disbanded, and the Family Action 

Community Team began serving as the prevention policy board for the Title V initiative. This change 

was proposed for several reasons, including poor attendance at board meetings. Because many of the 

board members were also members of the Family Action Community Team, it was believed that 

combining the meetings would reduce the burden on volunteers. In fall 2000, this change was made, and 

a subcommittee of the Family Action Community Team became the prevention policy board for the 

Title V initiative. 

Community Prevention Training 

Nebraska’s Title V training was known as Partners in Planning. According to the program 

documentation, this training had not been conducted since the mid-1990s. Members of the Norfolk 

prevention policy board had not participated in training activities related to Title V. Caliber Associates 

conducted training on evaluation and the Title V Community Self-Evaluation Workbook in Norfolk in 

July 1999. The youth activities coordinator, the youth activities project director, the project director, and 

another board member, along with representatives from other, earlier-round Title V communities, 

attended. 

Community-Identified Factors That Influenced Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

Norfolk’s efforts to mobilize the community were not consistent with the Title V model. A planning 

group came together to look at the data collected for a previous community needs assessment. This 

group indicated in the grant application that the prevention policy board would be identified subsequent 

to a successful planning process. The board did not participate in training, and attendance at and 

involvement in the meetings were poor. Interviews with board members indicated that many of the 

individuals on the prevention policy board already served on several other boards, including the Family 

Action Community Team. This created a burden on these members. 

Another challenge to community mobilization was that key players were not involved. Interviews 

indicated that prevention policy board members felt they were “missing the power people. We’re 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 94 
missing the leaders and the shakers that really make decisions and can say ‘police chief, this is going to 

happen. You’re going to do it. Now, get in there and work with them.’” Also missing were 

representatives from the city and county governments. Government representatives were involved early 

in the process, but their participation was to meet the grant application’s requirement that funds go to a 

unit of local government. In interviews, board members reported that: 

We need some bucks, we need some buildings, we need some bodies from City Council, 

from the Mayor and the City Administrator and from the County Commissioners. The 

County Commissioners and the County Office, because it’s somewhat removed, have 

been involved through the County attorney... A little more power at the top that says we 

not only support this, but we’re going to help make sure that it continues and that it 

becomes reality. 

Insufficient guidance and understatement of the roles and responsibilities of the prevention policy board 

were other challenges to mobilization. Members of the board reported that: 

We [need] to do more than just be a sounding board for the activities director. And that’s 

really about all we did last year. She’d come in and tell us about her programs and we’d 

say, ‘you know, that sounds great. You know, keep it up.’ But we realized we needed to 

be doing more than that and in order to do that, we needed the right people and resources 

and folks in the community. 

Board members reported, “They had not really been given a whole lot of direction as far as what the 

activities director wanted from them.” The activities director had never attended Title V training, 

however, and might not have had sufficient resources to support the board in this process. Members 

report that training would have been helpful: “I think that training would have been great. I just sort of 

volunteered for this board not realizing how much more there was to it than sort of just being a sounding 

board.” 

Initial Assessment and Planning 

Title V’s initial assessment and planning stage includes identifying risk factors, resources, and 

prevention programs and developing a 3-year comprehensive prevention plan. The assessment and 

planning for the Title V initiative in Norfolk took place from 1998 to 2002. Data were not available on 

the community-identified factors influencing the assessment process. The assessment preceded the Title 

V initiative, and the individuals who reviewed the data and compiled the information to be included in 

the grant application were not involved with the prevention policy board once the Title V funds were 

awarded. 

Identifying Risk Factors, Resources, and Prevention Programs 

In January 1998, the Family Action Community Team completed the Comprehensive Community Plan 

for Children, Youth, and Families in Madison County (made possible by the Nebraska Commission for 

the Protection of Children). This preexisting risk assessment was used as the assessment for the Title V 

grant application. In the application, Madison County identified the top 10 priority needs for both adults 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 95 
and youth, based on needs assessments and interviews with citizens to identify the “most pressing issues 

facing the community,” as the following: 

• More youth activities. 

• Bigger/better mall. 

• More sports programs. 

• More police to enforce the law. 

• Later curfew. 

• More jobs for teens, tied to shorter school days. 

• More/better food places. 

• Drug prevention, tied to crime. 

• Lower driving age, tied to drive-in theatre. 

• School bus system, tied to more schools. 

The assessment also documented that the following factors appeared to be contributing to youth problem 

behaviors: 

• Changing demographics of a community experiencing social and ethnic change. 

• Economic growth factors, with a limited workforce available. 

• Shortages in affordable housing. 

• Increase in single-parent families. 

• Increase in youth access to drugs and alcohol. 

Developing a Comprehensive Prevention Plan 

The Comprehensive Community Plan for Children, Youth, and Families, which was submitted with 

Norfolk’s Title V grant application as its risk and resource assessment, was completed before the 

community applied for the Title V grant. Members of the Family Action Community Team who 

participated in the development of the Comprehensive Community Plan also participated in the planning 

for Title V. 

The Comprehensive Community Plan reviewed community-identified concerns for adults and youth. 

Youth activities were the most frequently reported need. With the exception of the Youth Task Force, 

the priorities identified in the Comprehensive Community Plan (24-hour intake and assessment, 

alternative education, expansion of prevention efforts, resource listing, and youth staff-secure program) 

do not correspond to the strategy selected for implementation with Title V funds. 

The Comprehensive Community Plan submitted with the Title V grant application included the 

assessment data. It did not, however, link the data to the prevention strategies that Norfolk selected. The 

strategies selected for implementation were discussed briefly in the grant application. They were not 

research-based. 

Implementation of Prevention Strategies 

Implementation of prevention efforts involves prevention strategies and identifying and leveraging 

community resources. This section describes the implementation of prevention strategies and activities 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 96 
that took place as part of the Title V initiative in Norfolk from 1998 to 2002 and also discusses 

community-identified factors influencing Norfolk’s implementation efforts. 

To address the needs of local youth, Norfolk hired an activities coordinator (i.e., project coordinator) to 

develop, manage, and maintain activities for youth. The role of the activities coordinator was to increase 

youth participation in existing activities and, to the extent necessary, remove barriers to participation 

(e.g., cost, transportation, lack of awareness of program, lack of feeling of acceptance into program). 

Two years into implementation, Norfolk submitted a new Title V application, under a new request fro 

proposals, to the Crime Commission to modify the Youth Link program that had been proposed as part 

of the initial Title V initiative. The new program, Youth Link+, was approved in 2000 as a new Title V 

program. Youth Link consisted of monthly, one-time events for youth. Youth Link+ focused on service 

learning activities for high-risk youth. It continued the Youth Link program coordination but had a 

second component that focused on individualized outreach efforts. 

Youth Link 

Members of the prevention policy board reported a concerted effort was made to ensure that all 

activities, existing and new, were accessible, and to minimize obstacles of transportation, food, or 

equipment that had previously prevented some youth from participating. Beyond coordination of 

activities for youth, the activities coordinator worked with area educational, social, and law enforcement 

agencies to support parent and family educational components to foster healthy life choices by youth. 

The activities coordinator was responsible for monthly activity updates to the prevention policy board. 

The board in turn provided guidance, review, and the support necessary for the coordinator to complete 

the goals outlined for the project. The Norfolk grant application indicated that “this approach [proposal] 

maximizes the potential of the resources that already exist in the community for youth. It reduces the 

potential for duplication, thereby creating efficiency within the structure and hopefully diverting 

resources into new areas of activity development for youth.” 

A Youth Advisory Council was established to assist in planning programs and activities for youth. The 

15-member council had an advisory capacity and was representative of the ethnic, racial, and cultural 

mix of the community. Representatives for the council were sought from students in grades 7 to 12 from 

each school in the community. The council was very active in planning events, publicity, and 

fundraising. 

In the original Title V grant application submitted in 1997, the Youth Link program was created to serve 

2,000 youth in the Norfolk area. The position of the activities coordinator was multipurpose: to work 

with the existing youth activities and to increase participation where possible. Although the Crime 

Commission did not deny or reject funding to applicants, it required some applicants, including Norfolk, 

to resubmit applications with a revised budget or scope or work. In Norfolk’s revised grant application, 

the total Title V project costs were reduced from $69,901 to $22,429. In one major revision, the 

activities coordinator position was changed from full-time at $25,400 per year to part-time at $14,942 

per year. Another revision was that the Title V initiative was no longer to be housed in and directed by 

the Norfolk Public Schools; leadership of the initiative was transferred to the Wesley Center, a local 

nonprofit agency. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 97 
Program implementation began as planned in 1998. However, with the reduction in hours, the 

coordinator focused primarily on sponsoring events for youth rather than serving as a resource to link 

youth to programs and reduce barriers to participation. Youth activities were held in the community 

during the first 2 years of program operation, but there was no ability to determine the activities’ impact 

on youth. 

Youth Link+ 

In August 2000, Norfolk’s Title V initiative prevention strategy changed from Youth Link to Youth 

Link+ and the activities coordinator position transitioned from part-time to full-time. Youth Link+ had 

two components. It focused on activity planning, development, and implementation, with the support of 

community youth. It also conducted individualized outreach efforts targeted at high-risk youth, with the 

intention of connecting them to supports in the community to ultimately build youth assets. These efforts 

included an asset assessment of the youth before and after they participated in Youth Link+. The Crime 

Commission funded Youth Link+ as a new program and, as a result, Norfolk received 5 years of Title V 

funding to support its strategies. 

Youth Link+ was based on the Search Institute’s 40 Developmental Assets model. Norfolk Public 

Schools, the Department of Health and Human Service, the state Probation Office, and concerned adults 

referred youth to Youth Link+. Referral forms were used to determine each youth’s current assets and 

which youth were at greatest risk. Youth who were more at risk had priority for entering the program. 

The revised grant application indicates that, 2 years into the process, Norfolk felt that, although 

providing one-time events to the youth in the community was helpful, a more comprehensive and 

coordinated approach was needed. 

Youth Link+ began accepting referrals on September 1, 2000, and the program anticipated accepting up 

to five referrals per month. That September, 11 referrals were received. Youth Link+ accepted all 11 

youth into the program and the youth activities coordinator met with them individually and as a group. 

All of the youth became involved in service learning such as helping children in daycare make fall 

decorations, handing out fliers for the Nebraska AIDS Project fundraiser, making Halloween decorations 

for a local nursing home, and adopting a block downtown to keep clean. 

Identifying and Leveraging Other Resources for Prevention 

The youth activities coordinator was constantly searching for resources to support the Title V prevention 

strategies, usually through fundraising events in the community to support Youth Link+. No plan existed 

for leveraging additional resources other than on an as-needed basis. 

Community-Identified Factors That Influenced the Implementation of Prevention Strategies 

The ideas behind the prevention strategies in Norfolk were not consistent with the Title V model. The 

strategies were not research-based and did not include plans for implementation. Norfolk chose to 

support a new program (Youth Link+) with a low level of start-up funds. Members of the prevention 

policy board report that the size of the grant award was insufficient, making implementation of a 

significant activity difficult: “$17,000 (approximate year 1 award) in [a] budget is pretty minor, and how 

can you even justify devoting a whole lot of time to that small a piece of your total pie?” 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 98 
A key facilitating factor for a program is having one person responsible for overseeing implementation 

and reporting: “Youth Link+ is probably one thing that has been maintained throughout the period of 

time because you have someone paid to direct it and that’s key. You can’t do it by just everybody 

volunteering and creating by committee. The collaboration has to be there ... But you’ve also got to pay 

somebody to run it.” 

Another key facilitating factor was the activities coordinator’s commitment to the work. Board members 

reported that the coordinator demonstrated excellent commitment to the activities and to the youth. This 

created momentum for the expansion from Youth Link to Youth Link+ and the subsequent modification 

of this position from part- to full-time. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

The monitoring and evaluation stage of the Title V model theoretically should include several activities 

such as conducting program evaluations of each prevention strategy, evaluating the Title V initiative as a 

whole, and reassessing community indicators. No ongoing assessment of community indicators for the 

Title V initiative in Norfolk from 1999 to 2002 was conducted, and no data were available to capture 

community-identified factors influencing evaluation and monitoring efforts. 

Although the Youth Link program did identify outcome-oriented goals and objectives, no evaluation 

plan assessed if the program was appropriately linked to them. In addition, the community did not 

collect process or outcome data and did not track risk factors. The youth activities coordinator did 

monitor program implementation (in terms of numbers of youth served and number of activities 

conducted), and provided brief descriptions of events for each activity. 

For Youth Link+, the youth activities coordinator and the prevention policy board revised the program 

goals and objectives to reflect the new emphasis on increasing the number of protective factors for 

youth. For example, a plan had been developed to track the number of individual youth protective 

factors at the time of intake and the number of protective factors after 6 and 12 months of participation; 

however, this method was unlikely to provide much meaningful data. In addition, the number of 

participants that were expelled, suspended, or receiving school disciplinary action were to be tracked. 

Staff had begun to develop forms to capture these data, but no data were available during the national 

evaluation. 

Institutionalization 

The Title V process of institutionalizing prevention efforts includes sustaining key components of the 

initiative, meeting goals and objectives, and obtaining continuation funding for successful programs and 

strategies. Norfolk received additional Title V funding from the Nebraska Crime Commission to fund 

the Youth Link+ program as a new program in Norfolk. However, the Title V initiative was completed 

in June 2003 and there was no plan for institutionalization at last report. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 99 
Interpretation 

Examining Norfolk’s approaches to implementing the Title V model reveals a number of challenges, but 

the community’s second Title V initiative displays some successes based on lessons learned from the 

first initiative. 

During the initial planning period, Norfolk used preexisting data for the risk assessment. Members from 

an existing collaborative in the community committed resources to completing the assessment and 

submitting the grant application to the state. Some members of this grant-writing team remained 

involved in the initiative as part of the prevention policy board. However, as it had proposed, Norfolk 

identified the majority of the board members after the grant award, which was not consistent with the 

intention of the Title V model, and resulted in a lack of continuity. 

The focus of the grant application was general implementation of activities for youth, coordinated by an 

activities director hired with the Title V funds. The plan was insufficient as either a 3-year plan or one 

that could inform program planning throughout the life of the grant. The strategies selected were not 

specifically linked to risk factors or program outcomes and no plan was in place for institutionalization. 

The primary strength of the initiative was the commitment of the activities coordinator, the key staff 

person whose efforts enabled Norfolk to implement a number of its planned youth activities. 

Norfolk revised its original Title V initiative from Youth Link, which consisted of monthly one-time 

events for youth, to Youth Link+, which focused on service learning activities for high-risk youth. This 

change, which was encouraged by the state juvenile justice specialist, allowed Norfolk to apply for Title 

V funds as a new project. As a result, instead of being in its third year of Title V funding, Youth Link+ 

was considered by the state of Nebraska as a first-year Title V project. 

Some of the challenges of Youth Link+ are similar to those experienced in the first initiative: how the 

program activities were specifically linked to building assets or reducing risk behaviors in high-risk 

youth was not clear and it was also unclear how the project was linked to the Comprehensive 

Community Plan developed by Family Action Community Team in 1998. However, this second 

initiative experienced some successes not seen in the first initiative. It received more support in the 

community and the prevention strategies were more focused. In addition, attendance at prevention 

policy board meetings was more regular, which may have been because members were encouraged to 

participate more in the program referral process. 

The juvenile justice specialist was involved with Norfolk’s Title V re-application process, which was 

consistent with the office’s attempt to monitor Title V strategies in the state more strictly. The juvenile 

justice specialist provided technical assistance on site and via telephone to help the community submit a 

successful and acceptable application. It was at this time that the juvenile justice specialist received Title 

V training for the first time. Having this training earlier would have been more beneficial. 

Summary 

The most significant challenge to the community was the lack of training and support for Title V 

grantees. Title V training, guidance, and support from the juvenile justice specialist would have 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 100 
National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 101

provided community members with a better understanding of the title V model, including the role of the 

prevention policy board. Training also might have assisted communities in developing 3-year plans that 

could support program implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and institutionalization. Finally, selected 

strategies might have been more closely connected to risk and protective factors and evaluation capacity 

enhancement. As is evident in such states as Michigan and Pennsylvania, which is presented in the next 

chapter, training does make a difference in how successful communities are in their Title V efforts. 

Valentine 

This case study documents the Title V process in Valentine from its initial planning in 1997 through the 

end of its Title V initiative in 2002. The Title V initiative in Valentine demonstrated some successes 

with early phases of the model (such as community mobilization and assessment), but challenges in 

implementation and evaluation resulted in the demise of the initiative at the end of the Title V grant 

period. 

This case study begins with a brief community description and discussion of the role of Title V in 

Valentine. It continues with discussions of the five stages of the Title V model as implemented in 

Valentine: community mobilization and collaboration, 

initial assessment and planning, implementation of 

prevention strategies, monitoring and evaluation, and 

institutionalization. It concludes with the evaluation 

team’s interpretation of the data. 

Brief Community Description 

Valentine is located in north central Nebraska, in the heart of the Sandhills. It serves as a commercial 

center for the Rosebud Sioux Reservation, located only 9 miles away in Todd County, South Dakota. 

The economy of the area is based primarily on agriculture and ranching, although the tourism industry is 

growing. 

In 2000, Valentine had a population of 2,820 people; 28 percent of the population was under the age of 

19. In Valentine, 92.2 percent of the residents were white, 5.8 percent were Native American, and 2 

percent were other races. According to the grant application, Valentine served a much larger population 

than the communities that were within the city limits. It served as the commercial center for much of 

Cherry County, an area of 6,048 square miles with a population of 6,148 (29.1 percent were under 19 

years old), according to the 2000 census. The median household income was $27,359. 

At the time of the Title V application, opportunities for recreation both within and outside the 

community were severely limited. Valentine had only one movie theater and no place for minors to go to 

listen to music or see any of the performing arts. There were no skating rinks, arcades, or game rooms. 

When teens wanted to go out, there were few places for them to go unless a school-sponsored activity 

happened to be taking place. Many other small towns had limited recreation activities but were located 

geographically closer to a larger community where activities were available. Valentine teenagers, on the 

other hand, had to travel in excess of 120 miles one way to gain access to the types of facilities that teens 

from other communities take for granted. 

Valentine 

Funding period: 1999–2002 

Amount of Title V funding: $71,665 

Unit of local government: City of Valentine 

Lead agency: City of Valentine
Another geographic factor that affected Valentine youth, as reported by members of the community, was 

the proximity to the Rosebud Sioux Reservation. Valentine experienced spillover effects from the 

reservation and the surrounding area. It consistently ranked as one of the 10 poorest counties in the 

nation—reflected in high unemployment rates and in skyrocketing rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, teen 

pregnancy, and teen suicide. Community members reported that the recklessness and low self-esteem 

that resulted from this culture of poverty had spillover effects for all Cherry County youth including 

Valentine youth. Recent years showed an increase in the number of Native American youth entering the 

Valentine community as transfer students because Valentine is a business and recreational area. 

Title V in Valentine 

Valentine had experience with youth activities; however, before Title V, it did not have a strong history 

of comprehensive community efforts. According to interviews with community members, prevention 

activities and community coalitions were led, for the most part, by a core group of individuals who were 

responsible for leading most of the initiatives in Valentine and the surrounding area for the last several 

years. In 1997, the Cherry County Attorney gathered individuals representing city and county law 

enforcement, K-12 administration, the local Office of Health and Human Services, the North Central 

Quad Counties Domestic Violence Office, local radio and print media, the Valentine Chamber of 

Commerce, the Cherry County Commission, the city of Valentine, and the Valentine Parent-Teachers 

Association to discuss the formation of a task force for youth-related problems in the area and to seek a 

cooperative effort in finding solutions. The Valentine Youth Planning Commission eventually replaced 

this task force. Other collaborative efforts that served Valentine were the Cherry County Child Abuse 

and Neglect Investigation and Treatment Team and the Valentine Parent-Teachers Association. 

In 1997, the Youth Planning Commission was established to serve as an advisory council to the 

community and submit an application for Title V funds. The Nebraska Crime Commission requested 

that Valentine revise the budget component of the application and resubmit before final approval and 

award. A timeline of the Title V initiative in Valentine is presented in figure 4.2. 

Figure 4.2: Valentine Timeline for the Title V Initiative 

1997 Planning begins; Valentine Youth Planning Commission (YPC) replaces the Valentine Youth 

Task Force and is established (in June) as the Title V prevention policy board 

Title V grant application submitted 

Grant begins; Youth Activities Director position advertised 

Valentine receives Turner Foundation funds ($150,000) to support youth activities 

2000 

1999 

Youth Activities Director hired 

Youth programs begin 

2001 New Youth Activities Director hired 

2002 Title V grant ends 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 102 
Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

Community mobilization includes introducing community prevention to key leaders, forming a 

prevention policy board, and participating in prevention training. This section describes the process of 

community mobilization for the Title V initiative in Valentine from 1997 to 2001 and discusses 

community-identified factors that influenced it. 

Introducing Community Prevention to Key Leaders 

In early 1997, a task force in Valentine began addressing some of the concerns affecting the community 

and area youth. Core members of this task force had already been focusing on youth problem behavior. 

With the announcement of Title V funds, known in Valentine as Crime Commission or Juvenile Justice 

Funds, the task force realized that Title V’s community-based delinquency prevention focus was a good 

fit with the work that Valentine had just begun. 

Prevention Policy Board 

Valentine’s Youth Planning Commission, the prevention policy board in Valentine, was established in 

June 1997 by the city council. With the advisement of the city of Valentine, the Youth Planning 

Commission was created to coordinate local and state efforts in the best interests of the area’s youth. 

The commission’s primary purpose was to respond to an increase in negative juvenile behavior by 

coming together with the community to find alternative activities for youth. Membership included 

leaders of organizations, business owners, policymaking officials, and individuals concerned about the 

future of Valentine area youth, and represented a cross section of the community. The common goal of 

commission members was to provide better lives for youth and others in Valentine. 

During the planning phase, members of the planning commission met with and received support from 

individuals and community organizations who supported positive programming for youth. The 

commission discussed the community’s needs and possible program solutions, completed a preliminary 

budget, and submitted it to the city council for approval. 

The planning commission also was responsible for identifying members of the community it believed 

should be involved in ongoing planning and identifying supplemental funds to support the 

implementation and sustainability of programs. It reviewed and submitted quarterly meeting minutes 

and activity reports to the city council for approval. 

During the first year of implementation, the Youth Planning Commission met regularly as it reviewed 

applications for the youth activities director position, the selected Title V strategy in Valentine. Once 

this individual was hired, commission meetings often included a report from the youth activities 

director. The planning commission served in an advisory capacity to the youth activities director and 

periodically connected the youth activities director with members of the community who supported 

youth activities. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 103 
Community Prevention Training 

According to the program documentation, members of the Valentine community did not receive Title V 

training. The national evaluation team conducted a training on evaluation and the Title V Community 

Self-Evaluation Workbook in July 1999 in Valentine. Several members of the Youth Planning 

Commission attended, but the youth activities director had not been hired at that time and no 

commitment was made to use the Workbook to document the initiative. 

Over time, there were two youth activities directors and both received grants management training from 

the state Juvenile Justice Grants Office, but neither received any formal training related to the Title V 

initiative. 

Community-Identified Factors That Influenced Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

Valentine’s efforts to mobilize its community resembled those of the Title V model. The Youth Planning 

Commission was formed before Title V funds were announced but members report that active 

membership was low, and commission members did not receive Title V training. One commission 

member reported feeling that broad representation on the board and community buy-in were lacking: 

The city is not going to provide all the money for this because it’s an easy solution to 

your problem and then the only buy-in you’ve got is the city government. You don’t have 

community buy-in at all...So, I’m not totally convinced that the community’s buy-in is 

there yet...they can’t have it just by city government or they couldn’t have it just through 

the school system. They need to have a cross-representation of the community in order to 

make this thing successful. 

The membership of the Youth Planning Commission was large on paper but only a small number of 

members were active: “Yeah, there’s probably 20 or 30 that are on paper; there’s probably six or eight 

of them that are active.” One additional challenge was the lack of experience with programs of the 

magnitude of Title V: “I think right now the group is inexperienced in terms of dealing with programs of 

this scope.” 

The facilitating factor for mobilization and collaboration in Valentine was the focus of the initiative: 

“The positive thing is the group that’s formed does have an interest in seeing kids succeed and providing 

activities for kids and providing things for youth in the community.” 

Faced with these challenges, though, Valentine’s mobilization was limited to the active commission 

members who ultimately were not representative of the entire community. Mobilization and 

collaboration were limited. 

Initial Assessment and Planning 

Assessment and planning include conducting a community needs assessment and developing a 3-year 

comprehensive prevention plan. The process of assessment and planning for the Title V initiative in 

Valentine from 1997 to 2001 and the community-identified factors that influenced the process are 

discussed below. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 104 
Identifying Risk Factors, Resources, and Prevention Programs 

On the basis of existing surveys (Nebraska Family Survey of West Central Nebraska, 1996; Kids Count 

in Nebraska, 1993; Cherry County School Survey, 1994; and Valentine Middle and High School Youth 

Survey, 1997), town hall meetings, law enforcement statistics, and input from concerned citizens, but 

not on the basis of a comprehensive risk and resource assessment, the Youth Planning Commission 

determined that the priority risk factor for youth in the community was a lack of age-appropriate 

activities for youth outside the school setting. The commission reported that the lack of activities led 

some Valentine area youth to turn to vandalism, drugs, alcohol, and other juvenile problem behaviors. 

Dating back to 1997, several meetings, workshops, and seminars sponsored by various Valentine 

organizations reflected the community’s commitment to adopting a comprehensive delinquency 

prevention plan. During the Title V data collection period (leading up to June 1997), process surveys of 

middle and high school youth, results of town hall meetings, and input from concerned citizens were 

collected to assess risk and protective factors present in the community. The core group of planning 

commission members compiled the risk assessment data for inclusion in the grant application. This 

process identified the risk and protective factors listed in table 4.1 as being present at the time. 

Table 4.1: Risk and Protective Factors in Valentine, 1997 

Risk Factors Protective Factors 

A lack of age-appropriate activities for youth outside the 

school. 

Churches with youth groups (10). 

An increase in first-time juvenile offenders, especially in the 

areas of alcohol, drug use, and vandalism. 

Numerous 4–H groups (4 clubs with 120 members in 1997). 

The number of area youth who have lost respect for 

authority; an increase in the juvenile crime rate. 

The Valentine Police Department helps youth increase selfesteem and gain respect for authority by assisting and 

interacting with youth through programs such as GREAT 

and Toys for Tots, and through its sponsorship of the Teen 

Halloween Dance. 

A shift away from traditional values toward less family 

involvement. 

School activities providing positive interaction with peers 

and adult role models. 

Youth are perceived as being highly influenced by negative 

peer behavior. 

Girl and Boy Scout troops. 

Little opportunity for area youth to attend age-appropriate 

activities in nearby communities (due to Valentine’s 

geographic isolation). 

The lack of positive and culturally diverse support systems 

to accommodate the cultural diversity of youth. 

An increase in child, spousal, alcohol, and drug abuse. 

Strict labor laws that limit employment opportunities for 

younger teens. 

A high rate of homelessness resulting from Valentine’s 

transient population. 

Limited resources in early child care, especially for parents 

who are employed part-time. 

A high percentage of children and families living in poverty. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 105 
The grant application indicated that the activities offered were not always well coordinated or well 

advertised, leading to very little participation by area youth. In addition, the Youth Planning 

Commission reported that the age appropriateness of the activities offered did not always correspond 

with the age group for which a need existed. Of the approximately 1,250 youth in the area, only about 25 

percent participated in current activities, including school-sponsored events. 

Developing a Comprehensive Prevention Plan 

A member of the Youth Planning Commission wrote the Title V grant application. This individual had 

been involved in data collection and had written grant applications for Valentine in the past. During the 

planning phase, the core team primarily was responsible for coordinating the data and reviewing the 

grant application. 

In the grant application, Valentine included a timeline for the first year showing risk and protective 

factors and the community resources that would contribute to implementation of the Title V initiative. 

This submission constituted the comprehensive plan for Valentine, which centered on the 

implementation of additional activities, including some for youth not participating in existing programs; 

the organization of a marketing approach for youth programming; and, with the assistance of teens in the 

community, the development of a teen center. These activities were the responsibility of the youth 

activities director. The Youth Planning Commission’s role was to assist the city manager by serving as 

an advisory board for the youth activities director, who reported to the commission quarterly. 

Community-Identified Factors That Influenced Initial Assessment and Planning 

Valentine’s assessment and planning process was consistent with the Title V model, but it was not 

comprehensive. Valentine gathered and reported data on its community risks; however, its strategies 

were not research-based. In addition, the protective factors included in the grant application were 

community-defined, as opposed to research-supported. No comprehensive list of existing resources was 

provided. 

The primary facilitating factor was the commitment of the Youth Planning Commission’s core 

management team to assessment, planning, and using available resources. The primary challenges to the 

process were inexperience with a program and planning process of this scope and the lack of resources 

to get the job done. 

Implementation of Prevention Strategies 

Implementation of prevention strategies involves prevention services and activities and identifying and 

leveraging other resources. This section describes Valentine’s Title V initiative implementation process 

from 1998 through 2001 and also discusses community-identified factors that influenced it. 

The youth activities director organized and coordinated the implementation of youth activities approved 

by the Youth Planning Commission. In addition, the youth activities director assessed community and 

business donations, and the appropriate use of these funds. The youth activities director reported to the 

city manager and followed policy decided by the planning commission. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 106 
In January 2000, the youth activities director began work in Valentine. During the first few months, the 

director surveyed local youth and planned and implemented several activities in the community, 

including soccer and gymnastics. The implementation process also was intended to develop a data 

collection tool to learn how many youth were being reached efficiently and on an ongoing basis. The 

youth activities director intermittently worked on the planning and implementation of a youth center, the 

4-to-6 Club, and other youth activities in the community. In addition, he was responsible for program 

fundraising, marketing, and recruitment. Adult volunteer participation was significant, but it was noted 

that volunteer and parent relations were often a problem. Because all youth activities had been operated 

on a volunteer basis in the past, several members of the community had difficulty adapting to the new 

policies and procedures established by the youth activities director, who was a new resident in the city. 

The first year was spent primarily assessing youth utilization of programs and identifying programs that 

could either be expanded or added to meet a few immediate needs of the youth. In the second year, the 

youth activities director was charged with increasing the variety of programming and the volunteer 

database. The third year had been designed to maintain and possibly increase the programs identified in 

the previous 2 years. The community also planned to secure more support for a teen center with 

additional monies during the third year. In years one and two, the youth activities director mobilized 

individuals involved with the programs to learn more about what they were doing and to organize a core 

team of volunteers, increasing the number of positive role models in Valentine and rebuilding respect 

between youth and adults in the community. 

Identifying and Leveraging Other Resources for Prevention 

In 1999, the Youth Planning Commission received a 3-year grant from the Turner Foundation for 

$150,000 ($50,000 each year for 3 years). The funds were distributed through a youth board of the 

commission to support local activities specifically targeted to middle and high school youth. In the first 

round of local grant distribution, the youth activities director applied for and received a grant to support 

the spring soccer program. The planning commission also allocated $3,000 of Turner Foundation funds 

to match the Title V grant. Interviews with the commission members who applied for the funding 

revealed that the work in support of the Title V grant application played a significant role in qualifying 

for the Turner Foundation money. 

Factors That Influenced the Implementation of Prevention Strategies 

Several issues hindered the implementation of the Title V initiative in Valentine, including the challenge 

of hiring a youth activities director. The Youth Planning Commission advertised the position on multiple 

occasions and received few responses. Interviews with commission members indicated that the process 

took longer than had been anticipated. Another challenge was the fact that the youth activities director’s 

roles, relationships, and responsibilities and the commission’s expectations were undefined. For 

example, the youth activities director had daily contact with the Valentine city manager and less 

frequent contact with the planning commission. The leaders of the commission reported feeling that 

some of the youth activities director’s activities were influenced more by the city manager than by the 

commission, the representative community body. An example of the lack of clarity regarding what the 

commission expected of the youth activities director was that, on some occasions, the activities director 

led commission meetings, while at other times the director was “an agenda item” at the meetings. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 107 
Monitoring and Evaluation 

Title V monitoring and evaluation should include an evaluation of prevention strategies and the initiative 

as a whole, and a reassessment of community indicators. In Valentine, from 1999 to 2002, no ongoing 

assessment of community indicators was conducted and no data were available that captured the 

community perceptions of factors that influenced the ability to evaluate and monitor. 

The Youth Planning Commission was not involved in the evaluation of Valentine’s programs nor is 

there a record of the commission’s supporting the youth activities director in this process. The grant 

application did not include a plan for monitoring or evaluation. In the absence of a plan, the structure 

was insufficient to support the collection and analysis of data other than participant involvement in 

activities. Valentine did not demonstrate strong evaluation capacity and did not have a relationship with 

a university or organization that would have been able to provide evaluation services. Valentine did not 

have the supports in place to evaluate the impact of the Title V initiative on juvenile delinquency in 

Valentine or the surrounding areas. No attempts were made to gather risk- or protective-factor indicator 

data for use in ongoing prevention planning. 

Institutionalization 

The process of institutionalizing prevention efforts includes meeting goals and objectives and obtaining 

continuation funding for successful programs and strategies. This section describes the process of 

institutionalizing the Title V initiative in Valentine from 1997 to 2001 and presents communityidentified factors that influenced it. 

The Youth Planning Commission continued to operate in Valentine after the end of the initial Title V 

grant, supporting youth-related programming in the community. There had not been strong support for 

assessment or planning in Valentine which limited the city’s ability to make data-based decisions. The 

Title V initiative in Valentine was not institutionalized, but components of the initiative continued 

beyond Title V. The planning commission continued to serve in a capacity-building role and the youth 

activities director remained an employee of the city. However, no evaluation activities were launched to 

inform ongoing planning. 

The primary challenge to institutionalization was the lack of strong relationships and partnerships in the 

community. Without such support, the city never truly committed to the initiative. This situation has 

been a challenge in the past in Valentine: “I’ve seen that happen before and so through the whole 

process I caution[ed] them that they needed the buy-in, they need the investment by the community.” 

Interpretation 

A slow grant startup period (e.g., a delay in gaining the Title V funds from the state and a lengthy youth 

activities director hiring process) significantly delayed the Title V program activities in year 1 and the 

planning for year 2. A youth activities director was hired in January 2000 and began new recreational 

activities for youth, such as soccer and gymnastics. Then a new youth activities director was hired 

during the last year of the initiative. There is no clear link, however, between the youth activities and a 

delinquency prevention plan for several reasons: the Youth Planning Commission’s lack of Title V 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 108 
training, the activities director’s lack of clear responsibilities for the role, and a lack of accountability to 

the state juvenile justice grants manager. 

During mobilization and implementation, the Youth Planning Commission was less involved in the 

conceptualization of the initiative and more involved in the day-to-day management of program 

implementation. In the planning phase, the commission’s purpose was to submit a successful 

application. In the implementation phase, the commission became more of a sounding board for the 

youth activities director’s program updates. The role, responsibilities, and expectations of the 

commission were never clear due to lack of training in the Title V model. Without a clear understanding 

of the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of the commission and the youth activities director, 

Valentine had insufficient support to mobilize fully in support of Title V. 

Valentine’s assessment and planning activities were partially consistent with the model. Valentine 

conducted a data-driven risk assessment although it was neither comprehensive nor based on the 

prioritization of risk factors. The grant application was not comprehensive and the 3-year plan was 

inadequate (only 1 year of planning was included in the grant application). The lack of a true 

delinquency prevention plan affected program implementation in Valentine. 

Valentine did not implement the Title V model as intended. Valentine used its Title V funds to hire a 

youth activities director who operated independently, without any direct links to delinquency prevention 

or the reduction of risk factors. The role of the Youth Planning Commission was undefined in the 

operations of the Title V initiative, and the commission was not involved in program evaluation or 

sustainability efforts. In addition, the youth activities director and the commission struggled with Title V 

recordkeeping and reporting, which related to the struggles Valentine had with monitoring and 

evaluation. 

The youth activities director and members of the planning commission did not have experience or 

training in program evaluation and demonstrated little interest in the evaluation of the Title V initiative. 

The data collected and submitted were mainly program implementation summaries as recordkeeping and 

reporting were not a priority of the Title V initiative in Valentine. Insufficient reporting and evaluation 

presented challenges to sustainability of the Title V model. 

Institutionalization of Title V in Valentine was problematic, and the community ultimately was 

unsuccessful. Without training and a clear understanding of the Title V process, Valentine was not 

positioned to implement the model as intended. Nonetheless, the services for youth were valuable and 

members of the community report with confidence that the Title V grant was key to receiving the Turner 

Foundation money. 

Summary 

Valentine experienced many challenges implementing the Title V model. In general, key community 

members did not have an understanding of the model. Despite this, the initiative launched valuable 

youth programs and was credited with assisting the community in its application for other funds. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 109 
Title V in Nebraska: Concluding Remarks 

The challenges experienced by Nebraska’s Title V communities were related to the lack of training and 

technical assistance available at the state and local levels. At the time of the national evaluation, 

Nebraska did not have the capacity to help communities mobilize, assess, plan, implement, and 

institutionalize Title V. The Nebraska Crime Commission recognized early that, historically, prevention 

strategies had not been a priority within the state. Without the supports that often come with priority 

programming (e.g., ongoing training, technical assistance, feedback from and communication with state 

and local agencies), communities are likely to struggle and be unable to implement the Title V model as 

designed. Although the communities encountered challenges, commitment to juvenile delinquency 

prevention and a willingness and interest at the local level positioned Norfolk and Valentine to 

implement programs that previously were absent in the communities. These communities benefited from 

Title V, although not as the model had been designed. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Nebraska 110